[dunnevens]

My point wasn't about Jesus' actual racial appearance in history but how the image is used in the current church. Apparently most Christians, at least in the US, like the white Jesus. I suppose, technically, it's white Italian Jesus since the modern depictions are usually based on the old paintings.

I have no idea of the tone of Jesus' skin. Of course, there are paler people in the Middle East. When I traveled there, I met many people who fit that description. But practically none of them looked like the modern portrayal of Jesus. And how could they when the modern portrayal is based on European paintings with European models?

This does bring a racial perspective into play. Especially in a country where the churches are almost entirely segregated. I grew up with the evangelicals. They thought of Jesus as one of them. Not as a Middle Eastern man.

And I'm quite familiar with Jesus' lack of resistance in the Gospels. But, for better or worse, many oppressed people have taken comfort in his story. Seeing him executed by the occupiers and collaborators gave a point of common ground by those facing horrendous regimes. And since Jesus stood up to the religious leaders, and went out of his way to attack the wealthy, there's some comfort and support found there as well.

Which makes it unsurprising modern people with their modern struggles would use Jesus as an example or as someone who would supposedly support them. They're part of a long line of people who have done so.

[Amezarak]

Jesus goes further than "lack of resistance", one of the reasons the people you call "collaborators" (they weren't) were so enraged by Jesus was by his appearance of active support for the "occupation" and him telling them to their face they deserved to have it all taken away from them and given to another people, as for example, in the Parable of the Vineyard.

Another reason they hated him is because Jesus associated with actual collaborators, like the tax collectors.

I am really baffled about how this can be twisted into comfort for people oppressed by occupying forces. Especially the part where he tells them Jerusalem is going to be destroyed and that they’ve earned it! Prophesying the destruction of the Temple and mass death and telling them they’ve earned it is comfort for other oppressed people?

> They thought of Jesus as one of them. Not as a Middle Eastern man.

The whole point is none of them think of Jesus as a man at all. Certainly not evangelicals. What do you mean by this?

[dunnevens]

Of course they think of him as a man. According to the doctrine, he was supposedly God in human form. He was here as a man. Artistically, he's always presented in a male physical body. What else would they think of him?

In a nation frequently obsessed with race, the racial identity of Jesus as it's presented matters. I'm not sure why that's controversial to you.

As is the identification of the oppressed and downtrodden with Jesus. That's common enough to be cliche. Maybe it's correct or incorrect, depending on how you look at the old stories, but it's done so often that it's strange to me that someone else would find it strange.

Of course, the oppressors have also frequently used Jesus. So I guess the one thing we can agree on is that the gospels are quite flexible.