Posted: Thu 26 Oct 2006 12:32 Post subject: Color of the Cross
New Film's Black Jesus Stirs Controversy
Oct 25, 12:51 PM EST
The Associated Press
LOS ANGELES -- It's a familiar image for millions of Christians: Jesus, with a crown of thorns, hanging from the cross.
What color is he?
In a controversial new film opening Friday, he is black.
"Color of the Cross" tells a traditional story, focusing on the last 48 hours of Christ's life as told in the Gospels. In this version, though, race contributes to his persecution.
It is the first representation in the history of American cinema of Jesus as a black man.
More on "Color of the Cross"
MSN's 2006 Fall Movie Guide
"It's very important because (the film) is going to provide an image of Jesus for African-Americans that is no longer under the control of whites," says Stephenson Humphries-Brooks, an associate professor of religious studies at New York's Hamilton College and author of "Cinematic Savior: Hollywood's Making of the American Christ."
What Jesus looked like has long been debated by theologians around the world. Different cultures have imagined him in different ways, says Stephen Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University. In Japan, Jesus looks Japanese. In Africa, he is black. But in America he is almost always white, like the fair-haired savior painted by Leonardo Da Vinci in "The Last Supper" in 1495.
While some black churches have images of a black Jesus behind the altar and others have claimed Christ was black, Prothero says "none of those arguments or images have filtered much into the mainstream."
Filmmaker Jean Claude LaMarre set out to change that with "Color of the Cross." LaMarre, who plays Jesus, wrote, directed and financed the film. It will open in 30 theaters in predominantly black neighborhoods.
"Black people in this country are the only race of people who worship a god outside their own image," says LaMarre, 38, adding that showing Christ as a black man is "the most poignant way to deal with the issue of race in this country because it goes to the heart of how we look at the world."
It also provides a positive image of blacks, something that's been scant in the U.S., says the Rev. Cecil "Chip" Murray, longtime leader of L.A.'s First African Methodist Episcopal Church and a producer of the film.
"It could be revolutionary because, for four centuries in our nation, blacks have been at the lowest end of the stratum," he says. "I think it will traumatize the United States more than it will foreign nations who, to some extent, don't have a centuries-old concept of equating black with negativity."
Humphries-Brooks agrees. Other countries are likely to view the film "in a more detached manner," he says, "because of the way (they) see our race-relations problem."
Why does race matter in the story of Christ?
"Jesus isn't in the hands of historians," Prothero says. "What we have now is our own debate and, in that debate, race has to be a factor because race is a big predicament in American life."
Film is a powerful place to have the discussion, says Humphries-Brooks, who calls the medium "one of the last places that is quasi-public for the formation of values in America."
"Artistic and aesthetic views are as important in developing religious values as the words we speak. Everybody goes to the movies. Not everybody goes to the same church."
Filmmaker LaMarre thinks the film can only have a positive effect.
"The message is that color, a colored Jesus Christ, doesn't matter," he says. "That's why the movie is important. When you have one prevailing image out there, it suggests color does matter."
More on "Color of the Cross"
MSN's 2006 Fall Movie Guide
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More News and Gossip
New Film's Black Jesus Stirs Controversy
Jesus is black and race is central in controversial new film "Color of the Cross"
He did have Black African ancestry (Solomon), but if this will get people to think about the Lord, and if otherwise historically/Biblically accurate, I have no problem with such a depiction.
Jesus is for all people to relate to, no matter race, creed, or color.
If Willem Dafoe and Jim Caviezel can play Jesus then so can a Black actor, or an East Asian one for that matter. Europeans and European Americans have remade Jesus in the image of a European (sometimes even as blond haired/blue eyed European) so it's every group for their own Jesus I guess.
Two problems I had with the movie. They claim they are trying to go for accuracy, not cultural identification. So eurocentric perception is irrelevant. Yes, jesus could have been darker skinned. He could have looked like an East African, not a West African. And the movie makes the claim that Jesus' cruxifiction was racially motivated. No indication of that whatsoever.
As for Solomon being an ancestor of Jesus. We do not know that. David had many wives. And we do not know that the Queen of SHeba was the ancestor of Jesus for that matter either, so even if Solomon were the ancestor that is not a guarantee. Finally, the touchy pint is that, at this point Judaism was patrilinieal, so his being of David's line would have been through Joseph, challenging the beleif in the immaculate conception.
Two problems I had with the movie. They claim they are trying to go for accuracy, not cultural identification. So eurocentric perception is irrelevant. Yes, jesus could have been darker skinned. He could have looked like an East African, not a West African. And the movie makes the claim that Jesus' cruxifiction was racially motivated. No indication of that whatsoever.
As for Solomon being an ancestor of Jesus. We do not know that. David had many wives. And we do not know that the Queen of SHeba was the ancestor of Jesus for that matter either, so even if Solomon were the ancestor that is not a guarantee. Finally, the touchy pint is that, at this point Judaism was patrilinieal, so his being of David's line would have been through Joseph, challenging the beleif in the immaculate conception.
According to Jewish legends, the messiah had to be descended from David on both sides. Some claim that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph and Mary, thus fulfilling that criterion.
I even read somewhere (I forget where) that early Christians did not subscribe to the immaculate conception.
his being of David's line would have been through Joseph, challenging the belief in the immaculate conception.
sagascend wrote:
I even read somewhere (I forget where) that early Christians did not subscribe to the immaculate conception.
Um. Guys. You are talking about the "virgin birth" not the "immaculate conception." The "immaculate conception," made official by Pope Pius IX in 1854, is the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was herself conceived without the stain of original sin (Adam, Eve, apple, snake, etc.) in order to be the perfect receptacle for the Son of God's gestation.
his being of David's line would have been through Joseph, challenging the belief in the immaculate conception.
sagascend wrote:
I even read somewhere (I forget where) that early Christians did not subscribe to the immaculate conception.
Um. Guys. You are talking about the "virgin birth" not the "immaculate conception." The "immaculate conception," made official by Pope Pius IX in 1854, is the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was herself conceived without the stain of original sin (Adam, Eve, apple, snake, etc.) in order to be the perfect receptacle for the Son of God's gestation.
You learn something every day! I always thought they were the same concept. But then again I am not Catholic.
his being of David's line would have been through Joseph, challenging the belief in the immaculate conception.
sagascend wrote:
I even read somewhere (I forget where) that early Christians did not subscribe to the immaculate conception.
Um. Guys. You are talking about the "virgin birth" not the "immaculate conception." The "immaculate conception," made official by Pope Pius IX in 1854, is the doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was herself conceived without the stain of original sin (Adam, Eve, apple, snake, etc.) in order to be the perfect receptacle for the Son of God's gestation.
In the clip I saw, all of Jesus' apostles were "white." Doesn't that seem a bit odd that Jesus and his family were the only brown folks? Wouldn't it have made more sense for more in his community to be multi-hued?
In the clip I saw, all of Jesus' apostles were "white." Doesn't that seem a bit odd that Jesus and his family were the only brown folks? Wouldn't it have made more sense for more in his community to be multi-hued?
Two problems I had with the movie. They claim they are trying to go for accuracy, not cultural identification. So eurocentric perception is irrelevant. Yes, jesus could have been darker skinned. He could have looked like an East African, not a West African. And the movie makes the claim that Jesus' cruxifiction was racially motivated. No indication of that whatsoever.
As for Solomon being an ancestor of Jesus. We do not know that. David had many wives. And we do not know that the Queen of SHeba was the ancestor of Jesus for that matter either, so even if Solomon were the ancestor that is not a guarantee. Finally, the touchy pint is that, at this point Judaism was patrilinieal, so his being of David's line would have been through Joseph, challenging the beleif in the immaculate conception.
Geneology Of Jesus
The three divisions of Matthew's genealogy are:
Abraham to the reign of King David (Matthew 1:2-6).
David's kingdom to the Babylonian captivity (Matthew 1:6-11).
Release from Babylonian captivity to Christ (Matthew 1:12-16).
Names in Matthew's Account
The names in each division appear below.
Abraham to David David to Captivity Release to Christ
Abraham David Jeconiah
Isaac Solomon Shealtiel
Jacob Rehoboam Zerubbabel
Judah Abijah Abiud
Perez Asa Eliakim
Hezron Jehoshaphat Azor
Ram Joram Zadok
Amminadab Uzziah Achim
Nashon Jotham Eliud
Salmon Ahaz Eleazar
Boaz Hezekiah Matthan
Obed Manasseh Jacob
Jesse Amon Joseph
David Josiah Jesus Christ
11 Then Nathan spoke to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, saying, "Haven't you heard that Adonijah the son of Haggith reigns, and David our lord doesn't know it?
Ethnicity of Bathsheba
BATHSHEBA, a proselytite Israeli, was the daughter of Eliam. Her father was one of King David’s heroic officers, a brave warrior and a foreign mercenary.
Although her given name is Canaanite, and being of non-Israelite origin, she came from a God-fearing family. Ahithopel, Bathsheba’s grandfather, was a Gilonite from the hills of Judah who became King David’s Counselor and analyzed a situation, then gave advice to David who had the responsibility for making a decision. Later in his life he joined forces with David’s son Absolom to take over the throne as revenge for disgracing his granddaughter.
Bathsheba’s husband Uriah, was a high ranking weapon-bearer. He was a Hittite mercenary, a nobleman of Hittite ancestry, in King David's army as a loyal member of David's elite warriors. Hittites appear among the cultural groups living in urban dwellings or as individuals in Canaan interacting with the Israelites from patriarchal times.
Biblical ancestral groupings after Noah's Flood: Genesis 10:1-
6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
Canaan is direct descendant of Ham - who is considered to be 'Father of Black Race'. Cushites are always considered Black. Depends on who you talk to/read concerning Canaan, but they were not 'lily white'.
Last edited by Melani23 on Fri 27 Oct 2006 17:58; edited 1 time in total
So you quote a website that provides no sources for their claims of direct lineage. Gotcha.
And Bathsheba is not the Queen of Sheba. Nice try.
Bethsheba is Hebrew for 7th Dauhter and is an actual place in Jerusalem and Sheba was either in Ethiopia or Yemen.
So you quote a website that provides no sources for their claims of direct lineage. Gotcha. No you don't as the BIBLE in Matthew (and other Gospels) gives Jesus' lineage. Go read the Gospel of Matthew, that website just divided the sections....
And Bathsheba is not the Queen of Sheba. Nice try.
Bethsheba is Hebrew for 7th Dauhter and is an actual place in Jerusalem and Sheba was either in Ethiopia or Yemen.
You said that, not I. I never mentioned the Queen of Sheba.
Salassin said:
Quote:
As for Solomon being an ancestor of Jesus. We do not know that. David had many wives. And we do not know that the Queen of SHeba was the ancestor of Jesus for that matter either, so even if Solomon were the ancestor that is not a guarantee. Finally, the touchy pint is that, at this point Judaism was patrilinieal, so his being of David's line would have been through Joseph, challenging the beleif in the immaculate conception.
Bathsheba was King Davis' wife and mother of Solomon (I Kings 1:11). The Queen of Sheba visited Solomon after David's death when Solomon was King of Isreal. Get your Bible stories st8.
As I said and what is historcially agreed upon:
6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. 8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
All of these are considered to be African peoples.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Jesus was a Jew.
