Jesus, the Man, was not black. Nor was his complexion that of an Anglo-Saxon. I don't understand why folks think they need to remake Jesus in THEIR image, which is what they are doing.
However John describes the risen Jesus by saying His "head and hair" were white.
I agree with you. Jesus was what he was and he wasn't black.
The idea of 'reimaging' Christ is part of the severe wrong turn Western religious art took in the 13th century. This is not Orthodox chauvanism on my part, Pope Benedict in writings as a cardinal made the same point.
The plasticity of the image of Christ in the West is a subtle form of the same heresy the iconoclasts fell into--a denial of the reality of the Incarnation--or worse, a slide backward to a paganism that is happy with avatars of the divine, so long as they are generic, and multiple: a German Christ, a black Christ, a Mexican Christ, a female Christ, . . . Christ, the Divine Logos, incarnate of the Virgin Mary in the fullness of time, is replaced by household gods called 'Christ'.
Jesus said...
"I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew hands, eyes, organs, senses, dimensions??"
"If you prick me, do I not bleed? If you tickle me, do I not laugh!?!? Aaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa!"
I have a picture of the virgin Mary next to my desk. In it she is hold the baby Jesus, is about 16 or 17 and is an American Indian.
I like the picture because it reminds me (I am white) that out of one of the most exclusive religions sprang forth the most encompassing one. We are not man, or woman, free or slave, Jew or gentile, just children of God.
If portraying Jesus as white, black, Hispanic, Asian or green with red stripes helps someone develop a closer more personal relationship with God, so be it.