cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/7460553
A poster in the southern Spanish city of Seville that depicts a young, handsome Jesus wearing only a loincloth has unleashed a storm on social media, with some calling it an affront to the figure of Christ and others posting lewd remarks and memes poking fun at the image.
The poster by internationally recognized Seville artist Salustiano Garcia Cruz shows a fresh-faced Jesus without a crown of thorns, no suffering face and minuscule wounds on the hands and ribcage. It was commissioned and approved by the General Council of Brotherhoods, which organizes the renowned and immensely popular Holy Week processions ahead of Easter in Seville.
As soon as it was unveiled last week criticism of it went viral on social media and a debate erupted over how a resurrected Christ should be depicted. Many called it a disgrace, inappropriate, too pretty, modernist and out of line with Seville’s Easter tradition.
…
In another interview published by El Mundo daily, Garcia responded to criticism from conservative groups that the depiction of Jesus was “effeminate” or “homoerotic.”
“A gay Christ because he looks sweet and is handsome, come on! We are in the 21st century,” Garcia said.
Don’t most churches already have a naked Jesus statue somewhere over the altar?
The eyes rolling back in the head you see on some of them is more of a “keep fucking me”
The cropped pic in the article is useless; here’s a more illustrative one:
My gay ass doesn’t see an issue at all with this.
Then again it’s religion. And as we are currently experiencing, that is a shit show no matter what.
It’s one thing finding the image to be erotic, but what confuses me more is how it could be specifically homoerotic. Is that finger thing he’s doing a secret homo pick up sign that I don’t know about (but presumably conservative christians do…)? Were male christians aroused but not female ones?
Wait until they find out he isn’t a white conservative.
Fanboys. Happens everytime a new marvel movie launches.
On the other hand: Nobody complained about the very light skin color?
That’s normal.
IRC before Constantine there was still a bit of a religious taboo of portraying Jesus (a god), due to the whole bible being against idolatry thing. So it was mostly metaphorical images of a buff shephard, if there were pictures at all, because Jesus was a shephard to his followers, and buff because why wouldn’t you make him buff?
After Constantine converted, Christianity was romanised. So the image of Jesus was partly inspired by images of Apollo and Dionysus (hence white, fit and feminine) then later Zeus (hence the authoritative beard). It’s not actually inspired by actual Jesus, whose appearance was (perhaps deliberately) not described properly in the New Testament.
The Church is quite good at doing market research and adapting its product for local markets and tastes, basically. See also the whole Christmas tree and Saturnalia gift giving thing, which became Christian traditions.
I’d argue against the “good at market research” thing - for centuries individual participation was all but was mandatory, there was no sanctioned competition, and generally the church fought any change until outside actors (see: Constantine, Tyndale, Luther, etc) shifted the reality beneath them, or co-opted nascent and foreign pagan/religious elements that were popular. The original Bible doesn’t prescribe the feasting and celebration that the Christian calendar is now known for
