@suzianne said
Let me ask you something.
Is he EVERYone's Christ, or just yours?
Are you equally offended by depictions of Jesus as black?
There are Christians who are offended by the mainstream depictions of Jesus as white. Does that bother you?
(1) Christ came for the salvation of everyone, yes.
However, blasphemous depictions of Christ are definitely not a part of that deal.
(2) I am not offended at all by non-Semitic portrayals of Christ as these can actually be purely artistic or honest interpretations of Christ, sometimes even honest ignorance about what his physical features would be, which carries with it a certain sweetness.
However, these can also go too far. But they would never be as bad as what the Church of Iceland did here.
(3)
There are Christians who are offended by the mainstream depictions of Jesus as white. Does that bother you?
I think they are wrong in their ideas about this because the case was that many people who saw Jews in Europe saw white people who looked a lot like themselves; thus some Dutch painter thinking "Christ is a Jew; the bulk of the Jews down in Amsterdam are white; I guess he was white" is understandable.
Likewise, you can see depictions of Christ overturning the table of the moneylenders -- the moneylenders who would be the villains! - and the moneylenders themselves as white...
They painted the arch-nemesis of Christians, Judas-Iscariot, as white:
https://www.artbible.info/art/large/429.html
They painted the Shah of Persia as a light-skinned white:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Shah_Ismail_I.jpg
Persians painted him as a more typical Persian:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Shah_Ismail.JPG
I think it's an honest case of even well-to-do artists in Europe not having much of an idea of the appearance of Middle Eastern people, and not racial animus.
It's fine to be mistaken.