> the brown skinned, middle eastern opponent of oppression and intolerance that I always imagined him to be
That’s a totally weird and absolutely anachronistic description of Jesus. He wasn’t a POC fighting against white supremacy, your description of him sounds like a parody of a millennial who sees everything through their narrow American-centric view that puts race, defined by skin color, in the center of everything.
He was in an occupied country ruled by two sets of rulers: the imperial occupiers and those who were willing to collaborate with the oppressors. Jesus often spoke up for the downtrodden and condemned those with wealth and power. Those rulers tried to silence him and eventually executed him. There's a reason why the oppressed sometimes look to Jesus for inspiration.
And the skin color may not have been important in Jesus' time, but it is now. At least in terms of the American religious experience. Here, they almost universally portray Jesus as white. In a country where churches are the most racially segregated institutions, that means something.
The anticolonialist narrative is not sustainable based on all available literary evidence, including the noncanonical texts. Jesus, repeatedly, and in his most well-attested sayings, refutes that narrative, often to the disappointment of his disciples.
This is what the "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" aphorism is about - the Pharisees try to bait Jesus into supporting the "anti-oppression" narrative, and he declines, instead telling them that yes, the material things of this world (such as taxes) are in fact due to the Romans. This is a consistent theme throughout all the gospels. In one case, large numbers of disciples leave Jesus, because he tells them that he's not here for that.
When the Pharisees bring him to the Romans for violating Jewish law, all accounts are that Pilate is dismissive of the charges and Jesus tells him that "his kingdom is not of this world." And of course, Jesus famously prophecies the total destruction of Jerusalem and tells them they deserve it and have it coming. This is generally held to have been fulfilled during the Siege of Jerusalem by the Romans a few years later. This is not exactly "anti-oppression."
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
We could go on and on about this - Jesus associating with the hated (Roman) tax collectors, Jesus saying the centurion has greater faith than anyone in Israel, etc. Jesus is not pro-Roman in a greater sense, because he is not "on" anyone's side. But he explicitly withdraws himself from the "Jewish oppression by Romans" narrative.
The apostles do double down on it, by insisting that earthly authority is to be obeyed and that God put them there. One might suspect that's to help alleviate potential persecution.
> Here, they almost universally portray Jesus as white.
I hate even addressing this, because theologically it's totally irrelevant - all that matters is Jesus was Jewish. But to lump everyone in the Middle East into a "brown" category using some kind of 2021 racial ideology is quite silly. Many Middle Eastern ethnic groups are "white", or "white passing", or whenever the preferred nomenclature is today. "White" is not really a meaningful term. But if you saw the average resident of Galilee or Judea in 30AD on the streets of 2021 NYC, you would probably lump them into the "white" bucket.
If you doubt this, you can look up the Samaritans, for example, a highly insular ethnic group closely related to Jews that never left the region.
Of course, there are many, many other examples as well - Assad is a reasonably notorious concrete example. That said, people of Jesus's time also probably spent much more time in the sun and developed a healthy tan. The people insisting "Jesus was brown!" are weirdly racializing something that doesn't need it. And at any rate, it's not uncommon for Asian people or Black people (in sub-Saharan Africa) to depict Jesus more in those terms, which I don't think anyone has a problem with.
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.
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?
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.
They think of Jesus as the Son of God, the Word made flesh and able to experience all the usual privations and sufferings of the mortal frame.
They do not see him as having some sort of racial consciousness or national provincialism…because God would naturally as the maker of all nations transcend that.
Evangelicals are typically the ones that go perhaps too far with that themselves. See for example the controversy over their proclivity for trans-racial adoptions.
That’s a totally weird and absolutely anachronistic description of Jesus. He wasn’t a POC fighting against white supremacy, your description of him sounds like a parody of a millennial who sees everything through their narrow American-centric view that puts race, defined by skin color, in the center of everything.