Will the real Jesus Christ please stand up? The whitewashing of history.

Originally posted by shaluach

Look at the story of Moses. He was abandoned by his mother and found by the daughter of the Pharaoh. She took him in as her son and no one was the wiser. Everyone thought he was an "Egyptian." Why? Because he looked just like them. How did the Egyptians look? Look at their sculptures and heiroglyphs and paintings. They potrayed themselves as dark-skinned. Case closed.

As evidence goes, that doesn't close any case. It's pretty flimsy, and would allow ho honest jury to convict. The ancient Egyptians were not "black", either - they were darker skinned than a European, but not as dark as the subsaharans, Their images of themselves bear that out - and there are images the Egyptians left behind of other races as well. The Egyptians didn't color themselves much differently than the semite, but they DID color themselves very differently than the subsaharans, such as the inhabitants of Punt.

A better question is what will he look like in his second coming?
I have wondered for a while now why he used so many anointing oils on his skin back then.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by shaluach

Look at the story of Moses. He was abandoned by his mother and found by the daughter of the Pharaoh. She took him in as her son and no one was the wiser. Everyone thought he was an "Egyptian." Why? Because he looked just like them. How did the Egyptians look? Look at their sculptures and heiroglyphs and paintings. They potrayed themselves as dark-skinned. Case closed.

As evidence goes, that doesn't close any case. It's pretty flimsy, and would allow ho honest jury to convict. The ancient Egyptians were not "black", either - they were darker skinned than a European, but not as dark as the subsaharans, Their images of themselves bear that out - and there are images the Egyptians left behind of other races as well. The Egyptians didn't color themselves much differently than the semite, but they DID color themselves very differently than the subsaharans, such as the inhabitants of Punt.

I'm not worried about a jury. I only care about Scriptures which back up history. The evidence isn't flimsy at all. It's just flimsy to those who don't want to admit the truth. Moses fit in with the Egyptians, he was accepted by the Egyptians as an Egyptian so clearly he looked like them. And multiple times in the Bible, those of Hebrew ancestry were described as having "African" features.

It's all there.

Originally posted by shaluach

Well baloney back to you. He DID look like the natives of his area. The ancient Hebrews were Black. I already presented my evidence from the Scriptures. I have not lost the message at all. I live the message every day. I believe in accurately representing my Savior, though.

As I've said countless times, it's so funny how when it is pointed out that he is Black suddenly the "message is being lost." But for centuries when he was portrayed as White no one had anything like that to say. It isn't until the "official story" is questioned that suddenly his skin color no longer matters.

The ancient Hebrews were most assuredly NOT black. I see you've presented some evidence, and as I go through the thread I will dismantle it piece by piece, as it was presented, just as I did with the piece of "evidence" above.

You are presenting a "different Jesus" just as the Europeans did. There's something about that sort of activity in your Bible, if you bother to dig into it. If you are presenting a different Jesus, you are absolutely NOT "living the message", neither every day, nor at any other time.

If you believed in accurately representing him, you would do so. It's really as simple as that. You have no more interest in an accurate representation than the Europeans did. If you'll misrepresent even his appearance, what parts of the actual message might you ALSO be prone to misrepresent? I think the answer in the case of the Europeans is obvious, and I'll bet I find yours as I go along.

Originally posted by nenothtu


The ancient Hebrews were most assuredly NOT black. I see you've presented some evidence, and as I go through the thread I will dismantle it piece by piece, as it was presented, just as I did with the piece of "evidence" above.

You are presenting a "different Jesus" just as the Europeans did. There's something about that sort of activity in your Bible, if you bother to dig into it. If you are presenting a different Jesus, you are absolutely NOT "living the message", neither every day, nor at any other time.

If you believed in accurately representing him, you would do so. It's really as simple as that. You have no more interest in an accurate representation than the Europeans did. If you'll misrepresent even his appearance, what parts of the actual message might you ALSO be prone to misrepresent? I think the answer in the case of the Europeans is obvious, and I'll bet I find yours as I go along.

The problem is you have dismantled nothing. Maybe in your own mind you have, but you in all actuality have not. I am presenting the Scriptural "Jesus" plain and simple, just not the Jesus of "Western Christianity" which not only is inaccurate in their PHYSICAL portrayal of him, but they also are inaccurate in their Scriptural portrayal of his message.

Modern Christianity is a hoax from what the Scriptures actually teach.

And you are wrong I do have an interest in an accurate representation. But thanks for the ad hominem personal attack. Just goes to show how pointless your posts are going to be. But go ahead. Let's see it.

Originally posted by shaluach

I'm not worried about a jury. I only care about Scriptures which back up history. The evidence isn't flimsy at all. It's just flimsy to those who don't want to admit the truth. Moses fit in with the Egyptians, he was accepted by the Egyptians as an Egyptian so clearly he looked like them. And multiple times in the Bible, those of Hebrew ancestry were described as having "African" features.

It's all there.

If you think "it's there", I'm sure I'll find it as I go through the thread dismantling those preconceived notions. I'm particularly interested in you contention of biblical descriptions of "African features", and have already disassembled the Moses notion. Of course, if you need more evidence of what I say, I can always post the pictures I guess.

Do you know any modern Egyptians? What about the ancient ones? All we have to go on is their representations of themselves, and those representations have a striking contrast to the ones the same people did of the sub-saharan Africans.

I'm perfectly willing to admit the truth, and that truth is that a "black Jesus" is just as preposterous as a white one.

This is a really Stupid thread.

It does not matter what Jesus looked like.

Originally posted by nenothtu


If you think "it's there", I'm sure I'll find it as I go through the thread dismantling those preconceived notions. I'm particularly interested in you contention of biblical descriptions of "African features", and have already disassembled the Moses notion. Of course, if you need more evidence of what I say, I can always post the pictures I guess.

Do you know any modern Egyptians? What about the ancient ones? All we have to go on is their representations of themselves, and those representations have a striking contrast to the ones the same people did of the sub-saharan Africans.

I'm perfectly willing to admit the truth, and that truth is that a "black Jesus" is just as preposterous as a white one.

See there is flaw. You have NOT disassembled the Moses notion.

Here is just ONE ancient Egyptian statue Broad nose, thick lips

Here's another Broad nose, thick lips

And yet another Broad nose, thick lips

So yeah keep telling yourself that you "disassembled the Moses notion."

And no you aren't willing to admit the truth. You are only willing to admit your false and biased notion. No amount of evidence is going to change your mind. That much is clear.

Originally posted by shaluach

My point is not nonsensical. It's historical fact.

A claim with, so far, no evidence.

In fact the Hebrew Scriptures prophecy the enslaving of the original Hebrews (the Black race) in Deuteronomy 28.

I hope you aren't contending that this is "evidence". To simply state parenthetically that the original Hebrews are (the Black race) without some sort of evidence is delusional. It's your belief, not fact, so I'll keep sifting this haystack to see if I can find any assertions of evidence.

Originally posted by nenothtu


I hope you aren't contending that this is "evidence". To simply state parenthetically that the original Hebrews are (the Black race) without some sort of evidence is delusional. It's your belief, not fact, so I'll keep sifting this haystack to see if I can find any assertions of evidence.

Show me one other group in history that fulfills the Deuteronomy 28 prophecy. There is not one. I'll be waiting. On the other hand, the stealing of Africans and the subsequent enslaving of them and taking them to a foreign land fits the bill 100% (keep in mind that his prophecy came about AFTER the Hebrews were freed from Egypt so it doesn't describe that enslavement).

Folks the answer is not White or Black(pun lol), its in the middle, Grey, as in tanned/brownish skin with curlish hair.

The location is the proof, rest is made up by the people,kings,etc.

Even now, that location has light tannish brownish people.

Originally posted by infowarrior9970
yes...yes this theorory has been beaten to death 6 million times over already. They obviously depicted Jesus in lighter skin to appeal to the Caucasians they wanted to turn into Christians.

these paintings are modern and is an artists interpretation of Jesus anyways ... I'm sure each person on this planet holds a different image in their minds-eye of what Jesus (the Christ) supposedly looked like.

Now on your photo you made...at the bottom you put your name as Jesus?? for real?

Nope... I think of the top left photo honestly.

Originally posted by shaluach

Show me one other group in history that fulfills the Deuteronomy 28 prophecy. There is not one. I'll be waiting. On the other hand, the stealing of Africans and the subsequent enslaving of them and taking them to a foreign land fits the bill 100% (keep in mind that his prophecy came about AFTER the Hebrews were freed from Egypt so it doesn't describe that enslavement).

My own people, for starters. They were captured and enslaved by the Spaniards, transported to the Caribbean, and forced to do slave work on the cane plantations. it didn't work out very well - we don't take to captivity all that well, and died rather than live it, so they had to fall back and punt, and start importing Africans via the Dutch and Arab slave traders to replace us.

My people were slaves in a foreign land YEARS before the first African was brought here in 1619.

How many more examples do you require?

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by shaluach

 

How many Black homes have these images of this imposter Jesus hanging on their walls?

My grandmother's does.

edit on 14-6-2012 by SilentKillah because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by glen200376
I recentely saw a bbc4 documentry about ancient relics.in it,for the first time in 500 years they opened a relic of one of the disciples,john.it contain his hair and it was bright ginger.dont be so quick to assum everyone except the romans were brown men.

I've seen Egyptian mummies with red hair, too, and several years ago Indian mummies were found in a cave in Kentucky with red hair. I believe that's a post mortem chemical reaction that sometimes occurs.

Originally posted by GmoS719
You guys are funny.
Saying he was black is only speculation.
There is no description in the new testament about what Jesus looked like when he was alive.
He could have been blue for all we know.
It really isn't that important.

There is one, in Revelations, but it's not literal - unless you also believe Jesus had a steel sword sticking out of his mouth. The description is there, but it's allegorical rather than literal.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Nightchild


Well, by that reasoning, you might just aswell forget about your own theories aswell, as they have even less textual support even outside of any avaible texts- in other words, your opinion are "apocryphal opinions"..
Ofcourse, however, you would have accepted the linked Apocryphal descriptions if they had described him as a man of colour.

Wrong. Mine is based on Scriptural fact. Revelation and Daniel are not apocryphal. And I do read a lot of Apocryphal books of the Scriptures. This letter from Publius Lentulus is NOT apocryphal Scripture.

That's correct - it's pseudepigraphal, not apocryphal. All of the Apocryphal books were completed before Jesus' time.

Still looking for the "criptural fact" you allege you are basing your opinion on, though. None so far.

Daniel and Revelations are allegorical, not apocryphal or pesudepigraphal. "Allegory" is not a literal description, either.

Originally posted by nenothtu


My own people, for starters. They were captured and enslaved by the Spaniards, transported to the Caribbean, and forced to do slave work on the cane plantations. it didn't work out very well - we don't take to captivity all that well, and died rather than live it, so they had to fall back and punt, and start importing Africans via the Dutch and Arab slave traders to replace us.

My people were slaves in a foreign land YEARS before the first African was brought here in 1619.

How many more examples do you require?

They don't fulfill the entire prophecy of Deut. 28. I want you to apply the entire prophecy to "your people." Show me how it matches up. I guarantee that it doesn't.

Originally posted by nenothtu


That's correct - it's pseudepigraphal, not apocryphal. All of the Apocryphal books were completed before Jesus' time.

Still looking for the "criptural fact" you allege you are basing your opinion on, though. None so far.

Daniel and Revelations are allegorical, not apocryphal or pesudepigraphal. "Allegory" is not a literal description, either.

edit on 2012/6/14 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

I already posted them. Daniel and Revelation are NOT 100% allegorical. You are making a very false claim about Scriptures. Some of Revelation is literal and some is allegory. The return of ha'Mashiach and the way his body looks is NOT an allegory. But you keep telling yourself that so that your false opinion can seem true to you

Originally posted by shaluach

Wrong. Revelation is in the New Testament and it describes him as Black.

Wrong. There is a description there, but it does not describe him at any point in it as "black". however, if you want to use that description, I'm game. How do you think he delivered the Sermon on the Mount with that big sword sticking out of his mouth? Wouldn't that get in the way of his tongue when he was speaking?

You either have to take the whole description as allegorical, or you have to take the whole description as literal - including the sword in his mouth.

The Bible is not a mix-n-match smorgasbord.