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

page: 11
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

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




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

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.


Right after you apply the ENTIRE prophecy to Africans. No picking and choosing of what parts you want to apply, and what parts you want to ignore.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

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.





I've already addressed. The Bible is not 100% literal nor 100% metaphorical. It IS a mixture of both. That's why there is a whole SCIENCE of Scriptural interpretation that clearly you have no clue about. Your opinion is nothing but that of an amateur, as I suspected, and so I will no longer waste my time entertaining your false and unsubstantiated claims about the Scriptures.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

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


How convenient.

Your view allows you to pick the parts you like, and toss out the rest.

Nossir. Not gonna happen. All or none. If you think it's literal, then it's ALL literal. Not just the parts you pick and choose.

So how did he deliver that Sermon on the Mount with that sword sticking out of his mouth and in the way of his tongue?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I am white and i can admit obviously without a doubt that there is NO POSSABLE WAY that Jesus was white.

Besides the Story of Jesus is a exact copy of the story of Horus in Egytptian religion, and anyone whos looked this up can see it plain as day.

And I bet many people picture the Egyptian Pharos as white too
Not a chance. Thats just hollywood and history book brainwashing hard at work.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

I already posted them.


I know. I'm taking them out as i get to them, but there are several pages to cover and hunt through.



Daniel and Revelation are NOT 100% allegorical.


Daniel isn't but Revelations is. the entire book was based off of a single vision John had on Patmos. The whole thing is allegory.



You are making a very false claim about Scriptures.


That will be between me and God, just as your false claims will be on your own head when that day comes.



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


So how is he supposed to talk to anyone with that sword sticking out of his mouth then?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

I've already addressed. The Bible is not 100% literal nor 100% metaphorical. It IS a mixture of both. That's why there is a whole SCIENCE of Scriptural interpretation that clearly you have no clue about. Your opinion is nothing but that of an amateur, as I suspected, and so I will no longer waste my time entertaining your false and unsubstantiated claims about the Scriptures.


Speaking of unsubstantiated, which seminary did YOU attend? Until such time as you can establish that, my education in religious matters is every bit as good and as valid as yours. Speak to my arguments, rather than question my person, or you will be sorely disappointed in your efforts.

Teach ME some science!



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



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

No, you are just ignorant and uneducated to Scriptural interpretation and think it is all or nothing. You are 100% wrong.


If I am "ignorant", you are welcome to educate me at your earliest convenience - if you think you can, that is. Calling me "ignorant" does nothing to address or remedy my "ignorance".



Any Biblical scholar would laugh at your false assumption.


Bring one to laugh at it, then. Tell him to pack a lunch.



So it is impossible to discuss something with someone like you who is full of their ideas no matter how false they may be.


Now THAT is rich, all things considered here! I AM full of MY ideas? Have you passed a mirror lately?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viking9019
reply to post by shaluach
 


Its funny that the Israelites were described as being light skinned(think Iranian)and here you are claiming that they were black?


1) Israel is not Iran!

2) There is not such thing as Iranian. Talk to any person in Iran and call them Iranian... I dare you.

3) People of Iran are Persian!



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Nightchild


So, in case you missed the previously posted description, here it is again;


TO TIBERIUS CAESAR: A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as a friend of the Romans than of the jewish people. One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen.


Bummer. Golden hair.

Ah well. Still would be interesting to see that textual proof of yours.


Already addressed this invented description by Publius Lentulus. Yeah. A Palestinian Hebrew would have had blonde hair.

All you are doing is showing the lengths White people have gone to throughout history to paint Jesus as White. You are proving my initial point


That description purports to be from Pilate, not Lentulus. The other one which included the "blue eyes" reference and called Jesus "Jesus Christ" was the one attributed to Lentulus.

Just as the references in Josephus, neither of those can be confirmed, and both have internal evidence pointing to at the very least an editing, if not outright fabrication.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

That's all I have to say because you've provided no credible evidence that he was not Black. And Revelation reaffirms what the book of Daniel says would be the description of the Messiah. My facts are straight. If I am so wrong then provide evidence that Yehoshuah was NOT Black, because the Scriptural descriptions stand.


Nor have you provided any credible evidence that he WAS Black.

The way these things work is that since you made the initial assertion that he was Black, it's incumbent upon you to back that assertion up - not up to someone else to refute it. To be sure, refutations abound, but it's not their job to refute your claim until you offer some sort of support in favor of it.

You'll have to be more specific in your citation of Daniel and Revelations - I've been able to find no support whatsoever for your contention in them so far. Chapter and verse to back your claims would help, perhaps.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by KnawLick
 


Buddah is an enlightened state of being. Jesus in his own way was a Buddah, the chinese guy you're thinking about is named Budai/Qieci .. which is not the same as Siddartha Gautama (Indian Buddah).



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by shaluach

That's all I have to say because you've provided no credible evidence that he was not Black. And Revelation reaffirms what the book of Daniel says would be the description of the Messiah. My facts are straight. If I am so wrong then provide evidence that Yehoshuah was NOT Black, because the Scriptural descriptions stand.


Nor have you provided any credible evidence that he WAS Black.

The way these things work is that since you made the initial assertion that he was Black, it's incumbent upon you to back that assertion up - not up to someone else to refute it. To be sure, refutations abound, but it's not their job to refute your claim until you offer some sort of support in favor of it.

You'll have to be more specific in your citation of Daniel and Revelations - I've been able to find no support whatsoever for your contention in them so far. Chapter and verse to back your claims would help, perhaps.



You have shown that you wish nothing but to be an argumentative know-it-all. The fact that you don't know which Daniel and Revelation verses shows that you completely ignored the OP. You just saw Jesus = Black and you freaked out.

I have said numerous times I am not going to argue with someone whose eyes and ears are closed and who doesn't even understand the basics of Scriptural interpretation. Show me one Bible scholar who says that all of the Bible is either literal or figurative and then I'll consider considering (yes you read that right) your unsubstantiated viewpoint.

Until that time comes, this is seriously my response to your rubbish. Anything you say afterwards will be nothing but you trying to feed your own ego.

Good day, sir.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by shaluach
 


so what is dayyal for? There is definitely more than one possible way to view that name and since it is transliterated rather than spelled in its original language I would ask if you would please tell me what you think it means.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


you mean zulfiqer? the famous double edged sword? lol... its a very big sword. Good to know people view that as literal though, just strange it would be coming out ones mouth. Unless of course that would be a reference to Jesus speaking about the Master of Zulfiqer.


had to throw in ya know

Picture of the sword here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 14-6-2012 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKillah

Originally posted by Viking9019
reply to post by shaluach
 


Its funny that the Israelites were described as being light skinned(think Iranian)and here you are claiming that they were black?


1) Israel is not Iran!

2) There is not such thing as Iranian. Talk to any person in Iran and call them Iranian... I dare you.

3) People of Iran are Persian!


Guy walked in to apply at my store. Told me he was Iranian. Didn't seem to be a big deal.
Guy bought an insurance policy off of me. Told me he and his family were Iranian.
I didn't dare them, they offered themselves up as iranian





top topics
 
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join