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

Originally posted by shaluach

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.

Fair enough. if you can't provide them, you can't provide them, so I'll just have to rest my case that they are not there.

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. S

Your screen name denotes a "messenger" or an "apostle", and yet you are unwilling to educate? Seems a bit of a dichotomy to me, but then you may have picked it for ... other reasons, I suppose. Telling me that you think my "eyes and ears are closed" does nothing to open them. I could say the same of you - that you have no understanding of the basics of Scriptural interpretation, and I could do so with every bit as much authority, and perhaps more, than you possess to levy such a charge at me.

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.

What a foolish stance to take! I don't know of any Biblical Scholar who says that all of the Bible is either literal or figurative, and neither have I said that. I HAVE said that all of Revelations is allegorical, but you are constructing a straw man to claim that I said that the entire Bible is figurative, and that is neither a logical conclusion nor a valid extension.. I'll just set that straw man on fire right now, so that you don't get to knock it over later when you're done building it.

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.

well, if you can't refute my argument, you can't. No shame there in admitting such. I'll just keep going through the thread and knocking fallacies over, and you can sit and watch for all I care.

Have a nice day!

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
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.

It's not named, but yup, it's double edged. The full description that the OP seems to be taking as literal follows:

13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[d] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

Source - Revelations 1:13-16, NIV

I can only guess that's the description he means, since he can't seem to find any references for his opinion. Fire blazing from his eyes. Glowing bronze feet. Holding stars in his hand, and a big ol' sword sticking out of his mouth - which should probably have been where the stars are if he intended to speak or used the sword.

Scary looking guy, and I'm pretty sure that if he had really looked like that, he'd have drawn a lot more attention from the chroniclers, who would surely have recorded that rather than claiming he had blue eyes, blonde hair, or was black. Seriously - if you see a preacher walking down the street with his head on fire, are you going to say "gee, look at that guy over there preaching - what nationality IS he, any way?" or are you going to say "HEY, That dude's HEAD is on fire and there's a sword sticking out of his mouth! Someone call the paramedics!"

Originally posted by NaptownBrown

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

I said "in Iran"... not Americanized Persians.

A Persian told me that most Americanized Persians think that Americans don't realize that Iran is what used to be Persia and thus will respond respectfully as Iranian. Over there, it's an insult.

Originally posted by shaluach

2. Wrong. I follow Scripture. The source where I find evidence to back up the Scriptural claims is irrelevant. My claims are backed up regardless.

the sources are ALWAYS relevant when you are using them to back a claim. ALWAYS. That's why scholarly papers are referenced with... sources.

5. None of this changes the Scriptural fact that the original Hebrews were Black.

So far, and I'm on page 4 at the moment, there has been precious little evidence to support your claim, none of which hasn't already been refuted. Odd that someone can claim opinion as "fact", and then fail to back it up with evidence, and then still expect anyone else to take it as "fact".

Simply stating that something is "fact", without providing evidence, does not make it fact - no matter how many times nor how loudly you claim it.

if we are to take Scripture as a guide, Jesus was, as all Hebrews were, a Semite. According to the table of Nations in the Bible, sub-saharan Africans were Hamites, not Semites. You think the leopard somehow changed it's spots, and Semites became Hamites instead of what the Bible claims, then want to attempt to use the Bible to support a flawed premise against what it plainly says?

Then make the claim that you "follow Scripture"? But the sources of that "scripture" you follow are "irrelevant"?

Originally posted by fishy6
This is a really Stupid thread.

It does not matter what Jesus looked like.

You're correct on points 1 and 2, but apparently to some folks it's more important than what He actually DID.

The "Christian" church as we know it today, has been hijacked by those who seek nothing but power, while controlling millions. The church killed (perhaps) millions of people in the name of "god." They like to think only certain people can truly be part of their "religion." They have done anything and everything to twist the faith to suit their own needs.

The only thing I can be pretty sure of: Jesus didn't go around condemning people because they were gay, black, white, Asian, etc...I think the last thing on his mind was the destruction of a country because they didn't believe in his faith. So anything today, that the "church" fights for in the name of "God" is BS and nothing short of condoning violence.

Any person(s) who use religion and their belief system as a gateway to hate and violence is a hypocrite and a fraud.

EDIT: Homosexuals existed long before anyone even knew what the bible was. Point is, an all mighty "god" wouldn't condemn anyone to an eternity in "hell" because they were gay, or black or whatever. People who do that use it to make themselves look better than everyone around them.

reply to post by nenothtu


So your under the assumption that Jesus looked totally different then everyone else around him? I'm not exactly sure if your arguing just to argue or you actually believe something so insanely infantile.

Originally posted by shaluach
Daniel 7 isn't the same as Revelation 1. Daniel 7 does not say his hair was white. It says his hair was like pure wool. It says nothing about color. And the Hebrews were Black. The evidence is in the Scriptures.

9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

- Daniel 7

If we are to take that description as literal, then we must take that description as literal. It's a description, as is Revelations, of a vision in a dream, a dream which occurred long before Jesus was born at all, to even HAVE an appearance. It is describing the Ancient of Days (says so right there in the text), who DID exist at the time, because he was never born. It's not a description of Jesus.

Why would we take that one snippet (i.e. "the hair of his head like the pure wool" ) literally, and take everything that surrounds it as not literal? therefore we must assume that his throne has wheels, and was set on fire by some unknown agent, since the text does not specify who set it on fire, only that it WAS on fire..

If all of the vision is to be taken literally, then all of the vision must be taken literally. Literal beasts, with literal horns, right on down the line from the beginning to the end of the vision. there is no logical reason to take one snippet out, say "this is literal, but the rest isn't".

Here is the entire chapter without taking a single part of a sentence out of context to try to "interpret" it alone. Let the reader decide whether it's all literal or all an allegorical vision, and whether "Ancient of Days" as described is or is not differentiated from "One like the Son of Man" by verse 13 of the same vision.

I might add that verse 13 specifies that "One like the Son of Man" and "The Ancient of days" are not the same individual in my opinion, because one cannot approach himself.

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Therefore, the description of hair like pure wool is to be applied to the Ancient of days, as specified, and NOT "One like the Son of Man".

Now, one could argue that God is really a Black human, which I would also contest because of the allegorical nature of visions, and the fact that I don't believe God is a human at all, but in no way can that passage be applied to Jesus.

If you've ever seen pure wool - i.e. washed and combed to remove the impurities, you wouldn't be making this argument at all and trying to use this passage to support it. The color of the wool is irrelevant. have you never seen an old Black person? Their hair turns just as white as mine has, or an Arab or a Hebrew's will. White hair is not a race thing, it's a human thing, and usually an age thing.

Try again.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by nenothtu

 

So your under the assumption that Jesus looked totally different then everyone else around him? I'm not exactly sure if your arguing just to argue or you actually believe something so insanely infantile.

Well, maybe I AM insanely infantile, or maybe you need to read for comprehension.

If you'll specify how on Earth you got that from what I posted, I'll be happy to clarify it for you. It should be pretty clear that he DID look like everyone else around him, and that everyone else around him were Semites, rather than Hamites.

Therefore he was not "Black".

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by shaluach

 

Don't know what the big deal is... It's natural for people to want to worship somebody that looks like them. Buddah was actually from India and very skinny but yet he's always pictures with oriental eyes and being overweight. Imagine white Christians with a black Jesus hanging on their wall... While black slaves work their fields. Wouldn't work well...

To you and me there is no big deal. But think about it, to those people who truly believe he is the son of god. Shouldn't this feel like an important matter? Don't really know, but I sure hope so.

-rrr

Black/White? neither...... Jesus the Nazerene would have resembled... because thats where he was from a Canaanite but alas it's name has been changed and split into faith related regions (abit like Gullivers Travels and the two countries fighting over how they crack an egg.... It's the same egg!!) So he's a Canaanite a Arab who rebelled against the organised faith and powers of the time... Ring any bells yet???


Same Battle different time

When will they ever learn an eggs an egg how ever its cracked.

reply to post by DreamerOracle


He cannot be Arab, He descended from Issac and Jacob. Yeshua was a Jew, from the house of David.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
AND WHERE DID THEY COME FROM??...... starter for 10?... BUZZZZ... ding ding ding Egyptian Slaves taken from the land of CANAAN ....

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

AND WHERE DID THEY COME FROM??...... starter for 10?... BUZZZZ... ding ding ding Egyptian Slaves taken from the land of CANAAN ....

No, they were invited guests of Egypt and later enslaved by a Pharaoh that didnt know Joseph. Calm down, why are you yelling? Abraham had TWO sons, not just one. The Jews/Hebrews came from Jacob's son Judah. Jesus came from the tribe of Judah and the house of David. Calm down man. Jacob may have set up camp in Canaan correct, but that doesn't make his father Ishmael.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

AND WHERE DID THEY COME FROM??...... starter for 10?... BUZZZZ... ding ding ding Egyptian Slaves taken from the land of CANAAN ....

No, they were invited guests of Egypt and later enslaved by a Pharaoh that didnt know Joseph. Calm down, why are you yelling? Abraham had TWO sons, not just one. The Jews/Hebrews came from Jacob's son Judah. Jesus came from the tribe of Judah and the house of David. Calm down man. Jacob may have set up camp in Canaan correct, but that doesn't make his father Ishmael.

Jews and Hebrews are not the same thing, they are not exclusive. Not all Hebrews became Jews. Jews were the tribe of Judah, which also ended up including the Tribe of Benjamin when Israel disobeyed the Most High's orders and created a kingdom. They divided the Kingdom of Israel into the Northern and Southern kingdom. The southern Kingdom was Judah and Benjamin which became strictly known as Judah or Jews.

Hebrews predated Israel. Abraham was a Hebrew, for instance.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
Screw it.

"Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick." Lamentations 4:8

Unfortunately, Nemo, the naysayers will argue that that verse is not meant literally. I forgot about that verse, though. Thank you for posting.

Another excellent example of taking a verse out of context, and trying to use it in isolation to prove a point unsupported by the surrounding material. The verses immediately before that one, and speaking of the same people, has this to say of them:

6 For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her.

7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:

They were whiter than milk, more ruddy in body than rubies. Then disaster struck. In view of the subject of entire chapter overall, and those verses in particular, is it more reasonable to think that their "visages" changed because of privation, judgement, and hardship, and the very real physical changes those hardships can produce, or is it more reasonable to believe that they were magically transformed from albinos ("white as milk") into Africans for no good reason? If it is speaking of them belonging to the African race, how is it that they were previously "whiter than milk" before disaster struck?

Isolation of a verse from it's context to attempt to prove a point can be a dangerous thing, That particular verse was used to justify some thoroughly despicable things in American history.

Lamentations Chapter 4 for context purposes.

reply to post by shaluach


I know this. The point was both came through Issac, not Ishmael. And I pointed out that Christ was from the tribe of Judah and house of David.

Edit: Abraham wasn't a Hebrew. He was a gentile from Ur. Cutting off the tip of his penis didn't change his DNA.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by shaluach

 

I know this. The point was both came through Issac, not Ishmael. And I pointed out that Christ was from the tribe of Judah and house of David.

No but you said the Hebrews came through Jacob and that's not true. Hebrews existed before Jacob. That's all.

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

AND WHERE DID THEY COME FROM??...... starter for 10?... BUZZZZ... ding ding ding Egyptian Slaves taken from the land of CANAAN ....

Abraham, the progenitor, came from Ur of the Chaldees. the Chaldeans were a southern Sumerian people. They came from Sumeria.

They conquered the Canaanites after their release from slavery in Egypt, but were not themselves Canaanites. They voluntarily entered Egypt during a time of famine, and entered through Canaan, but were not natives to the area of Canaan.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by shaluach

 

I know this. The point was both came through Issac, not Ishmael. And I pointed out that Christ was from the tribe of Judah and house of David.

No but you said the Hebrews came through Jacob and that's not true. Hebrews existed before Jacob. That's all.

Go re-read what I said. Perhaps the "/" was confusing? And Abraham wasn't a Hebrew, he was Gentile.