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

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Nightchild

Description of Jesus by Publius Lentulus, Governor of Judea, addressed to Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome. Found in an excavated city written in Aramaic, on stone. "THERE lives, at this, time, in Judea, a man of singular virtue, whose name is Jesus Christ, whom the barbarians esteem as a prophet, but his followers love and adore him as the offspring of the immortal God. He calls back the dead from the graves, and heals all sorts of diseases with a word or a touch. He is a tall man, and well shaped, of an amiable and reverend aspect; his hair of a colour that can hardly be matched, the colour of chestnut full ripe failing in waves about his shoulders. His forehead high, large and imposing; his cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful symmetry; his beard thick and of a colour suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin. His eyes bright blue, clear and serene, look innocent, dignified, manly and mature. In proportion of body, most perfect and captivating, his hands and arms most delectable to behold. He rebukes with majesty, counsels with mildness, his whole address, whether in word or deed, being eloquent and grave. No man has seen him laugh, yet his manner is exceedingly pleasant; but he has wept in the presence of men. He is temperate, modest and wise; a man, for his extraordinary beauty and divine perfections, surpassing the children of men in every sense.

Sounds very much like the "stereotypical" portrayal of him to me.

Nice try. Unfortunately your description of this false imposter Jesus isn't real in the least bit.

The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem; no Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented, but the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (63 BC-14 AD). Lastly a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions, "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him.

Source

I would love him if he was white or black. Can you say the same thing friend?

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Nightchild

Description of Jesus by Publius Lentulus, Governor of Judea, addressed to Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome. Found in an excavated city written in Aramaic, on stone. "THERE lives, at this, time, in Judea, a man of singular virtue, whose name is Jesus Christ, whom the barbarians esteem as a prophet, but his followers love and adore him as the offspring of the immortal God. He calls back the dead from the graves, and heals all sorts of diseases with a word or a touch. He is a tall man, and well shaped, of an amiable and reverend aspect; his hair of a colour that can hardly be matched, the colour of chestnut full ripe failing in waves about his shoulders. His forehead high, large and imposing; his cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful symmetry; his beard thick and of a colour suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin. His eyes bright blue, clear and serene, look innocent, dignified, manly and mature. In proportion of body, most perfect and captivating, his hands and arms most delectable to behold. He rebukes with majesty, counsels with mildness, his whole address, whether in word or deed, being eloquent and grave. No man has seen him laugh, yet his manner is exceedingly pleasant; but he has wept in the presence of men. He is temperate, modest and wise; a man, for his extraordinary beauty and divine perfections, surpassing the children of men in every sense.

Sounds very much like the "stereotypical" portrayal of him to me.

Nice try. Unfortunately your description of this false imposter Jesus isn't real in the least bit.

The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem; no Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented, but the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (63 BC-14 AD). Lastly a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions, "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him.

Source

You can't just quote wikipedia and get away with it lol.
That isn't a credible source.

Originally posted by GmoS719

Except for the part about him being white, because it doesn't say that in there.

Please re-read my post.

Originally posted by shaluach

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...

Actually, Knaw you are wrong. The "fat Buddha" is not the historical Buddha Siddharta Gautama. That's a common Western misconception. The "fat Buddha" was a Buddhist saint known as Hotei or Pu'Tai. They are two different people. No one is portraying Buddha as the fat Buddha. There are countless historical images of Siddharta Gautama as a skinny, brown-skinned Indian.

And it isn't about what people want to worship. It's not just about White people worshipping him. It's about that they put forth this LIE for centuries that Jesus was White and therefore White people were closer to the Most High. They didn't just say, "Well, we're White and so we like to look at Jesus as White" (which to be me would still be racist). They said, "Jesus Christ was White!" as if it's a fact.

And no the White Christians had their White Jesus on their wall and they used that White Jesus to oppress the African slaves and treat them like subhumans. And the brainwashing has worked. How many Black homes have these images of this imposter Jesus hanging on their walls?

Okay, I didn't know that about Buddah thanks for the knowledge, even if you just had to present it sarcastically.

And your point is nonsensical. The white people used a religious figure that teaches nothing but love and acceptance for your fellow man to enslave and harass people? Show me what passage in the New Testament they could have used to justify such action? Where did Jesus say it was okay to enslave people?

No, these slave owner were just racist and HAPPENED to follow Jesus...

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Nightchild

Description of Jesus by Publius Lentulus, Governor of Judea, addressed to Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome. Found in an excavated city written in Aramaic, on stone. "THERE lives, at this, time, in Judea, a man of singular virtue, whose name is Jesus Christ, whom the barbarians esteem as a prophet, but his followers love and adore him as the offspring of the immortal God. He calls back the dead from the graves, and heals all sorts of diseases with a word or a touch. He is a tall man, and well shaped, of an amiable and reverend aspect; his hair of a colour that can hardly be matched, the colour of chestnut full ripe failing in waves about his shoulders. His forehead high, large and imposing; his cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful symmetry; his beard thick and of a colour suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin. His eyes bright blue, clear and serene, look innocent, dignified, manly and mature. In proportion of body, most perfect and captivating, his hands and arms most delectable to behold. He rebukes with majesty, counsels with mildness, his whole address, whether in word or deed, being eloquent and grave. No man has seen him laugh, yet his manner is exceedingly pleasant; but he has wept in the presence of men. He is temperate, modest and wise; a man, for his extraordinary beauty and divine perfections, surpassing the children of men in every sense.

Sounds very much like the "stereotypical" portrayal of him to me.

Nice try. Unfortunately your description of this false imposter Jesus isn't real in the least bit.

The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem; no Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented, but the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (63 BC-14 AD). Lastly a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions, "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him.

Source

I would love him if he was white or black. Can you say the same thing friend?

The real question is would we love him if he were mexican.
Cuz, I just don't know.

Originally posted by infowarrior9970


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

No I didn't. Learn your Hebrew before you bear false witness against me (violation of the "Ninth Commandment").

His historical name would have been Yehoshua bar Yosef. My name in Hebrew would be Yehoshuah Aharon Dayyal. That's what I listed. Yehoshuah translates as Joshua. "Jesus" is a Western invention.

Originally posted by KnawLick


Okay, I didn't know that about Buddah thanks for the knowledge, even if you just had to present it sarcastically.

And your point is nonsensical. The white people used a religious figure that teaches nothing but love and acceptance for your fellow man to enslave and harass people? Show me what passage in the New Testament they could have used to justify such action? Where did Jesus say it was okay to enslave people?

No, these slave owner were just racist and HAPPENED to follow Jesus...

edit on 13-6-2012 by KnawLick because: (no reason given)

My point is not nonsensical. It's historical fact. They used the Scriptures to justify their enslaving of the Africans. The Scriptures aren't just the "New Testament." The Hebrew Scriptures (aka Old Testament) has many verses about slavery. In fact the Hebrew Scriptures prophecy the enslaving of the original Hebrews (the Black race) in Deuteronomy 28.

You can speak for the slave owners all you want, but that doesn't make what you said factual in the least bit.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Nightchild

Description of Jesus by Publius Lentulus, Governor of Judea, addressed to Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome. Found in an excavated city written in Aramaic, on stone. "THERE lives, at this, time, in Judea, a man of singular virtue, whose name is Jesus Christ, whom the barbarians esteem as a prophet, but his followers love and adore him as the offspring of the immortal God. He calls back the dead from the graves, and heals all sorts of diseases with a word or a touch. He is a tall man, and well shaped, of an amiable and reverend aspect; his hair of a colour that can hardly be matched, the colour of chestnut full ripe failing in waves about his shoulders. His forehead high, large and imposing; his cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful symmetry; his beard thick and of a colour suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin. His eyes bright blue, clear and serene, look innocent, dignified, manly and mature. In proportion of body, most perfect and captivating, his hands and arms most delectable to behold. He rebukes with majesty, counsels with mildness, his whole address, whether in word or deed, being eloquent and grave. No man has seen him laugh, yet his manner is exceedingly pleasant; but he has wept in the presence of men. He is temperate, modest and wise; a man, for his extraordinary beauty and divine perfections, surpassing the children of men in every sense.

Sounds very much like the "stereotypical" portrayal of him to me.

Nice try. Unfortunately your description of this false imposter Jesus isn't real in the least bit.

The letter of Lentulus is regarded as apocryphal for a number of reasons. No Governor of Jerusalem; no Procurator of Judea is known to have been called Lentulus and a Roman governor would not have addressed the Senate in the way represented, but the Deeds of the Divine Augustus list a Publius Lentulus as being elected as a Roman Consul during the reign of Augustus (63 BC-14 AD). Lastly a Roman writer would not have employed the expressions, "prophet of truth", "sons of men" or "Jesus Christ". The former two are Hebrew idioms, the third is taken from the New Testament. The letter, therefore, gives a description of Jesus such as Christian piety conceived him.

Source

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.

Originally posted by Covertblack


I would love him if he was white or black. Can you say the same thing friend?

Yes. But he was Black.

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.

Originally posted by GmoS719

You can't just quote wikipedia and get away with it lol.
That isn't a credible source.

Actually I can. The article has links to ITS sources. Or are you too lazy to look at those? As I said, Publius Lentulus is completely false.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Covertblack


I would love him if he was white or black. Can you say the same thing friend?

Yes. But he was Black.

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.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by GmoS719

You can't just quote wikipedia and get away with it lol.
That isn't a credible source.

Actually I can. The article has links to ITS sources. Or are you too lazy to look at those? As I said, Publius Lentulus is completely false.

For someone who cares so much about Jesus, you sure are snotty.
Let's grow up a little bit.

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.

Originally posted by GmoS719

For someone who cares so much about Jesus, you sure are snotty.
Let's grow up a little bit.

Ad hominem. I'm sorry but I have no patience for people to throw false accusations at me. And you have a lot of nerve telling me to grow up when you condescendingly "lol'd" my source citation. So how about worrying about how YOU come across and I'll worry about how I come across. Deal?

reply to post by shaluach


I thought this thread was about Jesus though, not an indictment of the Bible at large...

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.

Wrong. Revelation is in the New Testament and it describes him as Black. And I love people who fall back on the "It's not important." Really? It's not? Well it was important for centuries when people were killed and enslaved in the name of the false imposter White Jesus. Then when history comes out and people start speaking about Him being Black, then it "doesn't matter" or "isn't important."

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Covertblack


I would love him if he was white or black. Can you say the same thing friend?

Yes. But he was Black.

Interesting. Proof, outside of your opinion that he were?
The writers that described him a few thousand years ago way before the Afro Centristic revisionists were born, sure doesn't give support to that.

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.

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.

You do know that Revelation was written WAY after Jesus' time, right?

Talk about grasping at straws.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by GmoS719

For someone who cares so much about Jesus, you sure are snotty.
Let's grow up a little bit.

Ad hominem. I'm sorry but I have no patience for people to throw false accusations at me. And you have a lot of nerve telling me to grow up when you condescendingly "lol'd" my source citation. So how about worrying about how YOU come across and I'll worry about how I come across. Deal?

Since when do you have to be a child to laugh?
I laughed because you can't just search a term on Wikipedia and believe you know everything about the subject.
You should have at least one credible source. I can go into Wikipedia and make it that this guy is the president of the united states. And Yes you really should worry about how you come across, because if you act like a child who can't stand the thought of someone disagreeing with you no one is going to listen.