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

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by shaluach
 


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


It's not. I believe in the Scriptures. I just do not believe in Western Christianity™ and White Jesus. It is a fraud and man-made invention. Most of what Western Christianity™ teaches is not what Scripture teaches.




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719


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.


As I said, the Wikipedia article has source citations also. There were THREE in the section that I quoted. Look them up before you laugh next time, because all that does is make you look foolish.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

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."


All you can say is Wrong....wrong...wrong.
You are WRONG.
The description of Jesus in Revelation is a vision of his heavenly body. Not a description of what he looked like as a man. There is a difference. Get your facts straight.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild



You do know that Revelation was written over a millenia after Jesus' time, right?

Talk about grasping at straws.


False. But keep up the condescending attitude also. It's becoming clear that those on this site confronted with truth can do nothing but that.
edit on 6/13/2012 by shaluach because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

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



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Nightchild



You do know that Revelation was written over a millenia after Jesus' time, right?

Talk about grasping at straws.


False. But keep up the condescending attitude also. It's becoming clear that those on this site confronted with truth can do nothing but that.
edit on 6/13/2012 by shaluach because: (no reason given)


Who are you to call someone condescending?
Throughout your entire thread you have been condescending.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719


All you can say is Wrong....wrong...wrong.
You are WRONG.
The description of Jesus in Revelation is a vision of his heavenly body. Not a description of what he looked like as a man. There is a difference. Get your facts straight.


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.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by GmoS719


Who are you to call someone condescending?
Throughout your entire thread you have been condescending.


So because you think I have been condescending I can't call you out for doing the same? That's hilarious. If you are condescending I will call it out. If you don't like it then don't be condescending. But don't try to hide behind "Well you did it first" like a cowardly child.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Nightchild



You do know that Revelation was written over a millenia after Jesus' time, right?

Talk about grasping at straws.


False. But keep up the condescending attitude also. It's becoming clear that those on this site confronted with truth can do nothing but that.
edit on 6/13/2012 by shaluach because: (no reason given)


It is false that Revelation was written WAY after Jesus had walked the Earth?

Seems we here have someone that not only are incapable of supplying with requested evidence for a claim, but also blames those of requiring this evidence to be "condescending", although his own posts since the get-go reaks of badly disguised anger.

All you can answer is"Wrong" and "False" because you lack the abbility to actually answer the questions people ask you to support your evidence..



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by GmoS719


All you can say is Wrong....wrong...wrong.
You are WRONG.
The description of Jesus in Revelation is a vision of his heavenly body. Not a description of what he looked like as a man. There is a difference. Get your facts straight.


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.


I'm not saying that he isn't black. What I am saying is your assumption that he was a black man during his life on earth is just that...an assumption. You are referring to a vision of Jesus in Heaven. Show me scripture describing what Jesus looked like when he was actually alive. Not what he was supposed to look like, or what someone thought he looked like in a vision.
You can't. Either way, like I said it isn't important because I don't worship his image.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild


It is false that Revelation was written WAY after Jesus had walked the Earth?

Seems we here have someone that not only are incapable of supplying with requested evidence for a claim, but also blames those of requiring this evidence to be "condescending", although his own posts since the get-go reaks of badly disguised anger.

All you can answer is"Wrong" and "False" because you lack the abbility to actually answer the questions people ask you to support your evidence..


It's false that it was written over 1000 years after Yehoshua died. You are making that claim so you back it up. It was written by John of Patmos who was the Disciple John whom walked with Yehoshuah.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by GmoS719


Who are you to call someone condescending?
Throughout your entire thread you have been condescending.


So because you think I have been condescending I can't call you out for doing the same? That's hilarious. If you are condescending I will call it out. If you don't like it then don't be condescending. But don't try to hide behind "Well you did it first" like a cowardly child.


I'm not going to give your thread anymore attention because it is lacking credible sources and
is speculation and top it off you are a immature. Have fun yelling at the wall...FALSE. WRONG.
and one more LOL for you using wikipedia as a source.
LOL



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:59 AM
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


1: Proof that your claim is correct and proof that above account is invented? And I mea, actual proof, not a mere "Wrong"as an answer, sorry.

2: But okay, let's use your tactic in this Jesus-research, and go strictly by what the Biblical texts says, then there is absolutely no reason for Jesus to look like the natives of his area at the time, as he had non-human DNA. Absolutely none, and that is where the Afro-Centrists commit their mistake in this matter, as they so badly want to revisionist every important person in history into a black person that they don't even see how outlandish their claims are, such as when, for instance, they claimed that Mozart was Black.


Speaking of it, you do know that the "Sons of God", that is, the Angels. were described as nearly Albino-looking, right?
So, if, by going only by what the scriptures say, and going by your reasoning, and the "Heavenly beings" were described such, being of the same Family, or, DNA as Yahweh, then what is the reason that one of their offspring would be black?
Not to forget to mention, that King David, who also were described as having red hair and being of "a fair countenance", from whom Jesus were a direct descendent from on Mary's side?
edit on 13-6-2012 by Nightchild because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Going by the Location, he would have to be Tan-ish person, might resemble between Turkish/light Arab skin tone.

of course some religious people of western countries can't worship him if he was not white, it would not make sense.

Black people would have a black Jesus, and i guess Brown people would have brown Jesus... i guess Asian people would have White Jesus because original Asian christian would have to be a convert.. well according to the history anyway.

People manipulate to fit their needs.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I read an account, can't find it now, but I think it was something someone told Josephus, that Jesus was short in stature and had a rather large nose. The account went on to say that one wouldn't take a person like him seriously, until he spoke, and all were amazed by his charisma and the profound way he explained complicated ideas so simply.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
The "classic" portrayal of Jesus, aka the "Teutonic Jesus" was painted by Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni. Born 1475, died 1564.

It's entirely plausible he used Cesare Borgio as a life model. You can see this same profile in the Pietà.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by shaluach
 


Oh, and speaking of it, it seems that you accidently missed to supply with the whole quote in your opening post citing from the Book of Revelation, so let me do it for you;



His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow


Just wanted to add that, hope it helps.




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I like to picture the real Jeebus as lookin like an arabic speaking George Costanza
en.wikipedia.org...

This explains why he was single all his life, and had to invent a religion so his like minded followers could be catholic priests

It also explains why there are no first person witnesses to Jeebus' life

The Hebrews bumped them all off so they couldn't tell the truth, which if they had told the truth, would have spoiled their creation of a false messiah from which to control all the flocks of sheepies



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild




1: Proof that your claim is correct and proof that above account is invented? And I mea, actual proof, not a mere "Wrong"as an answer, sorry.

2: But okay, let's use your tactic in this Jesus-research, and go strictly by what the Biblical texts says, then there is absolutely no reason for Jesus to look like the natives of his area at the time, as he had non-human DNA. Absolutely none, and that is where the Afro-Centrists commit their mistake in this matter, as they so badly want to revisionist every important person in history into a black person that they don't even see how outlandish their claims are, such as when, for instance, they claimed that Mozart was Black.


Speaking of it, you do know that the "Sons of God", that is, the Angels. were described as nearly Albino-looking, right?
So, if, by going only by what the scriptures say, and going by your reasoning, and the "Heavenly beings" were described such, being of the same Family, or, DNA as Yahweh, then what is the reason that one of their offspring would be black?
Not to forget to mention, that King David, who also were described as having red hair and being of "a fair countenance", from whom Jesus were a direct descendent from on Mary's side?
edit on 13-6-2012 by Nightchild because: (no reason given)


1. I already illustrated in this thread that Publius Lentulus was invented. Go back and read.

2. a.Actually he did have human DNA. He was born of a human mother.
b.No, "Afro-centrists" do not want to label EVERY person throughout human history as being Black. You are stereotyping and lying.
c. The "sons of God" throughout Scripture do not always refer to angels. Some references to "sons of God" also refer to humans. Just depends on what verses you are referencing.
d. Where were they described as albino-looking?
e. Where does Scripture say that King David had red hair? 1 Samuel 16 refers to him as "He was dark and handsome, with beautiful eyes." (NLT). So that Hebrew word adomi doesn't always mean "ruddy." It can also mean healthy.
f. Just because King David may have had a more fair (not as dark) complexion doesn't mean that Jesus would. Again if you look at Jews today, they are basically White. That's not the case for the ancient Hebrews. So a people's features can change over time, assuming that the Jews of today are indeed descendents of the ancient Hebrews.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild
reply to post by shaluach
 


Oh, and speaking of it, it seems that you accidently missed to supply with the whole quote in your opening post citing from the Book of Revelation, so let me do it for you;



His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow


Just wanted to add that, hope it helps.



And reference back to DANIEL where it says his hair was like wool, not white like wool. So we know that that means that Yehoshuah had a thick, kinky hair and that when he returns it will be white in color. So, no, that doesn't help at all. It's in fact completely irrelevant.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join