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

reply to post by shaluach


I agree and concur with you, you are correct. I won't get into the whole argument over nit picking here...because 1) it's pointless and 2) odd how literal readers leave out where Paul states, 'stay away from arguing, debates over law, etc., because it's fruitless and vain...every evil work, etc etc etc', numerous times he says this...and like you I believe in Jesus Christ-Christ Jesus, but I am not a so called 'Christian' in the western sense of the word, in fact Christian wasn't even a Term in early A.D. That came Way later, historical fact, both in theology and in secular.

I think a lot of the problems come however, is not just over the translations, when the Vulgate was written and by who, etc., etc., and records that were left out, taken out, the revisions [King James] and so forth...where the whole literal interpretations and also the cultural lens that came into play, so forth,

but also, not only did language change but the meaning of certain phrases, meanings of parables then compared to today, the Lifestyle and most importantly, the Language of the Oppressed peoples of THAT ERA, TIME, there's simply a huge ignorance of the history of that whole period and region, that's a huge part of the problem. A majority of Christianity aka American style is really Nordic Christianity that has a lot of THOR worship in it, that's FACT. And the pagan worship/rituals of that whole belief system is no doubt, in a lot of the dominion-fundamentalist Western Christianity--

and it's similar to some of the Greek-Roman pantheon-pagan and also other Middle Eastern beliefs too, gets really interesting...when you study all of them, and then the phraseology of the New Testament, you can really see a lot of it. [that and reading some of the history books of ancient Rome and archeological studies, those get even more interesting because so much simply doesn't add up] and well

anyhow, that's when I began to see the poetic and symbolic meanings of the Bible, along with other ancient texts but what really helped me to understand/glean from, both Test a Men T's, [i study language and phonetics], is the studying of ancient laws, like Assyria, when I was doing research on Women's rights/laws of that era...THEN a lot of things that were cloudy became a bit more clear, as to why they had the laws of that time, etc., from Babylon to Assyria to Israel [a vassal state, fact], and so forth,

and so like the more I studied/read on those things, the more I began to get a lens of the language/phrases used then--even in the Roman times, and what they Meant then is not what so many relay Today, huge difference on so many levels. And I'm not talking here about Gnosticism, but about the differences in how language-phrases between Then and what they mean now.

I'll give you an example...the story of Elijah and the 2 bears that came out and tore into the youth, etc., When I re-read that whole story several times and other parts of the Bible, I realized that it wasn't talking about an actual Bear that comes out of the woods...one the only Bear that lived in that region then was the Syrian bear [a creme colored bear, very pretty actually] and it lived higher up, near Turkey. Near extinct now but anyway...the more I read the story the more it simply didn't make sense that in physical a bear tore into 42? children, one it's contrary to the Nature of God in the entire Bible [if you take All scriptures, not just cherry pick which is what literalist's tend to do] and look at the Balance, the Whole...and the Bible is like that, why the contradiction's, like even Genesis, the genealogy is a MIRROR, ever notice that? Interesting that one, haven't quite figured that one out yet But anyway...so then it dawned on me, after Meditating on that whole verse-story, 2 Kings 2, what that meant, about the Bears, and the Bears is the constellations and the 42? is the months, two years, approx., . It's referring to the times of oppression of the children, who oppressed Elijah and the people. The key is the story about Bethel, Samaria, etc., Anyhoo, still to this day, people think it's two literal bears ripping up 42 children,

over mocking a bald headed man. But bald also means eagle, mountains stripped of wood [lots of scriptures on the anger of God over the tearing up of nature/forests, FACT, for idols and trade] and can also mean the dissing of the elders, prophets, etc. So the story is about the trivializing the warnings of the elder prophet and the 42 months of the Bears ripping the children--when you read the entire story of Elijah along with the History of the trouble over water-irrigation and how dependent the people were on that/the monsoons, etc., and the beliefs around that [very much like Native Indians were here in regards to Water] THEN it's a whole different picture.

con't

Anyhooo, my point being, I think we so often make the mistake when reading the Bible [and other ancient texts] is that we try to picture it with what language-phrases mean Today, and and it's like two completely different worlds. While there are some similarities, obviously, humanity hasn't changed that much, there is huge differences in how lingo is used,

I mean, even what was said in the 40s and 50s often has Very different meanings from what we use today. Same goes for rural areas to urban, etc., so I think, like with 'what did Jesus look like' etc., I'd be wondering how much of the scriptures are referring to other things, and not exactly physical descriptions of Jesus. There's just a whole lot of references to nature in both testaments---because LIFE then, was very dependent on nature, just like it still is in many parts of that region of the world--add language differences to that

and there will obviously be very different meanings, no doubt. This is why Indigineous [spell arrgh] societies ARE so vital and important because there is so much we can learn from them, because they Still live and do many of the same rituals, hold belief systems that were the norm in both B.C. and A.D., particularly when it comes to farming, bee-honey collecting, etc., for example the Sans people [Africa, use to be all over Africa and Middle East in parts] because the more you study the lifestyles and their watching of nature, signs, stars [used for so many things, not just for worshipping, etc., like navigation, that's one example], then a lot of the phraseology makes sense....

I think one of the reasons parables Were used in New Testament was that the farmers and slaves [majority of people in Rome, other than Roman citizens and that included Roman occupied territory] were Slaves, who worked the farms, grinding meal-oil, etc., temple slaves [women, FACT], and so they Knew what those parables meant, because those farming rituals go way back...the Nobles of that time did not bother themselves with such trivial details--they didn't need too, the class system was similar to today,

so they would grasp the meanings, where as, some noble Roman laying around in a court in luxury wouldn't, now sure his men over the lordship of those slaves would know, if that was their job but for the most part, there was a huge class distinction between the slaves [where the term submission comes from btw, slaves having to walk bowed under the Roman swords when taken into hostage-captivity, fact], and the noble captors, so to speak.

It's so important to not just read the Bible but to understand how societies were set up then, systems, etc., no doubt the Bible was in numerous parts, the language of the oppressed lower classes, whose writers or authors were the men who had the ability to write [slaves didn't write...only nobles did--that's historical Fact, and it's not changed that much in parts of the world today] and who were probably the 'middle man' so to speak--that's how colonization works,

worked that way in Africa during colonization and always has. So many today take Today's culture/caste system, economic structure, and try to Apply it to the meaning of the stories of Bible today...in gleaning what it means, on somethings this may not be a problem....but I think it causes a lot of wrong meanings and applications, that were never intended to be.

If that makes sense what I am saying here...just reading the History of that region, is confusing enough, and we don't have all the knowledge because so much just geology wise has changed even...I do know this much, Israel and Judah, [the border changes alone in the B.C. to A.D. era is enough to make one's hair turn gray], were always in the middle of one colonizer or another--and you really see this when you study the conflicts-wars Between Assyria and Persia, Babylon-Sumer, the Hittites, Kassites, Edamites, etc., and you know a lot what is in the Bible--you can't even Find in secular records, or they aren't mentioned in the ancient Roman records [who were explorer's, engineers and gold thirsty], the more one studies Those nations, the war-lust for the spice routes [huge conflicts in that era and for easier access, why Cyprus and Israel were huge contenders because of the shipping routes, that and to Egypt], mountain routes, the invasions or threat of from the far North [on both sides because they too were expanding-growing] and well,

yea...throw in there all the gods and goddess's and pantheons and similar rituals and not so similar, it gets really confusing. But no doubt, from the studies I've done...Israel and other peoples of that region who like the Kurd's [some interesting parallels there...particularly with assimilation of language, Russia has some of the best studies on Kurd's, language and poetry], and well so much of what is spewed today is SO WAY OFF,

it's not even funny.

Historical ignorance, and you know, I think theology schools are some of the worst, just saying

Jesus was born in Palestine, therefore was a Palestinian.

Here are some pictures of Palestinians taken in Gaza









as you can clearly see, they are not black. Neither was Jesus.

reply to post by ThreeBears


The term Christian was in use before 60 AD. Believers were first called "Christians" at Antioch, that's in the NT.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Jews originated in Egypt and were known to be lighter skinned then Egyptians,In fact they were easy to tell apart from Egyptians.Here this should give you an idea what color Jews were. You can see an egyptian with his slaves follow the link.
www.ancient-hebrew.org...

reply to post by Nightchild


There's a problem here, Nightchild. if the name was written in Aramaic, it wouldn't have been the name 'Jesus Christ'. This is perpetuating the myth that his name was Jesus, which it wasn't. This information I have from the Source.

Secondly, the Bible describes the Sin-bearing Servant in Isaiah 52:14 as having a 'visage [face/appearance] marred more than any man...'.

And Isaiah 53:2 says in part 'he has no form or comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him...'

...which don't agree with those descriptions from your ancient sources.

Originally posted by Maigret
reply to post by Nightchild

 

There's a problem here, Nightchild. if the name was written in Aramaic, it wouldn't have been the name 'Jesus Christ'. This is perpetuating the myth that his name was Jesus, which it wasn't. This information I have from the Source.

Secondly, the Bible describes the Sin-bearing Servant in Isaiah 52:14 as having a 'visage [face/appearance] marred more than any man...'.

And Isaiah 53:2 says in part 'he has no form or comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him...'

...which don't agree with those descriptions from your ancient sources.

Your miss reading Isaiah there not talking about his looks but his appearance you must take it in context hes dressed plainly nothing makes him stand out he looks like the unwashed masses.As for his name having to be translated from Aramaic no different then translating it into Russian or German so im not sure what your getting at here?

reply to post by shaluach


MWAHAHAHA!!!

Jesus is not a man, he is YOUR sense of humour!

it doesn't even matter whether or not he existed. it think the whole idea was to create an archetype for a "perfect" or "godly" human being so people can try and emulate that with their own lives.