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

This is a picture I made to illustrate the difference between the "classic" portrayals of Yehoshuah ha'Mashiach (Jesus the Christ) and the Scriptural description. Upon seeing how completely opposite we are, we have to look to other historical portraits. Upon doing so, we see the similarities between the portraits of the person known as "Jesus Christ" and Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander VI.

Do not be deceived by these false idols!

We can guess what he looked like from the location and time.
We can't know for sure. I doubt he was white though.
As for the comparison of the two pictures, the only resemblance IMO is white skin & long hair.
Nothing more.

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...

I say get rid of both depictions. We're not supposed to have any image whatsoever of Him. There is a terrific description of Him in Revelation chapter 1, that's my mental picture of the King.

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...

Why would you even mention slaves?
As if we are even in the time period anymore.

Haha you are saying it's a huge difference because of the true color of his skin? So are Christians supposed to toss all his teachings because he wasn't blond and blue eyed?

reply to post by GmoS719


What? Do you think the classic images of Jesus were created yesterday? When you think of Jesus, the image you think of has been carefully shaped for the last 2000 years...

yes...yes this theorory has been beaten to death 6 million times over already. They obviously depicted Jesus in lighter skin to appeal to the Caucasians they wanted to turn into Christians.

these paintings are modern and is an artists interpretation of Jesus anyways ... I'm sure each person on this planet holds a different image in their minds-eye of what Jesus (the Christ) supposedly looked like.

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

I am pretty sure most know he was a Middle Eastern Jew, and would have looked as such.

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?

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by GmoS719

 

What? Do you think the classic images of Jesus were created yesterday? When you think of Jesus, the image you think of has been carefully shaped for the last 2000 years...

2000 years ago and 200 years ago is a big difference.

Originally posted by Covertblack
Haha you are saying it's a huge difference because of the true color of his skin? So are Christians supposed to toss all his teachings because he wasn't blond and blue eyed?

No. That's a complete strawman. I never suggested any such thing. I believe in Scriptures. I do not believe in this White Jesus imposter, though.

Originally posted by GmoS719
We can guess what he looked like from the location and time.
We can't know for sure. I doubt he was white though.
As for the comparison of the two pictures, the only resemblance IMO is white skin & long hair.
Nothing more.

Or, we can sniff around for ancient texts and see what they say themselves.

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.

The letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar - This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

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.

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

Originally posted by Covertblack
I am pretty sure most know he was a Middle Eastern Jew, and would have looked as such.

And how did Middle Eastern Jews look 2000 years ago? They didn't look White like modern Jews do. The ancient Hebrews were Black. That's historical fact.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Covertblack
Haha you are saying it's a huge difference because of the true color of his skin? So are Christians supposed to toss all his teachings because he wasn't blond and blue eyed?

No. That's a complete strawman. I never suggested any such thing. I believe in Scriptures. I do not believe in this White Jesus imposter, though.

Then don't, it's not accurate anyway. I really don't care if he was orange, purple etc.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Covertblack
I am pretty sure most know he was a Middle Eastern Jew, and would have looked as such.

And how did Middle Eastern Jews look 2000 years ago? They didn't look White like modern Jews do. The ancient Hebrews were Black. That's historical fact.

I don't know what he looked like, nor do I care.

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

Originally posted by Nightchild

Originally posted by GmoS719
We can guess what he looked like from the location and time.
We can't know for sure. I doubt he was white though.
As for the comparison of the two pictures, the only resemblance IMO is white skin & long hair.
Nothing more.

Or, we can sniff around for ancient texts and see what they say themselves.

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.

The letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

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.

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

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

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

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by Covertblack
I am pretty sure most know he was a Middle Eastern Jew, and would have looked as such.

And how did Middle Eastern Jews look 2000 years ago? They didn't look White like modern Jews do. The ancient Hebrews were Black. That's historical fact.

I don't know what he looked like, nor do I care.

Well if you "don't care" then why are you even weighing in? Look at the story of Moses. He was abandoned by his mother and found by the daughter of the Pharaoh. She took him in as her son and no one was the wiser. Everyone thought he was an "Egyptian." Why? Because he looked just like them. How did the Egyptians look? Look at their sculptures and heiroglyphs and paintings. They potrayed themselves as dark-skinned. Case closed.