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

reply to post by shaluach


People with portraits of Yeshua make me , no one knows what he looks like but if you did see him i'd bet the event would permanantly blind you.

I always figured those paintings of Yeshua actually portrayed Saturnus, the pagan Roman god whom the pagan holiday Saturnalia (renamed christmas by the 4th century Popes) was named after.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

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.

You said, "The Jews/Hebrews came from Jacob's son Judah." No, the Hebrews and the Jews were not the same. And Abraham was a Hebrew. He was referred to as a Hebrew in Gen. 14:

"13One who had escaped came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew." So as I said, Hebrews existed prior to Jews, and not all Hebrews are Jews, although all "Jews" would be Hebrews. Jews is a specific group of Hebrews as I illustrated above.

Here's a good article regarding it.

reply to post by nenothtu

So Chaldees(Southern Sumerian) So from Very Dark to the present day Arab coloured skin my point still stands... He was not ever White.

looks to be caucasian? .....The Shroud of Jesus- New 3d Image


Jesus Real Face

reply to post by DreamerOracle


No, he was never White, nor have I anywhere claimed that he was - only that he was not Black, either.

Your original point was the claim that he was a "Canaanite Arab", whatever that is, which is also not true, although he would probably have resembled other Semites in appearance.

so if you worship an image of a darker skinned jesus, which i agree is most likely more how he looked, that is not considered worshipping a false idol?

Originally posted by shaluach

Well baloney back to you. He DID look like the natives of his area. The ancient Hebrews were Black. I already presented my evidence from the Scriptures. I have not lost the message at all. I live the message every day. I believe in accurately representing my Savior, though.

As I've said countless times, it's so funny how when it is pointed out that he is Black suddenly the "message is being lost." But for centuries when he was portrayed as White no one had anything like that to say. It isn't until the "official story" is questioned that suddenly his skin color no longer matters.

Alrighty then. I'm caught up to where I started posting in the thread, and have pretty much refuted all of your alleged "evidence" up to this point, scant though it was. You seem to be basing your entire argument on 3 different one-liners taken out of Biblical context. Pretty shaky ground, there.

One other point to bring up here - you continually claim that "for centuries" it "didn't matter what color he was" because he was assumed (by people who didn't know any better) to have a European appearance - most Europeans up until the past century or two had no idea of what middle easterners looked like, so no, they didn't know any better. Because they assumed that he looked like every one they could see around them, of course there was no controversy - the bulk of them never even realized here WAS another way to look. Most of them were born, lived their entire lives, and died within 14 miles of their birthplace, and had no knowledge of the world beyond those boundaries. Why WOULD there be any controversy among them?

Now, however, we don't have that excuse. Now, we KNOW what middle easterners look like. They're not "white" in the European sense...

... and they aren't black, either.

Originally posted by shaluach

See there is flaw. You have NOT disassembled the Moses notion.

Here is just ONE ancient Egyptian statue Broad nose, thick lips

That's Akhenaten, pharaoh during the Amarna period of Egyptian art. All Egyptian art presented stylized representations, but the Amarna period had less of it than most. You probably ought to do a Google image search for "Akhenaten", and just watch how that alleged "broad nose" disappears when rotated to a different angle, like face on, where it should really stick out just how "broad" it is. Akhenaten actually had what I would call a "hatchet face". Since his son was Tutankhamen, we have actual mummies we can test for your African hypothesis SPECIFICALLY in respect to that image.

Here's another Broad nose, thick lips

That's neither African nor Egyptian - it's Olmec, from southern Mexico, a civilization that eventually deferred to the Mayans. It's intellectually dishonest to include it in an attempt to prove what ancient Egyptians looked like.

And yet another Broad nose, thick lips

That's Khafre. I see a pretty big nose, but don't see the "broad" nose you are claiming. It's got a pretty high bridge to go with the width, making it "large", but not particularly broad. You'd see that as well from another angle, which makes me wonder why you chose these particular angles to present. His lips are no thicker than my own.

So yeah keep telling yourself that you "disassembled the Moses notion."

Ok. Now I have, if I hadn't already.

And no you aren't willing to admit the truth. You are only willing to admit your false and biased notion. No amount of evidence is going to change your mind. That much is clear.

Genetic evidence on the mummies themselves might, if it showed sub-saharan ancestry. Have you got any genetic evidence?

Do you want some?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

I didn't know that and I agree, any depiction would be inaccurate but statues of Jesus on a cross, don't these fall into the same category?

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

reply to post by GmoS719


As Jesus is the Son of God, it is entirely possible that he has the ability to appear akin to the nationality of any and every man. As the King of all kings and every man on earth he will be recognised as such by every single person whether they have seen or heard a description of him or not.

This could possibly mean that how he looks will have little to do with how he is recognised. He could also be so different from any other man of any other nationality that he could be perceived as nothing less than the Son of God.

I know I would love him whether he looked Mexican, Italian, African or Samoan as it is not how you look but who you are that ever matters.

Just random thoughts.

Originally posted by shaluach

Show me one other group in history that fulfills the Deuteronomy 28 prophecy. There is not one. I'll be waiting. On the other hand, the stealing of Africans and the subsequent enslaving of them and taking them to a foreign land fits the bill 100% (keep in mind that his prophecy came about AFTER the Hebrews were freed from Egypt so it doesn't describe that enslavement).

I went and reviewed Deuteronomy 28, just in case I was mistaken.

I'm not.

I would dearly LOVE to see you try to apply that to the Black race, "100%", as per your assertion here.

Originally posted by old_god

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
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.

I didn't know that and I agree, any depiction would be inaccurate but statues of Jesus on a cross, don't these fall into the same category?

They are called a "crucifix" and yes, that falls under the same category, thank you for mentioning it. Besides that, Christ isn't still on the cross, He is risen in glory and seated at the right hand of His Father.

I have read enough of this madness. if Jesus even existed at all he was both black and white look at the proof history is your guide

www.google.ca...:en-USfficial&prmd=imvnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa =X&ei=34jaT7bTN8ez0QHtosi7Ag&ved=0CHUQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=640

there was a reason there was no room at the inn back then mixed couples were not popular

2 races of Jews black Ethiopian and white middle eastern you cannot deny truth to do so Deny's yourself and too your own self be true

now they suffer at the hands of themselves



further reference

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

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.

You said, "The Jews/Hebrews came from Jacob's son Judah." No, the Hebrews and the Jews were not the same. And Abraham was a Hebrew. He was referred to as a Hebrew in Gen. 14:

"13One who had escaped came and reported this to Abram the Hebrew." So as I said, Hebrews existed prior to Jews, and not all Hebrews are Jews, although all "Jews" would be Hebrews. Jews is a specific group of Hebrews as I illustrated above.

Here's a good article regarding it.

Huh? Abraham came from Ur. From idol worshippers. He was called out of there by God and in fact was justified by faith long before he circuscised himself and after Issac was born. He was a Gentile. Issac's line of Jacob and his kids became the Jews.

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
reply to post by nenothtu

 

So Chaldees(Southern Sumerian) So from Very Dark to the present day Arab coloured skin my point still stands... He was not ever White.

I don't think anyone is arguing for Him being white.

Why the hell does it matter what color he was.

This kind of idiocy, causes division among believers, Something he didn't want nor would support! Such an ignorant argument for nothing to prove something that changes NOTHING!

Originally posted by Snakedoctorjw
Why the hell does it matter what color he was.

This kind of idiocy, causes division among believers, Something he didn't want nor would support! Such an ignorant argument for nothing to prove something that changes NOTHING!

Ive asked that like 4 times now and can't get an answer.

Is this one of those "jesus egyptians and everyone in the Bible was black and it is a white conspiracy saying otherwise" kind of thread??

Lets say for conversation we did decide that yes they were black... what would that change exactly??