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

reply to post by votan


A lot to Eastern European orthodox believers. But this argument is silly, skin color doesn't really matter, bone and cranial structure do, and he was Caucasoid.

Originally posted by votan
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??

It appears so. But the veterans here won't let it get to second base.

You can see Jesus today if you have an open mind. The place you have to look is the sky. Jesus is a euphemism for the sun. Allthe religion is based off of the natural universe.

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.

No it's not.

reply to post by shaluach


I'm not debating weather he is white or not... I don't even believe the man you revere so much existed... And by that, I mean the character portrayed in the bible... There is a slight chance a man did exist that the new testament writers used as a template... But that man did NOT raise the dead... Unlike this Jesus character...Show me reference to that little wonder, outside of the bible....

Now for the man the new testament might be based on, well, he would obviously be of Middle Eastern origin... That is a no brainer... If he was white with blue eyes, your bible would mention that... Because that would be noteworthy... Like a Rabbi who is not married....

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


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.

Now you are denying what Scriptures say? Abraham was a Hebrew. Hebrew and Jew are not the same thing. Hebrews existed BEFORE the Jews did. Jews came later. Not all Hebrews are Jews, although all Jews are Hebrews. Again, Jew comes from Judah which is one of the 12 Tribes of Israel who was Jacob who was the son of Isaac the Hebrew who was the son of Abraham the Hebrew.

I am not denying that descendents of Jacob became known as Jews, but I am disputing your claim that all of the children of Jacob were Jews. That's just not true. All of the descendents of Jacob were ISRAELITES.

Do I need to repeat yet again how the term Jew came to be?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

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.

You need to go back through the thread. Quite a few people argued that he was White.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

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.

Not true. I answered you each time about the importance of it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by votan
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??

It appears so. But the veterans here won't let it get to second base.

So what if it is? Doesn't mean it's not true. And your second sentence is extremely arrogant. You aren't preventing anything. I just refuse to waste my time engaging in naysayers who invent lies to promote the falsehood of a White Jesus, or as a few people referred to him as "Caucasoid." *eyeroll*

You have done nothing to prevent it from going to "second base." All you do is keep crying that his skin color is "irrelevant" which is 100% false. Skin color IS relevant for historicity. Again, when people have their pictures of White Jesus EVERYWHERE even to this day, no one says it's irrelevant. Only when him being portrayed as a person of color, especially Black, it becomes irrelevant. Says a lot about people. It really does.

Originally posted by nenothtu


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.

Deuteronomy 28, from verse 25 to the end of the chapter accurately describes the enslavement of the African people and their being taken to the "America" and their time there as slaves. It's obviously too long to do verse by verse, but pick any verse and I'll address it.

Hmmmm, interesting discourse here, what color skin was Jesus? Well, some in Middle East are Very white, look at Saudi Arabia, well, ok that's the women, Vitamin D def isn't it? Ancient pics or reliefs of Egyptians, I think they look more like Asian, seriously, and the whole thing with the black jet straight hair...wondered about that one.

But all in all, to me it doesn't matter, I don't believe he looked like the poster boy of the Euro-English look, though I do know by readings that there were Celts in that region [during later B.C./A.D.], and who knows what the Kassites looked like, etc., from earlier B.C., just one example...my point being, that it would really be impossible to know what Jesus or any one outside of Roman descent looked like, apart from the relief depictions we have today of that ancient world, because of the many wars [which included rapes] and the enslavement of women [which always included rape] and the temple forced prostitution [which always included rape] So, like common sense would tell us, that we simply have no idea really, what the general people looked like,

even the Roman depictions other than relief that we have, such as from paintings, many are of Eurocentric and we know they didn't look like that then, the reliefs show otherwise. IF we look at history and not scripture, or take scripture from a poetic sense rather than a literal [and in my opinion it was poetic/literature, not literal] from the voice of the oppressed [later taken, hijacked and used by the oppressors which is why we do have confusing accounts today], then we can safely assume that yes, it's highly possible that Jesus could have been black.

I mean it's hard to say really, even the Northern regions of Africa, changed, there was invasions and slavery and rapes and so, we don't even know what many African tribes looked like then, IF you take a look at the depictions we Do have of ancient Benin, the kings of old, they don't look anything like we would picture today. Because of so many variables,

So, that said, the whole thing with skin color, you know all in all, it's the color of DIRT, because that's what we revert too, and if you look at DIRT around the earth, including SAND, well, heck

Jesus could have been Purple for all we know. Or peach, or pink, or blue, or jet black, or sandy brown, or beige, or cream white...or red. I do know the dirt-clay around the Med is red clay, some orange. That's both dirt in farming and sand near beaches...

because of mineral changes, etc., that's what makes the sand in Carmel CA purple, and you know they Did have different diets, not the pollution we have today, so even their mineral composition was different than what it is today [study vitamin bottles, what's in Dirt is in our bodies].

So maybe Jesus was purple, better yet, maybe the Real shocker will be, we'll all be in the white light of space and all the creatures will be standing and then, Wow, here SHE comes, God, and every misogynist word will be gulp, gulp, swallowed right then and there...now wouldn't THAT BE A SHOCKER! OR maybe God is like a plant that has both male-female parts, who knows,

I prefer to see Jesus as many colors, like the earth...I do think that the whitewashing is harmful, in that it was an Erasure just like patriarchy erased the Female in life [and we are paying That price dearly today, look at the mining gaping rape holes of Mother Earth, the shortage of drinking Water/drying up of Euphrates etc., yea enjoy drinking that OIL and eating those Military tanks, hmmmmmyum yum, yes, ah,

going back to the non-literal, there is so many references IN the Bible that could very well be taken as metaphors of Nature, yes, in Both Testaments. It was after all, after the animals were created that it says, LET US create man in our image...all prior To that, it says 'and God said let there be'

and we Do have all the traits of both earth and animals, we jump like Kangaroos, we hear and repeat sounds just like birds [how do we know that it wasn't Animals that taught us to talk, ever see a baby, he/she learns by what they hear, first word is dada, mmmma, ever listen to animals, rooooar sounds like RA, ooo ooo like Apes do or caw, caw, like the ravens or coo coo like the doves, I mean, HOW do we know, really? WE think humans are the beginning but HOW do we know, the least will be last that it wasn't the wind, animals that taught Humans? We don't...now not saying we should worship them [and it goes into this in book of Romans] BUT it doesn't say we should just dismiss their role either,

and maybe that was the point...to evolve into seeing All of it, and then finding Balance. Well anyway, typing here out of the box so to speak, but here's all this debate, over what color Jesus was...and well, it's missing the point isn't it? That's the whole problem with Erasure, I think this is a lesson we could learn from the Native Indians, we NEED all color to survive, con't

con't....the black dirt, without it we would not live, so much agriculture depends on rich, black dirt, then there is coal and Earth has it there for a reason...[funny in Genesis it talks about the gold and onyx, onyx is pure dark black]

then there is the red clay dirt, dark brown like where peat grows, etc etc etc...

matadornetwork.com...

second photo, Jesus could be GREEN for all we know, I mean, yea...Sand, hourglass, TIME,

point being, and not to sound all new ager here [because I am not, I've actually given these topics a lot of thought and research but it's late and my mind is just not in the articulate mode right now], that while yes, race and skin color IS important, because of the decades of erasure and harm that has been done, especially via religion, no argument from me there,

I think, the one point that this Entire discourse has missed, is that it never was the skin color of Jesus that mattered in regards to salvation,

it was THE COLOR OF BLOOD

AND LAST I CHECKED...

BLOOD WAS RED, AND WE ALL HAVE THAT COLOR, BLACK, RED, BROWN, BEIGE, ALBINO , YELLOW, ETC.,

THE COLOR IS RED.

and when we can actually SEE THAT, maybe then, the wars justified by religions and man's interpretation of,

will End.

Because it's debates like these, that have lead to genocides and witch hunts and colonizations and the whole mess....birds come in all colors, shapes, and sizes,

BUT THEY SHARE THE SAME SKY.

Ya think, we in 2012, could learn to pay attention, to what is right in front of our faces, worldwide, NATURE. and She, like Wisdom, screams it from every corner....
the only color that Matters, no matter what the race,

is

RED

blood.

reply to post by ThreeBears


Well one thing that Western Christianity™ doesn't like to talk about is the fact that the Holy Spirit, the Shekina, the prescence of the Most High is FEMALE.

Originally posted by shaluach
Deuteronomy 28, from verse 25 to the end of the chapter accurately describes the enslavement of the African people and their being taken to the "America" and their time there as slaves. It's obviously too long to do verse by verse, but pick any verse and I'll address it.

No.

Here you said:

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).

"fulfills the Deuteronomy 28 prophecy"... "fits the bill 100%"... these indicate, as I believe too, that you don't get to pick and choose. Either the whole prophecy, "100%", or none.

and here you said:

They don't fulfill the entire prophecy of Deut. 28. I want you to apply the entire prophecy to "your people." Show me how it matches up. I guarantee that it doesn't.

"fulfill the entire prophecy"... "apply the entire prophecy"... same as above.

But NOW you want to limit it to verses selected in an effort to support your contention, and exclude the ones - from the same prophecy! - that refute it..

No. The way this works is I select ANY verse in the prophecy. If the prophecy is fulfilled as you contend, then it is fulfilled as you contend, and you should have no problem correlating any verse of it with your contention.

That's because Deut. 28:1-19 don't deal with the prophecy of enslavement. Verses 1-19 just deal with the blessings of obedeince and the warning of the curse of disobedience. You don't get into the actual prophecy part until verse 20 (My mistake saying 25). So as I said it fits 100%. But hey if you don't want to do it, then cool. Our discussion is over.

reply to post by shaluach


You are attempting to separate the enslavement from the curse of disobedience, as if slavery were not a part of the curse? How exactly does that work, to chop up a single prophecy into three separate prophecies?

It's all one prophecy. ALL of it should fit, or NONE of it does.

reply to post by nenothtu


Are you going to do it or not? If not then this discussion is over. I'm seriously done playing games with you. It's beyond annoying now.

Oh and you are wrong proclaiming that all of it fits or NONE of it does. Even if one verse didn't fit, that wouldn't mean the other 60 don't. That's an absurd claim to make.

Originally posted by shaluach
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Are you going to do it or not? If not then this discussion is over. I'm seriously done playing games with you. It's beyond annoying now.

Not. You don't get to pick and choose what you think can be wedged into your argument. Either the prophecy applies, or it does not. I can make hand-picked parts of nearly anything fit nearly anything else, and you can too - hence your insistence on chopping up one prophecy into many separate ones, so that you can trash the pieces that don't fit.

Oh and you are wrong proclaiming that all of it fits or NONE of it does. Even if one verse didn't fit, that wouldn't mean the other 60 don't. That's an absurd claim to make.

Then your god does not mean what he says or say what he means. That goes hand in hand with your contention that not only is the Holy Spirit separate from God, but it's even a different gender - as if spirit has any gender! There is only one God, and that God is neither "he" nor "she". It is spirit, genderless. God has no need of gender.

Seriously - if you're not a Christian, I'm not sure why it even matters to you what race Jesus was.

ETA: it's not an issue of whether all of 60 little pieces fit, and one doesn't - it's an issue of whether or not an entire prophecy fits as a whole prophecy. Remember, as I quoted above, it was YOU who insisted on "100%" and "entire" to begin with, and I just happen to agree with that.

1. I am not saying the Holy Spirit is separate from God. God has no gender. Just pointing out how the Shekina is considered a FEMININE aspect of the Most High, like how the Father is considered a MASCULINE. You love to twist people's words. Oh how I wish this site was like Facebook so I could block an obvious troll like you. Instead, I'll go back to what I was doing which was just ignoring you.
2. I am a Christian. I just don't believe in CHRISTIANITY.

NIV translation of Daniel 7 may be mistranslated, I don't know. You may be right about "ruddy". I think it depends what dictionary you're looking @.

However, if you look @ Revelations 1:12-15, which is a near mirror image of the Daniel 7, Jesus’ hair is described as being "white as wool" in all versions from King James to NIV, from Young’s Literal to the Complete Jewish Bible.

Still, this depiction of Jesus is prophetic in nature. I don’t believe it relates in any way to the ethnicity of his human flesh.

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I am simply trying to illustrate the proper understanding of the text so that others are not confused or unintentionally misled by man-made agendas.