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

Originally posted by shaluach

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.

1. Please do. It's annoying to have you make outrageous claims, and then run for cover when called on them.

2. How does a Christian not believe in their own religion? That seems another of those outrageous claims, and is illogical to boot.

3. I didn't twist anyone's words. You said, flat out, that the Holy Spirit is female. A direct quote:

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.

No "considered", no "thought of as", no "aspect", just a bold faced statement.

Originally posted by MuonSpin

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 @.

He's "sort of" right about ruddy - it just means "reddish", "of a reddish cast" or "of a reddish tint", and can be applied to any color. The business about "Laban" is just smoke. It applies to purity, not color.

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.

Same here. The only reason I'm still in this thread is to help readers not be misled by a man-made agenda which abuses religion and could lead to their confusion.

Originally posted by shaluach

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?

The descendents of JUDAH were Jews, which came from Jacob, and Jacob came crom Issac. Judah was Jacob's firstborn son. And the BIBLE says Abraham came from Ur, (Iraq/Babylon), and that he circumcised himself AFTER Issac was born, not before. Abraham was saved (justified) as a Gentile, he ceremonially became a Hebrew. Like I already said, cutting off the foreskin doean't change a person's DNA. Paul even reminds the people in Romans that Abraham was justified by faith as a gentile. He came from Ur. He was a patriarch, but he was a Gentile, not a Hebrew.

Originally posted by shaluach

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.

No you did not. You brought up why it was important to people who are long dead. Not offered any reason whatsoever why it's of a single bit of significance today to ANYONE. You refuse to answer why this information has any relevance at all. And bringing up the racism of people LONG dead is irrelevant.

Originally posted by shaluach

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.

Actually, I said earlier that skin color apparently IS IMPORTANT to SOME PEOPLE. And we now know who those some people are. To everyone else, skin color is irrelevant and we're made that point repeatedly here. Some people are just racists and think skin color has relevance. But Christ's skin pigmintation had NOTHING to do with His life, death, burial and resurrection. I also said ANY DEPICTION of Christ is a violation of the scriptures and no one is to make or have one and BOTH depictions are not allowed.

I guess words don't mean anything afterall.. hmmm, interesting.

The bible does not describe Jesus in earthly form. Revelations describes his Glorified form, but not the earthly form he took.

Regarding a couple of points raised in this thread:

Both the letter from Publius Lentulus and the letter from Pontius Pilate are considered frauds by experts, the first is considered to have originated in the middle ages and the second around the 4th century.

Regarding the author of the Book of Revelations John of Patmos although he is traditionally identified with the apostle John, this is not a known fact. Early church fathers to modern historians have questioned this and suggested that John of Patmos was a different person from John the apostle. Their reasoning is justifiable, he does not claim to be John the apostle, he did not have a good command of Greek which John the apostle did, and his writing is more overtly Jewish than that of John the apostle.

Logically speaking, considering who he was from a Christian standpoint, if He could walk on water, turn water into wine, and give forth all of the miracles attributed to Him, I think MollyStewart presented a good point on Page 13 of this thread, it would be logical to assume he could alter his appearance to liken himself more closely to those he was teaching. Although there is no biblical or historical mention of this being so, it is a logical assumption.

His outward appearance should not be a source of such heated debate. In the Old Testament one of the 10 commandments handed down to Moses by God specifically stated in Exodus 20 (This excerpt is from the KJV but other versions state the same using less wording, some more, but the point is the same)

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

That being said, the oldest surviving artistic depiction specifically of Christ is from the 6th century and is held in Saint Catherine's Monastery or more specifically "The Holy Monastery of the God-trodden Mount Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery"

The image on their site can be found here:Image on Upper Right side of Page

Originally posted by shaluach
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.

You mean the Ruach ha'Kodesh? Christ calls the Holy Spirit a "He". The Hebrew implies a male. Now Christ is a liar?

Originally posted by shaluach




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.

Start a blog?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Just a little something for you to consider, and it does pertain to the topic in a round about way. There is no such thing as a "Gentile". The Greek NT uses the Greek word 'ethnos' for the Hebrew word 'goyim'. Both have the exact same English translation, which is 'nations, tribes etc'. However, the Greek NT was translated first into Latin, and so the Greek word 'ethnos' was translated by a Latin word with an origin from the Latin gentelisis and the French gentil, both derived from the root stem gens, a Latin word meaning - "A Selected Clan or Race of the same stock," in a collective sense. When the first English translation came out, the translators used the Latin derived word 'Gentiles' instead of the English word nations or tribes or clans.

Hebrew goyim = Greek ethnos = Latin gens = English nations

Here is an example:
There were two nations (goyim) in Rebekah's womb.
There were two Gentiles in Rebekah's womb.
The latter doesn't make sense, does it? But then why does it in the NT? Every single English translator has elected to use 'Gentiles' for the Greek word ETHNOS - which is clearly the origin behind our english word etnic - because of the presumption that Our Father ditched Israel in favour of non-Israelites. It's only because we read with coloured glasses on..... thinking that Gentiles are non-Jews, the same as the translators. It is also behind the "Jews are the chosen people of God" statement. No, Jacob had twelve sons one of which (Judah) is called "Jews" in our Bibles. That is man's definition, when in actuality Paul was an apostle to "the nations", grafting a wild OLIVE tree back into a cultivated OLIVE tree. Who was the wild olive tree - long lost House of Israel who were no longer called Israel. Remember, Ephraim is Our Father's firstborn. 13 tribes....13 apostles....

Ephraim's blessing was to become a "multitude of nations, and Paul discusses the "fullness of the Gentiles".

The OT translations into English use the English word nations, but the NT translations into English use the English word Gentiles for what are equivalent words (Hebrew goyim/Greek ethnos).

I'm hoping that you can see the significance of this in our journey of understanding whom Christ Jesus came to reconcile to the Father. He is the head of the "one stick" which joined the House of Judah to the House Of Israel, breaking down the wall of hostility between the two. Look again at the Samaritan woman by the well... her forefather was Jacob and she was from the House of Israel....

So back to the subject at hand. Jesus came to reunite both Houses, along with aliens, strangers and foreigners who chose to worship the One True God. He didn't come to bring the gospel to Judeans and some other group, He came for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. Thousands of Judeans accepted their Messiah, and thousands of long lost Israelites. He preached the kingdom message to Judea first, then declared their House desolate. The kingdom was then taken from them and given to another who would produce good fruit - those to whom the 'Jews' wondered would He go - to the dispersed House of Israel. What we have today is a church blinded to it's identity as the descendants of Israel, the elect of the faith of Abraham. We have a church preaching a man-made dogma, and a dogma that blinds

Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of soup, and today millions of our kids are selling the God of their forefathers for the love of sin. They want nothing to do with the God of the Jews - yet, they have no idea that the faithful in Christ Jesus are the Israel of God. It is clear that Christ has been overwhelmingly accepted by the forefathers of the western nations throughout history. Africa, Asia, India etc are not known as continents on which Christ flourishes. Why? Despite hundreds of years of evangelism, these continents have only pockets of Christians. We know why - it is the Father that sends one to Jesus. He has mercy on whom He has mercy. This subject matter, once thoroughly understood, can be taken to an extreme like the OP or like white supremists. What neither fail to see is that the majority who hold faith in Jesus are white, but that a sizeable percentage are of other mixed heritages. Jesus was a kinsmen redeemer. God's portion always has been Israel. And therefore why the youth of western nation have been unknowingly led away from Jesus through Balaam's error - leading them away from God through the love of sin.

Just thought I would toss out a little something in regards of that "ruddy" matter, by contributing with a picture of how, according to the People of Kemet(fth tile), the Hebrews looked like;

reply to post by nenothtu


Being a Christian and believing in Christianity are two different things. I believe in Scriptures; not man-made religion. Christianity is not mentioned in the Scriptures at all. Being a Christian merely means being a follower of Christ. So, no, there's nothing illogical about that at all. You are again just attempting to be antagonistic, which has been your whole MO this entire time.

I fault myself for being led astray by you and engaging in unChristian behavior as a result of your poking and pushing. You will not take me off my square again.

Good day and may the Most High bless you.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


You mean the Ruach ha'Kodesh? Christ calls the Holy Spirit a "He". The Hebrew implies a male. Now Christ is a liar?

Wow. Now I'm calling Christ a liar? How dare you, sir! And do some research. The Holy Spirit, yes the Ruach ha'Kadesh, is the same as the Shekina. The Shekina IMPLIES A FEMININE PRESCENCE.

I'm adding you to the list of antagonists that I ignore. Go worship your pagan Cross of Tammuz some more.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I also said ANY DEPICTION of Christ is a violation of the scriptures and no one is to make or have one and BOTH depictions are not allowed.

edit on 15-6-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Your pagan cross is also a violation. Be careful who you point the finger at.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

No you did not. You brought up why it was important to people who are long dead. Not offered any reason whatsoever why it's of a single bit of significance today to ANYONE. You refuse to answer why this information has any relevance at all. And bringing up the racism of people LONG dead is irrelevant.

What? People long dead? I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. Perhaps you just missed all the times. There are almost 300 comments here. I said numerous times that it is important to people who care about HISTORICAL FACT. Go back through and read. Are you implying that only "racist people who are long dead" care about the historicity of the skin color of Jesus? No, you're not. So as I said it's clear that you just ignored/missed the posts where I answered, which is fine. Just next time that happens, don't blatantly lie (bear false witness) against me and say I DIDN'T answer such a question unless you are 100% sure.

reply to post by nenothtu


No but he had a major tan, and was probably similar to what Israeli's look like today. Closer to black then white for sure, no doubt about it.

Originally posted by shaluach
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Being a Christian and believing in Christianity are two different things. I believe in Scriptures; not man-made religion. Christianity is not mentioned in the Scriptures at all. Being a Christian merely means being a follower of Christ. So, no, there's nothing illogical about that at all.

So you claim to "follow" Christ, but ignore his religion? I'm not sure how in the world it works to try to take Christ out of Christianity, keep the leader and chuck the followers, but if you're happy with it, then I'm happy for you.

You are again just attempting to be antagonistic, which has been your whole MO this entire time.

Yeah, I get that way when revisionists attempt to rewrite history for a political agenda. I'd say "sorry 'bout that", but I'm not, so that would be a lie. You wouldn't believe the people I've fought who try to co-opt one symbolic person or another, force him into their mold, and promote an agenda of hate with the "new and improved" version that bears not much if any resemblance to the original. I didn't let white people keep passing that off with religious figures, in the secular realm I opposed the Sandinistas when they tried to co-opt Sandino and remake him into a Marxist , and I'm not about to let this "Black Jesus" mythology go unchallenged, either.

This is not about Jesus' skin color, it's about people trying to kidnap him, force him into their mold, and promote an agenda of hate with that construct. It seems like the only people who aren't trying to co-opt Jesus are the people who actually WERE his own race. I guess it's true, then, that a prophet is never accepted amongst his own people, just as he said. If he had expanded on that, the world could have been saved a world of hurt when the rest started to remake him into their own image - which effort, it appears, continues to this very day.

They don't care about Jesus the man, or his message, they only care about forcing him into their own mold, to be used as a figurehead, a focal point for their agendas. If it were not so, this debate would not even be taking place - people would be concentrating on the message, rather than trying to claim the man for their own use by reinventing his color. Whites did it, now Blacks are doing it, and the message gets lost in the scuffle. When they accept him for who and what he was, and get beyond appearances to his message, I'll revise that thought - not until then.

I fault myself for being led astray by you and engaging in unChristian behavior as a result of your poking and pushing. You will not take me off my square again.

The very existence of this thread is "unChristian". It's every bit as offensive as one that would be titled "Jesus was White!" or "Jesus was Tamil!" or "Jesus was Sungir!" The particular race that people try to remake him into is not the issue - the fact that they are trying to reinvent him AT ALL is the offensive part, and it only makes it worse when they ignore his message in that reinvention.

Fear not, however - I'm not here to "lead you astray". I'm here to keep you from leading OTHERS astray. Whether you personally stay off the rails is not my concern.

Good day and may the Most High bless you.

Likewise.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

I also said ANY DEPICTION of Christ is a violation of the scriptures and no one is to make or have one and BOTH depictions are not allowed.

edit on 15-6-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Your pagan cross is also a violation. Be careful who you point the finger at.

There are no verses in the bible that say anything about a cross not being able to be depicted. It's a Roman execution device. Had Christ been beheaded I might have a sword avatar. I love the cross, the greatest love letter ever written. If there is a cross in heaven right now thdn it would be forbidden by scripture. Just because you own a Bible doesn't mean you get to keep writing verses to it.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


You mean the Ruach ha'Kodesh? Christ calls the Holy Spirit a "He". The Hebrew implies a male. Now Christ is a liar?

Wow. Now I'm calling Christ a liar? How dare you, sir! And do some research. The Holy Spirit, yes the Ruach ha'Kadesh, is the same as the Shekina. The Shekina IMPLIES A FEMININE PRESCENCE.

I'm adding you to the list of antagonists that I ignore. Go worship your pagan Cross of Tammuz some more.

1. The cross of Tammuz, or Tau is shaped like a capital "T". /facepalm
2. I don't worship the Roman cross, it's a rememberance to what Christ accomplished there. No different than the memorial of rememberance of the bread and wine. I've never bowed to or offered prayers to a Roman or Tau cross. Absurd.
3. Christ refers to the Holy Spirit as a "He". So for you to claim it's a "she" is calling Christ a liar by default.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

No you did not. You brought up why it was important to people who are long dead. Not offered any reason whatsoever why it's of a single bit of significance today to ANYONE. You refuse to answer why this information has any relevance at all. And bringing up the racism of people LONG dead is irrelevant.

What? People long dead? I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. Perhaps you just missed all the times. There are almost 300 comments here. I said numerous times that it is important to people who care about HISTORICAL FACT. Go back through and read. Are you implying that only "racist people who are long dead" care about the historicity of the skin color of Jesus? No, you're not. So as I said it's clear that you just ignored/missed the posts where I answered, which is fine. Just next time that happens, don't blatantly lie (bear false witness) against me and say I DIDN'T answer such a question unless you are 100% sure.

Go back. You ranted about what people in the long past thought or depicted when it came to Christ. What difference does it make today? How does His skin color affect what He did on the cross??

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by nenothtu

 

No but he had a major tan, and was probably similar to what Israeli's look like today. Closer to black then white for sure, no doubt about it.

That he was neither Black nor White, but more like the modern Israelis and Arabs is what I've been saying all along. How "close" his hue falls to one or the other is of no significance, because he is NOT either of those.

So all of "the Brown people" are the same to you? They're all "not White", right?

Repeat after me:

"close" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

You know, Jessee Jackson tried to get me into his "Rainbow Coalition" way back in 1992, as I'm a "person of color". I didn't care to get all lumped in with folks of opposing ideologies because of a matter of lumping colors together under an artificial umbrella back then, and I surely don't want Jesus to get tripped into the same trap now. He has a lot more significance in the world than I do, and it's not linked to his race.

You see, Jessee Jackson, in common with the Black Jesus folks, and the White Jesus folks for that matter, tried to disguise an inimical message merely by slapping a friendly face on it, then painting it a new color.

Marketing is for Madison Avenue, not religion.