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

reply to post by Nightchild


And as a final note, Nightchild, I found this:

The Hebrew word used to describe David as Ruddy is the same Hebrew word used to describe Esau as Red. This is the Hebrew word Admony Pronounce Ad-Mo_nee, it's number 132 in the Strong's concordance. The word means red or reddish. Both King David and Esau were Hebrews, scripture tells us the Hebrews are and were a black skinned nation. So how do these two Hebrews get associated with being white skinned Europeans? What does it mean by describing them as red?

Admonee / ruddy has nothing at all to do with white skin, the word for white skin in Hebrew is laban, it means white or becoming white. Laban is used in Exodus 4: where Yah tells Moses to put his hand into his bosom, and it turns white as Snow. Laban is also used to describe Moses sister Miriam when Yah struck her with Leprosy and turned her entire body white (Numbers 12). It's used once again to describe Gheazi being stricken with Leprosy and having his skin turn white in 2nd kings 5:27.

Never once when it mentions Israelites being turned white with Leprosy, does it describe their skin as turning red or ruddy. That's because red and ruddy is not associated with white skin. If the redness of David and Esau were associated with white skin, the word laban would have been used.

Source

Originally posted by shaluach


And reference back to DANIEL where it says his hair was like wool, not white like wool. So we know that that means that Yehoshuah had a thick, kinky hair and that when he returns it will be white in color. So, no, that doesn't help at all. It's in fact completely irrelevant.

Oh, I see. Well, let's see what Daniel 7 says, then;

I beheld till the thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool

Oops, it says the same. Bummer.

Ah well, reminds me of an editor that tried to erase the "White" stuff from that very same line, on Wikipedia, so that it would seem to say that Jesus had Afro-hair, but was lectured and had his edit reverted as the sources simply do not say that. That didn't happen to be you, was it?

Originally posted by shaluach
reply to post by Nightchild

 

And as a final note, Nightchild, I found this:

The Hebrew word used to describe David as Ruddy is the same Hebrew word used to describe Esau as Red. This is the Hebrew word Admony Pronounce Ad-Mo_nee, it's number 132 in the Strong's concordance. The word means red or reddish. Both King David and Esau were Hebrews, scripture tells us the Hebrews are and were a black skinned nation. So how do these two Hebrews get associated with being white skinned Europeans? What does it mean by describing them as red?

Admonee / ruddy has nothing at all to do with white skin, the word for white skin in Hebrew is laban, it means white or becoming white. Laban is used in Exodus 4: where Yah tells Moses to put his hand into his bosom, and it turns white as Snow. Laban is also used to describe Moses sister Miriam when Yah struck her with Leprosy and turned her entire body white (Numbers 12). It's used once again to describe Gheazi being stricken with Leprosy and having his skin turn white in 2nd kings 5:27.

Never once when it mentions Israelites being turned white with Leprosy, does it describe their skin as turning red or ruddy. That's because red and ruddy is not associated with white skin. If the redness of David and Esau were associated with white skin, the word laban would have been used.

Source

edit on 6/13/2012 by shaluach because: (no reason given)

Here, for you;

Red hair is also fairly common amongst the Ashkenazi Jewish populations, possibly because of the influx of European DNA over a period of centuries, or in the original founding of their communities in Europe,[15] although both Esau and David are described in the Bible as red-haired. In European culture, prior to the 20th century, red hair was often seen as a stereotypically Jewish trait: during the Spanish Inquisition, all those with red hair were identified as Jewish.[16] In Italy, red hair was associated with Italian Jews, and Judas was traditionally depicted as red-haired in Italian and Spanish art.[17] Writers from Shakespeare to Dickens would identify Jewish characters by giving them red hair.[18] The stereotype that red hair is Jewish remains in parts of Eastern Europe and Russia.

en.wikipedia.org...

Seems that you have fallen for the following fluffballs;

Black Hebrew Israelites (also Black Hebrews, African Hebrew Israelites, and Hebrew Israelites) are groups of people mostly of Black African ancestry situated mainly in the United States who believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites. Black Hebrews adhere in varying degrees to the religious beliefs and practices of mainstream Judaism. They are generally not accepted as Jews by the greater Jewish community, and many Black Hebrews consider themselves — and not mainstream Jews — to be the only authentic descendants of the ancient Israelites. Many choose to self-identify as Hebrew Israelites or Black Hebrews rather than as Jews

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Nightchild


Oh, I see. Well, let's see what Daniel 7 says, then;

I beheld till the thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool

Oops, it says the same. Bummer.

No it doesn't. It doesn't say that his hair is white! It says that his garments are white and that his hair is like pure wool. It doesn't say WHITE like pure wool. Now you are just being straight-up dishonest.

Originally posted by Nightchild

Ah well, reminds me of an editor that tried to erase the "White" stuff from that very same line, on Wikipedia, so that it would seem to say that Jesus had Afro-hair, but was lectured and had his edit reverted as the sources simply do not say that. That didn't happen to be you, was it?

Uh, no that wasn't me. And yes he did have "Afro-hair."

Originally posted by Nightchild
Here, for you;

Red hair is also fairly common amongst the Ashkenazi Jewish populations, possibly because of the influx of European DNA over a period of centuries, or in the original founding of their communities in Europe,[15] although both Esau and David are described in the Bible as red-haired. In European culture, prior to the 20th century, red hair was often seen as a stereotypically Jewish trait: during the Spanish Inquisition, all those with red hair were identified as Jewish.[16] In Italy, red hair was associated with Italian Jews, and Judas was traditionally depicted as red-haired in Italian and Spanish art.[17] Writers from Shakespeare to Dickens would identify Jewish characters by giving them red hair.[18] The stereotype that red hair is Jewish remains in parts of Eastern Europe and Russia.

en.wikipedia.org...

No, they are not described as red-haired. They are described as ruddy. More accurately they are described as "admoni"

Originally posted by Nightchild
Seems that you have fallen for the following fluffballs;

1. Ad hominem personal attack
2. Wrong. I follow Scripture. The source where I find evidence to back up the Scriptural claims is irrelevant. My claims are backed up regardless.
3. I do know some Hebrew Israelites personally though.
4. I don't care if they are accepted as Jews by the "greater Jewish community"
5. None of this changes the Scriptural fact that the original Hebrews were Black.
6. What are "fluffballs"? Sounds like a racist comment to me.

Originally posted by shaluach

No it doesn't. It doesn't say that his hair is white! It says that his garments are white and that his hair is like pure wool. It doesn't say WHITE like pure wool. Now you are just being straight-up dishonest.

Daniel 7: www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

1. Ad hominem personal attack

Ad Hominem where, exactly? Care to point it out?

2. Wrong. I follow Scripture. The source where I find evidence to back up the Scriptural claims is irrelevant. My claims are backed up regardless.

If the sources where you find your "evidence is irrelevant, then why reject the sources that were claimed to be actual eyewitness accounts of how he looked, while embracing those that are not only very vagely referring to a spiritual vision, but also written long after, and propagate these as being irrefutable evidence?
Seems outlandishly biased to me.

Let's suppose it was the other way around, that those texts you judge as being "nvalid" would instead have described him as being black, while your "valid" sources instead had described him as blue-eyed, then you would turn it around the other way.
You know it, and I know it. You might just aswell admit that the only sources you consider "valid" are those that says what you want them to say, (even when they in reality don't).

3. I do know some Hebrew Israelites personally though.
4. I don't care if they are accepted as Jews by the "greater Jewish community"

Well, that alls fine and dandy but nonetheless, probably that "greater Jewish community", on the other hand, do indeed care, as the Jewish religion are extremely "racist" in its rules and commandments on who/m to count as a Jew or not, including on how to hold the bloodline "clean".
According to the mainstream Jewish Community, the previously mentioned group would be considered "Goyims".

5. None of this changes the Scriptural fact that the original Hebrews were Black.

No such facts exists, sorry. The ancient Hebrews were not of a uniform apparence but were mixed, just like the Egyptians. Some where what would be called black, while others definitely weren't.
For instance, this is how the ancient Egyptians depicted Southwest Asians living in the region inhabited by the Hebrews:


Noticing something?

6. What are "fluffballs"? Sounds like a racist comment to me.

"Fluffball"= Nuthead. The term have nothing to do with race or apparence whatsoever.

Daniel 7 isn't the same as Revelation 1. Daniel 7 does not say his hair was white. It says his hair was like pure wool. It says nothing about color. And the Hebrews were Black. The evidence is in the Scriptures.

9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

- Daniel 7

reply to post by shaluach

God warned man of the false idols.
The day the painter drew that picture, and the day the people started believing in it, was the day you humans let a demon upon your realm.

That picture is the cause of all sin. Why? Because it is false,that picture is the gate way for all that is not alive to come upon your realm of living and control the people that acually believe in this false idol.

That picture of Jesus Christ is nothing but the devil in disguise, that is why the christen populace act the way they do, they are possessed by the evilness that was conjured from that picture.

Nobody cares if Jesus was black or white, and its 1 of the 1000 reasons why god strictly said do not worship false idols.
Zechariah 10:2

For the idols[a] speak delusion;
The diviners envision lies,
And tell false dreams;
They comfort in vain.
Therefore the people wend their way like sheep;
They are in trouble because there is no shepherd

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them.

reply to post by LastProphet527


Well said, LastProphet!

Originally posted by shaluach
Do not be deceived by these false idols!

I think many are not to design/show GOD(s) image because it can be mistaken/misrepresented for all any on EA*RTH know he could be related to a non EA*RTH bloodlines hence his abilities. The SHELL or ENVIRONMENT SUIT HE WORE THE COLOR SHOULD NOT MATTER ITS THE ULTRADIMENSIONAL/HYPERBEING MANY CANNOT SEE... nor* HIS RELATIONS or potential COSMIC FAMILY REMEMBER HE HAS lived and died and STILL LIVES these are not typical abilities within the normal human collective.

NAMASTE*******
LOVE LIGHT ETERNIA

Originally posted by shaluach
reply to post by LastProphet527

 

Well said, LastProphet!

I Like your thread, so I gave you a star on all your comments, I never give out flags, keep up the good work and stop being so frustrated, loll.

I feel sorry for all of you bickering over things like skin colour.

Don't you mean the ''imposter'' on the right?
The description given clearly describes as white.Oh and the ''wool'' is the colour,not the texture.

Christ,who did not exist by the way,was said to have been born in a land where it might as well of been Ireland for the amount of white skinned,freckled people that lived there.

Remember too that Christianity was brought about to take over Europe for Jewish control,hence why the god figures are white.

Christ,had he existed,would of been white.

reply to post by shaluach


You mean you read that they were black and you felt good thinking about it,so it must of been true.Its not a fact.

Its funny that the Israelites were described as being light skinned(think Iranian)and here you are claiming that they were black?

Which Afrocentric site did you get this rubbish from anyway?

Originally posted by Viking9019
Don't you mean the ''imposter'' on the right?
The description given clearly describes as white.Oh and the ''wool'' is the colour,not the texture.

Christ,who did not exist by the way,was said to have been born in a land where it might as well of been Ireland for the amount of white skinned,freckled people that lived there.

Remember too that Christianity was brought about to take over Europe for Jewish control,hence why the god figures are white.

Christ,had he existed,would of been white.

edit on 13/6/12 by Viking9019 because: (no reason given)

Wrong again. In Daniel 7 it says nothing about color. It refers to texture. If you don't think ha'Mashiach even existed then why even weigh in? Oh that's right. Another person on this site who wants to ridicule others beliefs. Shocking.

And the Hebrews of Palestine were not White and freckled. The Romans may have been; the Hebrews were not. There is no basis for you to claim he would have been White. But go ahead promoting that European White Power lie.

Originally posted by Viking9019
reply to post by shaluach

 

You mean you read that they were black and you felt good thinking about it,so it must of been true.Its not a fact.

Its funny that the Israelites were described as being light skinned(think Iranian)and here you are claiming that they were black?

Which Afrocentric site did you get this rubbish from anyway?

None. I get my info from Scriptures. But continue to laugh and be a condescending troll. Your lies have no power over the truth that the Most High provides. We'll see who is laughing in the end.

reply to post by Nightchild


Lets not forget that Afrocentrics see everything in black and white.They think like children and dark skin,any dark skin,whether it be light brown,has to be black for them.

The Egyptians depicted themselves as being light skinned as well as dark skinned,but with Middle Eastern facial features and not black(they were the slaves).

These fools have also claimed to be the original of the following:
Egyptians
Vikings
Anglo Saxons
Japanese
Sumerians
Native American
Mayan
Romans
Greeks

The list is endless.These people feel like they lack a history to be proud of so they try and claim the history of others.Very sad.

Let them have their fun though.Bless them.

reply to post by shaluach


Why is skin color important to you? Who cares what color Christ's skin is? Does it change what He did on the cross 2,000 years ago? There is no Jew or Gentile, male or female in Christ and there will be people from all tribes, nations and cultures in heaven. Who cares if He is caucasian, hispanic, asian, or african? Why are you all hung up on skin color???

BOTH images in the OP are wrong, we are specifically told not to have any images of God or anything in heaven.

Originally posted by Viking9019
reply to post by Nightchild

 

Lets not forget that Afrocentrics see everything in black and white.They think like children and dark skin,any dark skin,whether it be brown,has to be black for them.

Pot, meet kettle. You are the one proclaiming he was 100% White. So while you throw around terms like "Afrocentric" then clearly you are Eurocentric.

Originally posted by Viking9019
The Egyptians depicted themselves as being light skinned as well as dark skinned,but with Middle Eastern facial features and not black(they were the slaves).

That's not true at all. I've seen many sculptures of Egyptians by Egyptians in books about Egypt and they had thick lips and broad noses.

Despite what people like you like to claim, the Egyptians were Black and depicted themselves as such. Egypt is part of Africa.

reply to post by shaluach

Question: Are you yourself darker skinned?



Also, as blasphemous as this may sound, Jesus was probably half Roman, which could easily have resulted in him being more fair both in terms of skin and hair.

reply to post by Viking9019


My Q is..

What the Hell does it matter??? How does His skin color change anyone's salvation?? I mean we might as well argue if His cross was made of hickory or cedar wood!!!

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by shaluach

 

Why is skin color important to you? Who cares what color Christ's skin is? Does it change what He did on the cross 2,000 years ago? There is no Jew or Gentile, male or female in Christ and there will be people from all tribes, nations and cultures in heaven. Who cares if He is caucasian, hispanic, asian, or african? Why are you all hung up on skin color???

BOTH images in the OP are wrong, we are specifically told not to have any images of God or anything in heaven.

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

Again, for CENTURIES the lie was promulgated that Jesus was White, thus putting White people closer to the Most High. And countless people were killed and enslaved in the name of this White Jesus imposter.

I am not "hung up on" what color his skin was; I care about historical FACT. It does not change his message, but it's so funny how when Jesus was portrayed as White, no one said anything. The minute he is portrayed as anything other than White, it's "Who cares what color he was." It's hypocrisy to the fullest extent. Why aren't you asking the "White Jesus" defenders why they are "hung up on" what color his skin was? Hmmmm?

And no both images aren't wrong. Just because the Scriptures say not to make graven images does not mean that an accurate portrayal of someone is false.

BTW, you are so against idols and graven images why do you have one in your avatar? You are promoting the pagan Cross of Tammuz. You are engaging in idolatry.