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

It always makes me laugh how modern Christians assume he would have been white.

Have you ever seen someone from the Middle East that looks white? I haven't. If he was from Israel he probably would have had dark skin, dark eyes and black curly hair. Common sense.

reply to post by autowrench

Ever seen what men who are born in the Middle East look like? Black skin and black hair and kinky beard. Not tall, tanned, brown on brown and European.

Not all.

In fact depending on what part of the Middle East you're talking about you're completely wrong. Remember Indo-European? When everyone in Europe to Iran to India spoke one language?

reply to post by shaluach


It is a given that he was not white as we know white today. Should this matter? In my opinion not, had it not been that the white image of him was used to "prove" to the dumb Europeans that they were superior to others because they were dumb enough to believe skin color mattered. So in fact, his image was used to deceive people into a false sense of superiority, which if you look at some of the comments in this thread - you will find some of those dumb Europeans still exist after hundreds of years, whom still have difficulty letting go of their false sense of superiority.

I really do have to laugh out loud when I see someone with a tattoo of "white Jesus". Tickles me funny bone.

Skin color changes nothing about the message or action. Some people can accept this, others have a lot more difficulty seeing their world change - after all, they were so indoctrinated.

More afro-centric tripe once again. Jesus was probably semetic/arabic in appearance for the location and time period. Though it doesn't rule out if he was white or black either, just makes it really unlikely. Sub-saharan blacks that subscribe to afro-centrism take claim to everything in history even though there is NO evidence to support it. And the reason they still haven't been shot down on it all, is because historians are avoiding the race card.

Afro-centrist think everyone on earth that deviates in the slightest from lily white, is in fact a sub-saharan black.

reply to post by wingsfan

More afro-centric tripe once again. Jesus was probably semtic/arabic in appearance for the location and time period.

Actually, after ALL the euro-centric crap day in day out I find it hilarious that afro-centric views are disregarded so soon. What makes you the know-it-all? I've had discussions with professors in anthropology and they couldn't explain how euro-centric views hampered knowledge...in fact, they could only argue from a Euro-centric point of view - which I found ridiculous.

Sub-saharan blacks that subscribe to afro-centrism take claim to everything in history even though there is NO evidence to support it.

Oh now it's sub-saharan...fyi, that's how racist Arabs refer to people with a darker skin hue.

And the reason they still haven't been shot down on it all, is because historians are avoiding the race card.

No, it's because historians are damned well aware that for hundreds of years the euro-centric point of view has muddied up lots of pond. Smart historians are aware enough to understand they've been taught from a Euro-centric point of view(which was waaaaay worse in the past compared to today - think about all the folk in Europe who wanted to conquer the planet, they all had a euro-centric point of view and they didn't shy away from murdering and enslaving to keep believing their nonsense). Of course, not all scientists were backward and we owe it to those who weren't that we've come the little way we have.

Afro-centrist think everyone on earth that deviates in the slightest from lily white, is in fact a sub-saharan black.

You believe that's what they believe.

If you'd like we could all take the same stance towards euro-centrists as you do to Afro-centrists, but if we'd do that you'd cry about how we have it out for you. You would do well to actually read history.

from what i can see on the image, am sure he's far from white. This is how the Ethiopian Orthodox church has been painting him for more than two milliniums

reply to post by shaluach


Hi. I believe the two verses you metioned are both prophetic and figurative description of Jesus.. Still, How Jesus appeared in the flesh as the son of man, he very well may have been dark skinned. I'm akin to beleive he was certainly very tan as the jews of that time have been described. However as to his hair color, I don't know. King David's was described as being "ruddy" which is a red-headed rusty'ish appearance. And Jesus in his Earthly body was of the lineage of David. However, this is neither here nor there. We here on Earth have our earthly appearances and they are relevant only to MAN in trivial Earthly matters. Jesus has opened his arms to ALL people no matter what they look like or where they come from.

Let me just say, whether or not Jesus was black or white here on Earth, I don't beleive it matters in the way we think it does. You have to remember any description of Jesus or God in the Bible glorifies God's agenda, not our own.

Still, the verses you quoted I have pasted below and they describe a different appearance than the verses in your image.

Daniel 7:9
King James Version (KJV)
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 7:9
New International Version (NIV)

9 “As I looked,

“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.

One version says his hair is like "pure wool" and the other says "white like wool". Well, freshly sheered wool, more often than not, is "white". I don't believe for a moment this is referring to his ethnicity. This, I believe refers to his PURITY. Purity has always been associated with the color white. Again, this has nothing to do with human ethnicity or skin color.

Now the 2nd verse in the image, Revelations 1:15 is a near copy of the verse from Daniel. This is not surprising because Daniel was a known prophet and Revlations is a book of Prophecy. Also, if I may, i'll post the verse in a little more context.

Revelations 1:12-15
12 Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

Clearly, this is prophetic.

Personally, I believe we are of many different forms and colors because God is a very loving God. After the tower of Babbel, God scattered us and confused our tongues. Its seems perfectly like God to give man the physical characteristics he needed to thrive in the location and climate he was "scattered" to.

IT is man in his weakness who has the shallow view of "skin color" as a reason for division or weakness or of relative importance in reconciling the Son of the Almighty God with our Earthly agendas..

Originally posted by Anunaki10
Another thing is that according to "A Course in Miracles", and according to the Bible as well, Jesus said it's very important to forgive every people no matter who they are, and if you forgive every people you will be "healed" and avoid bad Karma, the priests all over the world allegedly also says these words. "A Course in Miracles" and the Bible also says that no human being have the right to judge other people, only God have the right to judge human beings, according to "A Course in Miracles" and the Bible.

www.abovetopsecret.com... ATS member 'Murgatroid' posted on Page 14 in this "My little sister gets suspended for conspiracy theorizing...?," thread, about that informations shows that "A Course in Miracles" is a CIA mind controlled program used to damage people's brain. But, question is, is "A Course in Miracles" really CIA mind controlled program used to damage people's brains? I know someone who read the books of "A Course in Miracles", and he says that the "Ego" is trying to lie to us people... So i really don't know what to say about this...

Which i also mentioned on Page 38 in that thread.

Originally posted by shaluach

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.

Actually ancient Egyptians looked much like modern Egyptians (except for the very brief period of the black Pharaohs of Nubia). Therefore if Moses was black he most certainly would not have fit in with Egyptian royal families. In fact some Egyptians were fairly white, and some very black. Moses was not black though, and I could care less if he was, it simply is not historical. Read up on Egyptian history and the Pharoahs.

Originally posted by KnawLick

Originally posted by shaluach

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?

Okay, I didn't know that about Buddah thanks for the knowledge, even if you just had to present it sarcastically.

And your point is nonsensical. The white people used a religious figure that teaches nothing but love and acceptance for your fellow man to enslave and harass people? Show me what passage in the New Testament they could have used to justify such action? Where did Jesus say it was okay to enslave people?

No, these slave owner were just racist and HAPPENED to follow Jesus...

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

It is a good thing you said New Testament, because the Old Testament has plenty to say about the keeping of slaves, particularly, the book of Leviticus. There, God lays down specific laws for slave ownership, and if we are to believe that Jesus was God incarnated upon earth, then logically it follows that Jesus was OK with slavery, be he black or white. True?

who ever Jesus was, black, white or whatever he is, he is now a man held as a God among theists and a historical figure among historians and just another dude among atheists, if not a myth. i believe his reputation precedes his skin color

reply to post by eatbliss


The way we vue slavery now is clearly much differenet than many civilizations did throughout history. Jesus is opposed to slavery or bondage. He came to free man from the bondage and slavery of sin. And based the nature of Jesus and what he preached, clearly he is opposed to slavery from man to man as well. Still, Jesus did not come here to get involved with our politics. He came here for the redemption of mankind through His works. Not ours. I believe Jesus's description of Love gives a very clear indication of what he thinks of slavery. IT is the work of a Christian to love all men, even enemies or slave owners if the Chrstian is a slave. The goal is to Glorify God and help men come to the Light of the Truth. If a man comes to the Light of the Truth, then surely we would see the error in owning slaves. At least in my opinion based on my perception. Perhaps @ that time the error would have been simply treating their slaves better. I don't know. Again the social climate of todays world if VERY different than it has ever been. I think in many ways, including the abolition of slavery, we have come very far and matured very much.

Also, keep in mind the message of Joseph and the coat of many colors. He was sold into slavery by the evil hand of his jealous brothers. God allowed it because it served his purpose at that time. Joseph ended transitioning from a position of slavery to a very elevated position in Egyptian society and even saved them from a great famine.

Also, remember the story of Moses and Israelites being freed from Egypt.

Originally posted by shaluach

Originally posted by RealSpoke
Do you think Jesus cares what race people view him as?

I don't know. As I said to others on this thread, it isn't about the "importance" of what race he was; it's about the importance of historical fact. Again, for hundreds of years when he was portrayed as White it WAS important what color he was. Now when people portray him as anything but White, it suddenly becomes "not important." I take issue with that personally.

But this is the point that you are respectively missing. You claim to understand scripture, so let's start there.

"Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:43-44

Do we agree that those who believe that Yahushua/Jesus lived, died and was resurrected are those whom the Father sent? Yes, I'm aware of many whom call themselves Christians are just as sinful as non-Christians, but the majority do believe, correct?

Take out a world map and circle the nations with large populations of people professing this belief. You will find a very telling answer as to why Yahushua is portrayed as white in these nations - because the largest percentage of Christendom are of Caucasian descent! Having said this, does it prove the colour of His skin? No. But as it's the Father who sends the called to His Son, how else do you explain WHY the majority of those professing Yahushua/Jesus as their Saviour are of Caucasian descent? Wouldn't it therefore be the opposite if Yahushua were black?

Scripture is very clear that aliens, foreigners and strangers would come and join themselves with the Houses of Israel to worship the One True God. Joseph married an Egyptian woman producing their sons Ephraim and Manassah, Ephraim who was prophecied to become a "multitude of nations"...Apostle Paul's "fullness of the Gentiles" because the Latin word Gentiles=nations. Ephraim and Manessah were therefore a mixed multitude. Laban is used in the Afro-centrist beliefs to disprove "white", yet it signifies sin not skin colour. Laban and Lebanon have the same root - laben. Jacob produced flocks and herds with blemishes representing his descendants (Israel) who'd have the same blemishes - SIN.

I know that you claim to want to present the historical fact, but you are not. One look at history shows the populations in which Christianity flourished - the western nations. Our Farher blessed us with the best of everything - peace, prosperity, health, and power - yet as in the days of old Israel, we've become fat, proud, lazy and arrogant - and are ONCE AGAIN FORGETTING HIM. The youth of Israel can't equate the enemies coming against us and the degredations of their societies with the sin that they've descended into because they FORGOT THE GOD OF THEIR FOREFATHERS. This is what "Afro-centrism" tries to further along by stating that Jesus was black.

At the end of the day, Jesus could have been purple skinned for all I care. Why? He came to save those whom His Father sent to Him - you with your mixed heritage and me with my whiteness. But please don't forget this - Jesus is a kinsmen redeemer which means He reunited the House of Judah with the House of Israel under one stick - HIM. And the many lands housing all of these called descendants are obvious. God is able to raise up children from stones if He so desires, and is able to cut off branches if they don't continue in His kindness. Our brethren are those sent to Our Saviour whatever their colour. And as Our Father is spirit, we are to worship in Spirit - and for this simple fact - disregard the supposed skin colour of Jesus and use the Spirit to see your brethren.

Originally posted by shaluach

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!

I remember killing him on Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood

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...

The original Gautama Buddha was a Hindu from India. However there are many "sages" that carry the title "Buddha" or "Awakened One" -- the fat Oriental "Laughing Buddha" (goes by different names, some call him Ho Tei), is more like a Chinese & Japanese folk god of prosperity.

I'm fairly certain, the real "Jesus of Nazareth" was not Black. He was a Jew -- probably with olive skin, dark eyes & hair. Not that it really matters.

It's interesting that some psychics have seen Jesus as fair-skinned & with reddish brown hair -- it's possible. There are European-type people in the MId-east (from ancient times) that migrated from the Balkans. It's possible they inter-married or interbred with the Semitic natives.

Since it's not likely we will ever have proof one way or the other, why not imagine Jesus in a form that pleases you?

Well, I think we can all agree on one thing: Black Jesus would have clearly been a better dancer than White Jesus.

On a serious note, Black or White, Brown or Gold, I still hold his teachings in very high regard, although I do not think of him as "God Incarnate" any more than each of us are tiny individuated sparks of the One Infinite Creator. I consider Jesus as a wanderer, that is, a soul who has ascended past the need for this current paradigm in which we reside, but who had chosen to take a step back so to speak, and incarnate once again on this plane, that he could be of service to us, his brothers and sisters in The One.

A righteous fellow, he.

Originally posted by glen200376
I recentely saw a bbc4 documentry about ancient relics.in it,for the first time in 500 years they opened a relic of one of the disciples,john.it contain his hair and it was bright ginger.dont be so quick to assum everyone except the romans were brown men.

That's very interesting. There are some psychics that have seen Jesus with reddish brown hair and fair skin.

The ancient Jews were not Black.

The ancient Egyptians were a mixed lot -- like the Moors. Mostly Semitic -- especially the upper classes -- some Egyptians had Black "Nubian" blood.

Originally posted by eatbliss

Originally posted by KnawLick

Originally posted by shaluach

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?

Okay, I didn't know that about Buddah thanks for the knowledge, even if you just had to present it sarcastically.

And your point is nonsensical. The white people used a religious figure that teaches nothing but love and acceptance for your fellow man to enslave and harass people? Show me what passage in the New Testament they could have used to justify such action? Where did Jesus say it was okay to enslave people?

No, these slave owner were just racist and HAPPENED to follow Jesus...

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

It is a good thing you said New Testament, because the Old Testament has plenty to say about the keeping of slaves, particularly, the book of Leviticus. There, God lays down specific laws for slave ownership, and if we are to believe that Jesus was God incarnated upon earth, then logically it follows that Jesus was OK with slavery, be he black or white. True?

The law pointed to Christ. Everything.
All Hebrew slaves were to be freed in the SEVENTH YEAR - THE SABBATH - THE SEVENTH DAY OF REST - THE DAY OF CHRIST'S SECOND COMING....Jesus came to set the slaves FREE from bondage, He is the Lord of the Sabbath.

In the same manner as physical circumcision was a shadow of the spiritual circumcision of the heart.

God is spirit - the law was physical and IS SPIRITUAL. On the physical plane, the Israelites could be slaves but had to be set free during the seventh year. On the Spiritual Plane, so "All Israel will be saved".

What men chose to do with slavery was their choice and had nothing to do with scripture. But probably everything to do with Our Father moving around those He would call.

Originally posted by ExquisitExamplE
Well, I think we can all agree on one thing: Black Jesus would have clearly been a better dancer than White Jesus.

On a serious note, Black or White, Brown or Gold, I still hold his teachings in very high regard, although I do not think of him as "God Incarnate" any more than each of us are tiny individuated sparks of the One Infinite Creator. I consider Jesus as a wanderer, that is, a soul who has ascended past the need for this current paradigm in which we reside, but who had chosen to take a step back so to speak, and incarnate once again on this plane, that he could be of service to us, his brothers and sisters in The One.

A righteous fellow, he.

If you hold His "teachings" in such high regard, why can you overlook the meaning of the names of Adam to Noah -
Adam - Man
Seth - Appointed
Enosh – Mortal
Kenan – Sorrow
Mahalalel – The blessed God
Jared – Shall come down
Enoch – Teaching
Methuselah – His death shall bring
Lamech – Despairing
Noah – Comfort and rest

Put those name meanings into a complete sentence and you get: Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow, (but) the blessed God shall come down teaching. His death shall bring (the) despairing comfort and rest

Originally posted by AuranVector
Since it's not likely we will ever have proof one way or the other, why not imagine Jesus in a form that pleases you?

I would, but that may strike to close a similarity to the method used to call forth Gozer the Destructor, and I'd really rather not imagine a 500 ft. tall berobed Nazarene rampaging through downtown New York... On second thought, I'm off to bed! If New York is decimated in the morning, I'll at least know it was beneath the sandaled foot of the almighty.