WHY did White people go through it and whitewash all the images in it from Black to White? simple question. - - - Updated - - - WHO is this guy? Certainly not Yeshua by no stretch of the imagination.
These are the types of questions the OP in this thread ->> http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...ical-literalists-refuse-answer-questions.html won't answer.
As noted elsewhere, he asks vague "questions" with undefined terms, and then lies and calls names when asked to clarify.
If the bible is fake why can I buy one in a store? Now, whether or not the information contained within is based in reality or not is another question entirely. And if your assertion is that because white people changed it in some way to benefit themselves that it has validity then that gives a whole new perspective to our entire history.
lol, I don't really get the point of this thread. Is this supposed to be an argument for the legitimacy of the Bible? I can't really tell, because no answer to this question help such an argument.
Lol what? I assume what you're bumbling around trying and failing to say is that white people have tended to depict Jesus as being white. Now, what bizarre logic led you to think that this fact has any bearing whatever on the legitimacy of the actual words in the bible, I would be interested to know.
Most of the images came out of the renaissance era done in europe, which is mostly white. I guess they couldn't do portraits 2000 yrs ago, so we'd know what Jesus looked like?
Nonsense. not when scriptures denote the skin tone of the people it talks about. All races are discussed in the Bible. So they definitely didn't go in and deliberately whitewash all the images in the bible for THAT reason. Try again. - - - Updated - - - Seriously?
2000 years ago jesus was a nobody. it was only after he died and was gone long enough that the claims about what / who he was gained some traction. - - - Updated - - - definitely not a obi wan
Well, for one, Jesus was almost certainly not black. As a Levantine Jew, he would have looked like an Arab or one of the modern Samaritans. However, most ethnic groups appropriate the image of Jesus and the saints to look as they do. Native American Jesus Indian Jesus Black Jesus And I could continue, if you really want. Point is that groups will turn Jesus' ethnicity into their own.
My guess is the first pictures of him were very badly drawn, hardly including the range of colours an artist would need to accurately depict him. Therefore, in order to make pictures more detailed than the originals, they had to make a few things up. They ended up choosing traits they saw around them and as usual when no flaws have been mentioned, weirdly flawless.
You need to try again. Whites depict him as white. Blacks depict his as black. Asians depict him as asian. Check the global depictions of Jesus and you will see this trend everywhere. So what point were you trying to make? Nobody gets it. - - - Updated - - - My point exactly. You just made it better.
This is what I read some years ago. Jesus would have been a man of 'Middle Eastern" appearance. During the Crusades, is image was altered to look more 'European' because the people leading the Crusade thought soldiers etc wouldn't harm anyone who looked like a Middle Eastern Jesus. Dunno..
This seems logical. If the individual (Jesus) was from the Middle East, then it stands to reason he would have the physical characteristics of a Middle Eastern individual, and not someone from an Anglo-Celtic region, as displayed by the Christian church. The Christian churchs lies and deceptions never stops.
So what is the text there? Holy Tablets? I sharpened the image, could read a bit of it, did a search. Got only one result on Google, but my computer said it was a harmful website, wouldn't connect. Should I be superstitious or what?