Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

[Aletheides]

First off let me praise this forum. I've never seen such an entertaining lot on the internet. From spreading hate about Wicca and Goths, and even Unicorns.

You guys have all your bases covered when it comes to hating what needs to be hated.

Personally, with all this organized hate I think you and the Islamic Extremists would make good friends if you can just get over your small differences but I will save that for another topic.

But I would like to cover the topic at hand which is how I found my way to this forum: Was Jesus a Black Man. It looks like the link to my question is #2 in Google for your website: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0302/blackjesus.html

Pastor Deacon Fred ordered that the transcript of the meeting be posted here, so all churchgoers can see how outrageous such a thought is and avoid any repetition of the claim.

So I read the transcript and it looks like all of Pastor Mill's points are completely logical. However, the rebuttals from Deacon Fred, Brother Harry, and Deacon Crockett, are filled with nothing logical at all and are mostly racist jokes:

Deacon Crockett: Pastor, do you really expect us to believe that the Son of God, the most worthy man ever to walk the face of God’s green planet, was colored? What are you going to suggest next? That Osama bin Looney is the second coming? That Madonna is as pure as her namesake? That the Pope is really a Christian?

That the next president of the United States is going to be a black man? Har har har!

Deacon Fred:

So now you’re telling us Abraham and the other prophets were colored? I suppose you also think Noah was one of them and only found out about that ark because he was trying to steal its radio and lured all the animals onto the ark with a block of fatback. And I guess the apostles were the world’s first rap group. Don’t you think that whale would have spit out Jonah a lot sooner than three days?

Mill: We know that Noah’s son, Ham, was a Negro. Jesus descended from a number of Ham’s ancestors, including Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Naomi, Bathsheba and Jezebel.

Ouch. Deacon Fred: 0 Mill: 1

Mill: The bottom line is that there is no description of Jesus’ ethnicity or physical appearance in the Bible. And no one has uncovered any drawings or paintings of Him made while He was alive. The first pictures of Jesus came hundreds of years after His death, by artisans commissioned by the white Roman Catholic Church.

If this can be verified as true, how can anyone with any sense of logical reason argue with it? Curses! Of course I spoke too soon...

Brother Harry: There are also no pictures of Jesus wearing a backwards baseball cap or sporting a brillo pad on his head...

Wow, just wow. Is this guy serious?

....However, we do have pictures drawn by True Christians®, then known as Protestants, many years after the idol-worshipers started drawing Him. And even though these True Christians® didn’t live with Jesus, they were inspired by God to correctly sketch His likeness, much as King James was inspired by God to write the Bible in the way it was supposed to be written. We know all this by faith. Faith, sir, is something that supersedes all your lineages and chronologies and scientific research. If faith can move mountains – it can surely clean up an inferior bloodline in a snap!

As I believe in God, I'm all for faith. But faith is no part of the equation if someone says they were "inspired by God" to do something.

Faith is only required to believe in God, not to buy anothers BS.

[JennyD]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Here's a query for you, Google Scholar . . .

"historical description of Jesus"

Go ahead. Look it up.

Let us know what you find.

[Aletheides]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Here's a query for you, Google Scholar . . .

"historical description of Jesus"

Go ahead. Look it up.

Let us know what you find.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

I found a couple things of interest.

"There is no description of Jesus in the New Testament or in any contemporary source. Yet, in hundreds of icons, paintings, and even coins, there is a common quality that enables us to identify Jesus in works of art. Starting in the sixth century, artistic depictions of Jesus seem inspired or even copied from a single source. "

This would concide with what Mill was saying when he said:

"Mill: The bottom line is that there is no description of Jesus’ ethnicity or physical appearance in the Bible. And no one has uncovered any drawings or paintings of Him made while He was alive. The first pictures of Jesus came hundreds of years after His death, by artisans commissioned by the white Roman Catholic Church."

I have also found a historical description of Jesus by someone called Publius Lentulus:

The following is a historical description of Jesus by Publius Lentulus, governor of Judea, addressed to Tiberius Caesar, emperor of Rome. It was written in Aramaic, on stone and found in an excavated city.

"There lives, at this time, in Judea, a man of singular virtue whose name is Jesus Christ, whom the barbarians esteem as a prophet, but his followers love and adore him as the offspring of the immortal God. He calls back the dead from the graves, and heals all sorts of diseases with a word or a touch.

He is a tall man, and well shaped, of an amiable and reverend aspect; his hair is of a color that can hardly be matched, the color of chestnut full ripe, falling in waves about his shoulders. His forehead high, large and imposing; his cheeks without spot or wrinkle, beautiful with lovely red: his nose and mouth formed with exquisite symmetry; his beard thick and of a color suitable to his hair, reaching below his chin. His eyes bright blue, clear and serene, look innocent, dignified, manly and mature. In proportion of his body, most perfect and captivating, his hands and arms most delectable to behold.

He rebukes with majesty, counsels with mildness, his whole address, whether in word or in deed, being eloquent and grave. No man has ever seen him laugh, yet his manner is exceedingly pleasant; but he has wept in the presence of men. He is temperate, modest and wise; a man, for his extraordinary beauty and divine perfections, surpassing the children of men in every sense."

However, it looks like Publius Lentulus is a completely fictituous person.

[Wide-Open]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

However, it looks like Publius Lentulus is a completely fictituous person.

I hate it when people do that friend. Why people do such stuff is totally beyond me.

[Herr_Doktor Phd.]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

I'll just pull this up from my General True Christian™ Resource Material, it shows a 3rd century dipiction of Jesus, well within a few generations of living eye-witnesses other than the Bible. (As if I should ever need to question that!) But you unbelievers seem to require more and this is clearly a sign of my good nature, gentle patience and general tolerance that I put up with you low lives.



Blonde Jesus, 5,11". 3rd century from the Roman catacombs.

The process of oxidation darkens pigments over time. The pale skin and blond hair has simply darkened over the centuries due to oxygen in the atmosphere mixing with the paint pigments.

[Aletheides]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Thank you for the contribution, even though it was offered with an overly pompous, condescending attitude.

...the earliest depictions of Jews, which date from the 3rd Century, are - as far as can be determined - dark-skinned. “We do seem to have a relatively dark skinned Jesus. In contemporary parlance I think the safest thing is to talk about Jesus as ‘a man of colour’.” Source: BBC News

The New Nation takes it further: "Ethiopian Christianity, which pre-dates European Christianity, always depicts Christ as an African and it generally agreed that people of the region where Jesus came from looked nothing like Boris Johnson," the paper says. As light-hearted evidence that Jesus was black, it adds that he "called everybody 'brother', liked Gospel, and couldn't get a fair trial".

"There is absolutely no evidence as to what Jesus looked like," he says. "The artistic depictions down the ages have total and complete variation, which indicates that nobody did a portrait of Jesus or wrote down a description, it's all been forgotten."

Sorry, but a portrait drawn at least 200 years after his death, by someone who never saw Jesus or most likely even knew anybody who had would be difficult to present as evidence.

[JennyD]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

I found a couple things of interest.

However, it looks like Publius Lentulus is a completely fictituous person.

Josephus wasn't. Neither was Pontius Pilate. Nor Tiberius Caesar.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

It's good to look to more than one reference, unless you're only looking for the one thing that will support your position. We True Christians(tm) always use multiple references when we do research!

[Deaner]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

However, it looks like Publius Lentulus is a completely fictituous person.

Har, har, har. You're an idiot. You're trying to discredit one of the most accurate description's I've ever heard of Baby Jesus with wikipedophile? There's more homos, freaks and satanists posting on that site that nothing is reliable. You don't have anything better than that?

Take your Jesus was a darkie argument elsewhere. I'm really not too fond of your racism.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Sorry, but a portrait drawn at least 200 years after his death, by someone who never saw Jesus or most likely even knew anybody who had would be difficult to present as evidence.
[/size]

And so you prefer to present as evidence your own speculation, and that of some Afrocentrists like Jeremiah Wright?

Yes, that's much more solid evidence.

[Deaner]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

...the earliest depictions of Jews, which date from the 3rd Century, are - as far as can be determined - dark-skinned. “We do seem to have a relatively dark skinned Jesus. In contemporary parlance I think the safest thing is to talk about Jesus as ‘a man of colour’.” Source: BBC News

If it's an earlier description of "Jews"; then fine. We're talking about Jesus here. He wasn't no yid. But I still dispute your story because it doesn't say anything about giant hooked noses or chasing nickels.

"Ethiopian Christianity, which pre-dates European Christianity, always depicts Christ as an African

Don't tell me you're going to start quoting Ethiopian's are you? Give me a break. They've been malnourished for thousands of years and suffer from delirium. They're still living in mud-huts and eating snakes. You've really got to stop stereotyping Jesus as some modern day gang-member.

[Aletheides]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Josephus wasn't. Neither was Pontius Pilate. Nor Tiberius Caesar.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

It's good to look to more than one reference, unless you're only looking for the one thing that will support your position. We True Christians™ always use multiple references when we do research!

No description from Josephus, so point is moot.

This letter: http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/letter.html described as an obvious piece of modern fiction.

If this letter was most likely genuine (supposed to have copies in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.), many people to this day wouldn't be arguing about a historical Jesus. But it's fake.

Read more about Apocryphal literature here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm#III2

There is also another letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0810.htm of which the language and writing style is completely different than that mentioned above. I wonder which is more authentic, the one that sounds like it was written during this century or the one that sounds like a genuine translation from those times?

No description from Tiberius Caesar, so point is moot.


I also found something called The Archko Volume on that link, which is supposed to have an interview with Joseph and Mary concerning Jesus.

The Archko Volume
The Archko Volume has some truly wonderful documents detailing aspects of Jesus' life as told by prominent historical figures. Chapters include: "Jonathan's interview with the Bethlehem shepherds--Letter of Melker, Priest of the Synagogue at Bethlehem", "Report of Caiaphas to the Sanhedrim concerning the execution of Jesus", "Gamaliel's interview with Joseph and Mary and others concerning Jesus", "Herod Antipater's defense before the Roman Senate in regard to his conduct at Bethlehem" and "Pilate's report to Caesar of the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus". The book is a complete and utter fraud, written by a Presbyterian minister named Mahan in the 19th century. He got kicked out of his church for writing it. For details, see Modern Apocrypha by Edgar Goodspeed, Beacon Press, 1956. It's out of print, but not impossible to find.

One of the most famous written hoaxes is the “Archko Volume.” The work is also known as the “Report of Pilate” or “The Archko Library.” The content of this work is an alleged report of the trial and death of Jesus made by Pontius Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius. The existence of this work can be traced back to a certain Reverend. W. D. Mahan of Boonville, Missouri. In 1879 he published a thirty two-page pamphlet titled, “A Correct Transcript of Pilate’s Court.”

These other interviews are filled with historical errors. For example, he gives a number of references to Josephus’s Jewish Wars that simply do not exist. In addition, there is the false statement that Josephus in his Antiquities refers to Jesus in more than fifty places. The interview says that Tacitus wrote the biography of Agricola, his father in law, in the year A.D. 56. This is impossible since Tacitus was born in A.D 55. Furthermore there was no biography to write since Agricola was only nineteen at the time.

The so-called “Report of Pilate,” as well as these later interviews, were immediately exposed as the frauds that they clearly are. Unhappily people continue to read and believe these fraudulent works although they have no basis in fact.

Har, har, har. You're an idiot. You're trying to discredit one of the most accurate description's I've ever heard of Baby Jesus with wikipedophile? There's more homos, freaks and satanists posting on that site that nothing is reliable. You don't have anything better than that?

Take your Jesus was a darkie argument elsewhere. I'm really not too fond of your racism.

I know I can't change your beliefs, but I can present you facts.

The 'Lentulus Letter' supposedly endorsed by the Vatican in 1454 featured correspondence by Publius Lentulus, a fictive predecessor of Pontius Pilate, to the Roman Senate regarding Christ's physical appearance - blonde and blue-eyed, but of course - and "raising of the dead". It is one of several frauds skewered by Edgar Goodspeed's Modern Apocrypha: Famous "Biblical" Hoaxes (Boston: Beacon Press 1956), a successor of Guibert of Nogent's 1126 De Sanctis Et Eorum Pigneribus and Jan Hus' 1405 De Sanguine Christi. Source: Caslon Analytics - Forgery and Fraud

[Aletheides]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

And so you prefer to present as evidence your own speculation, and that of some Afrocentrists like Jeremiah Wright?

Yes, that's much more solid evidence.

My own speculation is based upon:

The picture painted at least 200 years after Jesus's death. Fact.
Definitely by someone who didn't know or see Jesus in his lifetime. Fact.

Consider for a moment that the painter was 50 when he painted this. If in fact he knew someone who knew and saw Jesus with his own eyes, if the man was 100 years old it would still only account for 150 years. Considering the Average Life Span in Roman Times was roughly 30-40 years old, what are the chances of this happening? Well it looks like this turned from speculation into fact didn't it. Thanks for making me research it more.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

My own speculation is based upon:

The picture painted at least 200 years after Jesus's death. Fact.
Definitely by someone who didn't know or see Jesus in his lifetime. Fact.

Consider for a moment that the painter was 50 when he painted this. If in fact he knew someone who knew and saw Jesus with his own eyes, if the man was 100 years old it would still only account for 150 years. Considering the Average Life Span in Roman Times was roughly 30-40 years old, what are the chances of this happening? Well it looks like this turned from speculation into fact didn't it. Thanks for making me research it more.

Aletheides,

You remind me of those wet behind the ear Special Forces guys I see at seminars and conventions all the time; fresh, shinny and full of themselves. Me and some of the old timer Assist Loss Prevention and Security ops guys have to take them down a peg or two, just for their own good.

Look, just because you read something in some book doesn’t mean it is right. It’s a lesson I learned the hard way and a golden rule every Christian lives by.

[Aletheides]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

Aletheides,

You remind me of those wet behind the ear Special Forces guys I see at seminars and conventions all the time; fresh, shinny and full of themselves. Me and some of the old timer Assist Loss Prevention and Security ops guys have to take them down a peg or two, just for their own good.

You are cool. So cool.

Look, just because you read something in some book doesn’t mean it is right. It’s a lesson I learned the hard way and a golden rule every Christian lives by.

LOL that's funny that you say that....

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Jesus Was Not a Black Man!

My own speculation is based upon:

The picture painted at least 200 years after Jesus's death. Fact.
Definitely by someone who didn't know or see Jesus in his lifetime. Fact.

Consider for a moment that the painter was 50 when he painted this. If in fact he knew someone who knew and saw Jesus with his own eyes, if the man was 100 years old it would still only account for 150 years. Considering the Average Life Span in Roman Times was roughly 30-40 years old, what are the chances of this happening? Well it looks like this turned from speculation into fact didn't it. Thanks for making me research it more.

Not really.

Your assertion ("Jesus appeared as a Negro") is based entirely upon speculation. The fact that the earliest known painting of Jesus was painted around 200 AD, by an artist who obviously never SAW Jesus with his own eyes, does in no way suggest that Jesus appeared as a Negro.

The fact which you state, that Ethiopians depicted Jesus as a Negro, is likewise based upon the speculation of their so-called "artists". It is reasonable to expect that no Ethiopians were befriending a Jewish carpenter in Jerusalem.

Sorry, there is no logic in your leap of faith.