Was Jesus Jewish?

jimbo! · May 28th, 2006

Was Jesus Christ a Jew?

I realise that this is a topic that has probably been discussed on VNN forum(s) before but i thought i'd just add my two bobs' worth. This is another post from B&H before we parted company........
______________________________________________________________________
I know that some WNs believe Jesus Christ never existed but, personally, i think that it's perhaps 'drawing too long a bow' to claim that ....some roman historians (Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus 69 or 70 AD - after 130 AD [for instance]) seem to make mention of His life and works!.....so the fact of His existence more likely than not merits some creedence.....i think, though, the clincher is:'was Christ a kike?'.......on that note, some observations:
i/Pontius Pilate absolutely detested kikes......an ancient anti-semite!.....so much so that his seat of governance was actually in Caesarea: some not inconsiderable distance from Jewusalem also notable: Caesarea consisted largely of a non-yooish ppltn. He only attended Jewusalem once a yr on Passover because of absolute political necessity of staying in contact with the yooish 'movers & shakers' (as per the strictest instructions from Tiberius Caesar himself...OTW: he prblby wouldn't have bothered)
[source: Philo, Roman historian]

ii/the execution of Jesus had been pre-arranged between Pilate and Caiphas the High Priest(see more below).....a fact extensively researched by a Brit barrister in the 1930s in a book called 'Who Moved the Stone?

iii/since Pilate detested kikes.......why did he pre-varicate and hesitate abt the execution of another specimen of that detestable 'anti-race' especially when he had just casually obliterated several hundred of them in and around the environs of Galillee?

iv/again: why did Pilate hesitate when a pre-arranged agreement had been made?......a Roman patrician's word was his absolute bond and there was no going back on that.....a matter of the strictest HONOUR
(we have the incident abt his wife intervening on Jesus' behalf but the word of a Roman officer and gentleman would take OVER-WHELMING PRECEDENCE over the doubts and hestitations of his spouse!)

v/why does the Gospel of Mark (the oldest and most extant of the Gospels) MAKE NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of Jesus' jewish lineage?
(unlike the later 'kike-ised' Gospel of Matthew)

vi/why does it say in several places in the Gospels that Christ originated from 'Galillee of the Gentiles'?

vii/the yoos, then as now, detested all non-yoos...why, then, would they hand over ONE OF THEIR OWN (and a seemingly popular and charismatic yoo at that!) to the detestable 'goys' for execution?...doesn't that go directly against all their Talmudic injunctions that the life, liberty and property of yoos is to be preserved AT ALL COSTS?
(Caiphas figured out pretty quickly....probably just from appearences....that Jesus wasn't a yoo....hence his readiness to 'set Him up'!)

viii/concomitant with the above: why does the Babylonian Talmud contain un-remitting vituperation and hatred of the vilest sort against Christ? I'm talking whole chapters and books of this compendium of kike crap devoted to bucketing Christ? And, yet, of all the yoos in history......even a renegage kike like the yoo 'philosopher' Spinoza.......NOT ONE merits even the smallest fraction of such abuse.....
(only one other group in the BT merits a similar castigation and that's 'goyim': i.e: white Gentiles!)
anyone interested can verify this for themselves

ix/why, in all the artists' depictions of Christ going back even to the earliest times(sixth/seventh centuries CE) is He universally depicted as having DISTINCTIVE ARYAN FEATURES?......light-coloured hair and eyes?

points iii -- ix (inclusive) MUST, by a process of logical elimination, lead us to the ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION: Jesus WAS NOT a JEW......when we add the vigorous condemnations of the kikes that appear in the Gospel of John(along with Mark: probably the most reliable of the Gospel accounts: albeit its rather 'airy-fairy', esoteric nature[another strike against it being WHOLLY of kike origin.....it's way too philosophical for a yoo!]) the case must become even stronger!
Pontius Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in the province of Palestine, had the power of life and death.....only HE could pronounce death sentences...yet he backed off......!....even, at the end of it all, he didn't actually pronounce a death sentence......he simply 'handed Jesus over'/'washed his hands of it all!'....and THEN only because of the most direst and formidable threats POSSIBLE from the yoos....that they would report him to Caesar for not executing an enemy of Rome!
What can all this mean?
As with all history, the only way to understand or interpret it correctly is through the prism of RACE!......RACE IS THE KEY TO HISTORY

From all of the above there can be, IMHO, only ONE logical conclusion:
JESUS WAS NOT A KIKE(in fact: it's possible He may even have been a Roman!).......after extensive personal conversations with Jesus....Pilate also realised this and THEREFORE REFUSED TO CONDEMN A FELLOW ARYAN ESPECIALLY AT THE BEHEST OF THE JEWS....THIS WOULD BE THE ONE AND ONLY REASON FOR BREAKING HIS WORD TO CAIPHAS AND FOR HIS SUBSEQUENT HESITATIONS....NOTHING ELSE MAKES THE SLIGHTEST SENSE
(in fact, we can agree with Nietzsche that the ONLY person in the entire Gospel account who comes out of it all with dignity and honour was Pontius Pilate.....Nietschze, though, made no overtly disparaging references to Christ Himself.....he was just talking about the 'extras' as it were....the ancillary characters)
what, then, was Jesus' mission?
well: ....it's all too long ago....we don't know with any certainty what happened(except for the trial & execution of Jesus: that is pretty much dead SET....especially as historians like Josephus and Suetonius et al more or less support it....also: Philo, to an extent!)
we don't even know what He actually said for sure........it's even possible that some of His disciples weren't kikes(exceptions: Matthew...a tax-collector....gotta be a kike! and, of course, the greedy traitor Joodas....what else BUT a kike?)....in particular, here, i mention Simon Peter.....throughout the Gospels and 'reading between the lines' as it were his behaviour strikes me as most un-kikish. The penultimate demonstration of this occurs in the Garden of Gethsamane(sic?) when, after Jesus is 'arrested', he pulls out a sword and hacks off the ear of one of the High Priest's Temple Guard.......what's more: he would have kept on going and fought to the last except for being 'pulled up' by Jesus Himself...now THAT'S how an Aryan behaves.....fight to the DEATH!.....a yoo, OTOH, would try and wheedle, whine, bargain and/or threaten his way out of such a pre-dicament!
viz: all we can do is draw a logical inference to a probable conclusion from the material @ hand......
Here's my 'spin' on it: JESUS CAME TO WARN THE WORLD ABOUT THE JEWS.....everything else in the NT is to try and camouflage this one, central and vitally important message......
______________________________________________________________________

(jimbo!)

Chain · May 29th, 2006

It looks like you are having a crisis. Maybe you better re-read either Klassen or the kike's bible, else get that WCOTC flag outta your avatar.

jimbo! · May 29th, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chain

It looks like you are having a crisis. Maybe you better re-read either Klassen or the kike's bible, else get that WCOTC flag outta your avatar

don't getcha?.........no crisis here...........was trying to be as fair as possible to the historical evidence.........and: won't be removing the WCOTC flag as i'm 'paid up'
(would've thought negating Christ's 'yooishness' would have taken all the 'jd' out of jd-xian anyways?)
[and i'v already read NER & TWMB twice so that's that!)

(jimbo)

Chain · May 30th, 2006

What's your name? I don't think you ever were a WCOTC member. What do you mean, "paid up"? WCOTC doesn't exist. Who knows you? Who are you?

Again, I do not think you were a real WCOTC member, or you wouldn't be espousing the nonsense you are in this thread.

And can you make your type size normal so that it is easier to read?

jimbo! · May 30th, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chain

What's your name? I don't think you ever were a WCOTC member. What do you mean, "paid up"? WCOTC doesn't exist. Who knows you? Who are you?

yeah? maybe i could ask YOU the same champ, hunh?
OK: 'Creativity Movement' if you want to get technical.
I still call it WCOTC.
Check out the Blood & Honour forum
I was posting there under the user-name 'diamond!' but got BANNED because one of the femi-slag 'moderators' chucked a PMT 'hissy fit' and i responded.
Linder knows my name because i emailed him: I don't think YOU
need to.......AFA WCOTC goes: i'm from Oz NOT the JewSA....so you can follow that up if you like.
I'm not an official WCOTC member but a 'registered financial supporter'...never said i WAS a member. The reason for that is because i'v got a prison record for man-slaughter and didn't want them copping flak because of me.
SATISFIED?

Quote:

Again, I do not think you were a real WCOTC member, or you wouldn't be espousing the nonsense you are in this thread

what's 'nonsense' abt it? I never said I was a xian did i?
i was examining the historical evidence as objectively as possible.
In fact, any-one who denies the jewishness of Jesus could hardly be considered a xian any-way could they?

Quote:

And can you make your type size normal so that it is easier to read?

done!

(jimbo!)

Chain · May 30th, 2006

jimbo! said-

Quote:

yeah? maybe i could ask YOU the same champ, hunh?

Yeah, I'm Craig Cobb and Matt Hale signed my WCOTC membership in August of 2002. Got it right here with me.

Chain · May 30th, 2006

Quote:

I'm not an official WCOTC member but a 'registered financial supporter'...never said i WAS a member. The reason for that is because i'v got a prison record for man-slaughter and didn't want them copping flak because of me.
SATISFIED?

I hope it was a nigger you manslaughtered. I hope Jewsus forgives you doubting his jewiness. Your soul is in danger.

mind_felon · May 30th, 2006

Read "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold"

Way too much in the book for me to cover here, but a solid hour of reading that book will leave you blown away.

jimbo! · May 30th, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chain

I hope it was a nigger you manslaughtered.

he wasn't white....½'abbo'-½'maori' from memory. 20yrs ago now!
whn i was younger and wilder(and some would say: stupider!) as they say!

Quote:

I hope Jewsus forgives you doubting his jewiness. Your soul is in danger

yeah? the JEWS are the only fuckas I hv night-mares about!

(jimbo!)

jimbo! · May 30th, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chain

jimbo! said-
Yeah, I'm Craig Cobb and Matt Hale signed my WCOTC membership in August of 2002. Got it right here with me

i'v heard of you i think. i'm only new to the church....i'm still gunna call it 'a church'. how's his appeal progressing BTW?
(Linder's got my permission to give you my name if he likes)

(jimbo!)

January 25th, 2007

Jesus was not a Jew:

The Anglo-Saxon Jesus

By Jason Robb, J.D.

EDITORS NOTE: The term Anglo-Saxon in this article is used generically . The white race has kindred people who do not necessarily identify themselves as Anglo-Saxon. All white people are related by blood and share common ancestry. The term Anglo-Saxon therefore would be interchangeable with any word used for identifying those of our European kindred such as Germanic or Scandinavian (among others)

For centuries Jesus Christ was depicted by Europeans as one of their own. Images of Jesus Christ whether in paint or upon stained glass clearly showed Him (including the apostles, His mother Mary, the women who labored for Christ, and his followers) as white.

However, today there is an attempt to undermine the factual evidence that Jesus was white. Instead we are told that Jesus is a mixture of all races. Many modern artists attempt to portray Jesus with all of the various racial characteristics. The Judeo-Christian preachers today and their anti-Christ rabbi counterparts argue that Jesus probably had black, tight curly, perhaps even kinky hair. The historians and archaeologists of today, excluding the ones in the past, argue he would look like a typical "Israeli" in which he would look neither black or white, but a dark brown mixture of the two.

The question is what did Jesus Christ really look like? The traditional view of Europeans hold that he had blond or auburn hair and blue or hazel eyes. His face was long with high cheek bones (note: The Shroud of Turin), and he was tall and muscular. This traditional view has been depicted in Western art for centuries such as in "The Pantocrator" or "Creator of All," a sixth-century mosaic. Now, however, many are saying that this white "view" of Jesus by Europeans was only a testament of the ancient racism of Europeans.

This past Easter, when millions of Christians celebrated Jesus’ resurrection, scientists, historians, and Judeo-Christians collaborated to create a "new model" for Jesus, which aired around Easter on the Discovery Channel and PBS. Joe Zias, one of the leading archaeologists in Israel, who worked on the project, said, "in reconstructing this head, we are not claiming that this is exactly Jesus’ face, but we are trying to counteract all of those bad images of blond-haired , blue-eyed Jesus running around Hollywood productions. He continued and said, " we know he didn’t have long hair and it wasn’t blond. And he wasn’t blue eyed." How does he know that?

John Dominic Crossan, a "scholar" based in Florida said, "this is a country of immigrants and now our ethnicity is changing once again. We have a growing population of Latinos and others. What will Jesus look like in the future? He certainly will look darker."

Even Rev. D. James Kennedy, the Presbyterian pastor from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and T.V. evangelist said, "Nobody really knows what Christ looked like, and to a very real extent it is irrelevant… The important thing is that he is the Redeemer and Son of God".

The problem with all these reconstructions of Jesus and these Judeo-Christian ministers such as Dr. Kennedy is it is relevant what he looked like. Jesus was the Redeemer - but to whom? (Note Matt. 1:23 and others)

Although the description of Jesus in some respects is not important, such as his height, weight, or how long his hair is, what is important is that He was the Kinsmen Redeemer (Kinsmen: of the same blood) to a certain people – Israel, who now comprises the Anglo-Saxon -Teutonic and kindred people of Europe. And Jesus’ racial description identifies the people He belonged to. So in asking what Jesus looked like is actually asking what does the race he belonged to by physical birth look like? There is Biblical and historical evidence that informs us exactly what he (by race) looked like. And THAT is important. It is the reason the genealogy of Jesus is given in Matthew and Luke.

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE

Jesus was the direct descendent of Kind David and therefore the rightful heir of the Israel’s kingdom throne. In I Samuel 16:12, when Samuel went to anoint David to be the new King of Israel it states, "And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy…" In Webster’s dictionary, ruddy is defined as … redness; akin to red; having a healthy reddish color. (Even Adam means to "blush" or " to show redness in the face." This identifies only one race. I’ll let you figure out which race.) Therefore King David would have been fair skinned with reddish hair. Not the typical dark Jew or Arab, as some are now being led to believe. (Some will cite Rahab (wrongly called a prostitute instead of the important position she held) and Ruth who are counted among the genealogy of Jesus - claiming that these two women of God were not Israelites and thus additional proof that Jesus was not racially pure. Those who make this erroneous claim have been deceived into believing that the countries in which these women lived characterize their race. It does not. Both women were Israelites and followers of Jehovah)

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

The vast majority of the world is ignorant of the fact that there were actually eye-witnesses and written accounts of Jesus, His earthly father Joseph, and His mother Mary. Many of these written accounts are kept in the Vatican library, which describes what Jesus and Joseph looked like. These written accounts were compiled in The Archko Volume.

In The Archko Volume, we can read where Gamaliel was sent by the Sanhedrin to interrogate Joseph and Mary in regard to the child Jesus. He says in regard to Joseph, "his hair looks as though it might have been dark auburn when young." Later, he talks about Jesus’ description. "His hair is a little more golden than hers (his mother Mary), though it is as much from sunburn as anything else… His eyes are large and soft blue, his eyebrows very large." This is a description of a people that does not represent the people we know as Jews today. This is not the description of Arabs, blacks, or any other type of people. This is the description of our ancestors – the white Europeans.

Valleus Paterculus, a Roman Historian, met and interviewed Jesus and made a report to Pilate, who in return made a report to Caesar. Paterculus states, "One day in passing by the place of Siloe, where there was a great concourse of people, I observed in the midst of the group a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus… His golden-colored hair and beard gave his appearance a celestial aspect… "

Lastly, as we can see, Jesus was a person who resembled a particular race of people. Only one race has blond, auburn, or red hair, with blue, green, and hazel eyes. All these characteristics identify the white race, the true Israel. However, as our nation becomes more Judiazed and non-white, no longer will our ancestors in the Bible be depicted as a reflection of us, but will be depicted as a typical dark mideastern Jew.

Tom Roberts, editor of the Catholic Reporter said, "artists should feel free to reinterpret Jesus for each new era." The era that is approaching and coming upon us is a Jewish era, an era that does not reflect the traditional Christian morals and values of our people, but is an attempt to change the core values of our people in preparation of the one world church.

The fact is Jesus Christ was a white man. He came to the lost sheep of the House of Israel as their Kinsman Redeemer. Can anyone of any race follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Yes, but it doesn't make them kinsmen. It doesn't give them the authority to change the historical and correct image of Jesus' white racial background into their own. And saying that Jesus Christ is white doesn't make a person an evil hater any more than it would were they to say that George Washington or Queen Elizabeth is white. They are merely stating the facts.

Sándor Petőfi · January 25th, 2007

Oh, but first one must answer another question: was Jesus?

May 28th, 2006	#1
jimbo! Banned Join Date: May 2006 Location: u know where! Posts: 900	Was Jesus Jewish? Was Jesus Christ a Jew? I realise that this is a topic that has probably been discussed on VNN forum(s) before but i thought i'd just add my two bobs' worth. This is another post from B&H before we parted company........ ______________________________________________________________________ I know that some WNs believe Jesus Christ never existed but, personally, i think that it's perhaps 'drawing too long a bow' to claim that ....some roman historians (Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus 69 or 70 AD - after 130 AD [for instance]) seem to make mention of His life and works!.....so the fact of His existence more likely than not merits some creedence.....i think, though, the clincher is:'was Christ a kike?'.......on that note, some observations: i/Pontius Pilate absolutely detested kikes......an ancient anti-semite!.....so much so that his seat of governance was actually in Caesarea: some not inconsiderable distance from Jewusalem also notable: Caesarea consisted largely of a non-yooish ppltn. He only attended Jewusalem once a yr on Passover because of absolute political necessity of staying in contact with the yooish 'movers & shakers' (as per the strictest instructions from Tiberius Caesar himself...OTW: he prblby wouldn't have bothered) [source: Philo, Roman historian] ii/the execution of Jesus had been pre-arranged between Pilate and Caiphas the High Priest(see more below).....a fact extensively researched by a Brit barrister in the 1930s in a book called 'Who Moved the Stone? iii/since Pilate detested kikes.......why did he pre-varicate and hesitate abt the execution of another specimen of that detestable 'anti-race' especially when he had just casually obliterated several hundred of them in and around the environs of Galillee? iv/again: why did Pilate hesitate when a pre-arranged agreement had been made?......a Roman patrician's word was his absolute bond and there was no going back on that.....a matter of the strictest HONOUR (we have the incident abt his wife intervening on Jesus' behalf but the word of a Roman officer and gentleman would take OVER-WHELMING PRECEDENCE over the doubts and hestitations of his spouse!) v/why does the Gospel of Mark (the oldest and most extant of the Gospels) MAKE NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of Jesus' jewish lineage? (unlike the later 'kike-ised' Gospel of Matthew) vi/why does it say in several places in the Gospels that Christ originated from 'Galillee of the Gentiles'? vii/the yoos, then as now, detested all non-yoos...why, then, would they hand over ONE OF THEIR OWN (and a seemingly popular and charismatic yoo at that!) to the detestable 'goys' for execution?...doesn't that go directly against all their Talmudic injunctions that the life, liberty and property of yoos is to be preserved AT ALL COSTS? (Caiphas figured out pretty quickly....probably just from appearences....that Jesus wasn't a yoo....hence his readiness to 'set Him up'!) viii/concomitant with the above: why does the Babylonian Talmud contain un-remitting vituperation and hatred of the vilest sort against Christ? I'm talking whole chapters and books of this compendium of kike crap devoted to bucketing Christ? And, yet, of all the yoos in history......even a renegage kike like the yoo 'philosopher' Spinoza.......NOT ONE merits even the smallest fraction of such abuse..... (only one other group in the BT merits a similar castigation and that's 'goyim': i.e: white Gentiles!) anyone interested can verify this for themselves ix/why, in all the artists' depictions of Christ going back even to the earliest times(sixth/seventh centuries CE) is He universally depicted as having DISTINCTIVE ARYAN FEATURES?......light-coloured hair and eyes? points iii -- ix (inclusive) MUST, by a process of logical elimination, lead us to the ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION: Jesus WAS NOT a JEW......when we add the vigorous condemnations of the kikes that appear in the Gospel of John(along with Mark: probably the most reliable of the Gospel accounts: albeit its rather 'airy-fairy', esoteric nature[another strike against it being WHOLLY of kike origin.....it's way too philosophical for a yoo!]) the case must become even stronger! Pontius Pilate, as the representative of Caesar in the province of Palestine, had the power of life and death.....only HE could pronounce death sentences...yet he backed off......!....even, at the end of it all, he didn't actually pronounce a death sentence......he simply 'handed Jesus over'/'washed his hands of it all!'....and THEN only because of the most direst and formidable threats POSSIBLE from the yoos....that they would report him to Caesar for not executing an enemy of Rome! What can all this mean? As with all history, the only way to understand or interpret it correctly is through the prism of RACE!......RACE IS THE KEY TO HISTORY From all of the above there can be, IMHO, only ONE logical conclusion: JESUS WAS NOT A KIKE(in fact: it's possible He may even have been a Roman!).......after extensive personal conversations with Jesus....Pilate also realised this and THEREFORE REFUSED TO CONDEMN A FELLOW ARYAN ESPECIALLY AT THE BEHEST OF THE JEWS....THIS WOULD BE THE ONE AND ONLY REASON FOR BREAKING HIS WORD TO CAIPHAS AND FOR HIS SUBSEQUENT HESITATIONS....NOTHING ELSE MAKES THE SLIGHTEST SENSE (in fact, we can agree with Nietzsche that the ONLY person in the entire Gospel account who comes out of it all with dignity and honour was Pontius Pilate.....Nietschze, though, made no overtly disparaging references to Christ Himself.....he was just talking about the 'extras' as it were....the ancillary characters) what, then, was Jesus' mission? well: ....it's all too long ago....we don't know with any certainty what happened(except for the trial & execution of Jesus: that is pretty much dead SET....especially as historians like Josephus and Suetonius et al more or less support it....also: Philo, to an extent!) we don't even know what He actually said for sure........it's even possible that some of His disciples weren't kikes(exceptions: Matthew...a tax-collector....gotta be a kike! and, of course, the greedy traitor Joodas....what else BUT a kike?)....in particular, here, i mention Simon Peter.....throughout the Gospels and 'reading between the lines' as it were his behaviour strikes me as most un-kikish. The penultimate demonstration of this occurs in the Garden of Gethsamane(sic?) when, after Jesus is 'arrested', he pulls out a sword and hacks off the ear of one of the High Priest's Temple Guard.......what's more: he would have kept on going and fought to the last except for being 'pulled up' by Jesus Himself...now THAT'S how an Aryan behaves.....fight to the DEATH!.....a yoo, OTOH, would try and wheedle, whine, bargain and/or threaten his way out of such a pre-dicament! viz: all we can do is draw a logical inference to a probable conclusion from the material @ hand...... Here's my 'spin' on it: JESUS CAME TO WARN THE WORLD ABOUT THE JEWS.....everything else in the NT is to try and camouflage this one, central and vitally important message...... ______________________________________________________________________ (jimbo!)

Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 29th, 2006	#2
Chain Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,473	It looks like you are having a crisis. Maybe you better re-read either Klassen or the kike's bible, else get that WCOTC flag outta your avatar.

May 30th, 2006	#4
Chain Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,473	What's your name? I don't think you ever were a WCOTC member. What do you mean, "paid up"? WCOTC doesn't exist. Who knows you? Who are you? Again, I do not think you were a real WCOTC member, or you wouldn't be espousing the nonsense you are in this thread. And can you make your type size normal so that it is easier to read?

May 30th, 2006	#8
mind_felon Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 92	Read "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" Way too much in the book for me to cover here, but a solid hour of reading that book will leave you blown away.

January 25th, 2007	#11
Michael S. Burks Guest Posts: n/a	Jesus was not a Jew: The Anglo-Saxon Jesus By Jason Robb, J.D. EDITORS NOTE: The term Anglo-Saxon in this article is used generically . The white race has kindred people who do not necessarily identify themselves as Anglo-Saxon. All white people are related by blood and share common ancestry. The term Anglo-Saxon therefore would be interchangeable with any word used for identifying those of our European kindred such as Germanic or Scandinavian (among others) For centuries Jesus Christ was depicted by Europeans as one of their own. Images of Jesus Christ whether in paint or upon stained glass clearly showed Him (including the apostles, His mother Mary, the women who labored for Christ, and his followers) as white. However, today there is an attempt to undermine the factual evidence that Jesus was white. Instead we are told that Jesus is a mixture of all races. Many modern artists attempt to portray Jesus with all of the various racial characteristics. The Judeo-Christian preachers today and their anti-Christ rabbi counterparts argue that Jesus probably had black, tight curly, perhaps even kinky hair. The historians and archaeologists of today, excluding the ones in the past, argue he would look like a typical "Israeli" in which he would look neither black or white, but a dark brown mixture of the two. The question is what did Jesus Christ really look like? The traditional view of Europeans hold that he had blond or auburn hair and blue or hazel eyes. His face was long with high cheek bones (note: The Shroud of Turin), and he was tall and muscular. This traditional view has been depicted in Western art for centuries such as in "The Pantocrator" or "Creator of All," a sixth-century mosaic. Now, however, many are saying that this white "view" of Jesus by Europeans was only a testament of the ancient racism of Europeans. This past Easter, when millions of Christians celebrated Jesus’ resurrection, scientists, historians, and Judeo-Christians collaborated to create a "new model" for Jesus, which aired around Easter on the Discovery Channel and PBS. Joe Zias, one of the leading archaeologists in Israel, who worked on the project, said, "in reconstructing this head, we are not claiming that this is exactly Jesus’ face, but we are trying to counteract all of those bad images of blond-haired , blue-eyed Jesus running around Hollywood productions. He continued and said, " we know he didn’t have long hair and it wasn’t blond. And he wasn’t blue eyed." How does he know that? John Dominic Crossan, a "scholar" based in Florida said, "this is a country of immigrants and now our ethnicity is changing once again. We have a growing population of Latinos and others. What will Jesus look like in the future? He certainly will look darker." Even Rev. D. James Kennedy, the Presbyterian pastor from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and T.V. evangelist said, "Nobody really knows what Christ looked like, and to a very real extent it is irrelevant… The important thing is that he is the Redeemer and Son of God". The problem with all these reconstructions of Jesus and these Judeo-Christian ministers such as Dr. Kennedy is it is relevant what he looked like. Jesus was the Redeemer - but to whom? (Note Matt. 1:23 and others) Although the description of Jesus in some respects is not important, such as his height, weight, or how long his hair is, what is important is that He was the Kinsmen Redeemer (Kinsmen: of the same blood) to a certain people – Israel, who now comprises the Anglo-Saxon -Teutonic and kindred people of Europe. And Jesus’ racial description identifies the people He belonged to. So in asking what Jesus looked like is actually asking what does the race he belonged to by physical birth look like? There is Biblical and historical evidence that informs us exactly what he (by race) looked like. And THAT is important. It is the reason the genealogy of Jesus is given in Matthew and Luke. BIBLICAL EVIDENCE Jesus was the direct descendent of Kind David and therefore the rightful heir of the Israel’s kingdom throne. In I Samuel 16:12, when Samuel went to anoint David to be the new King of Israel it states, "And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy…" In Webster’s dictionary, ruddy is defined as … redness; akin to red; having a healthy reddish color. (Even Adam means to "blush" or " to show redness in the face." This identifies only one race. I’ll let you figure out which race.) Therefore King David would have been fair skinned with reddish hair. Not the typical dark Jew or Arab, as some are now being led to believe. (Some will cite Rahab (wrongly called a prostitute instead of the important position she held) and Ruth who are counted among the genealogy of Jesus - claiming that these two women of God were not Israelites and thus additional proof that Jesus was not racially pure. Those who make this erroneous claim have been deceived into believing that the countries in which these women lived characterize their race. It does not. Both women were Israelites and followers of Jehovah) HISTORICAL EVIDENCE The vast majority of the world is ignorant of the fact that there were actually eye-witnesses and written accounts of Jesus, His earthly father Joseph, and His mother Mary. Many of these written accounts are kept in the Vatican library, which describes what Jesus and Joseph looked like. These written accounts were compiled in The Archko Volume. In The Archko Volume, we can read where Gamaliel was sent by the Sanhedrin to interrogate Joseph and Mary in regard to the child Jesus. He says in regard to Joseph, "his hair looks as though it might have been dark auburn when young." Later, he talks about Jesus’ description. "His hair is a little more golden than hers (his mother Mary), though it is as much from sunburn as anything else… His eyes are large and soft blue, his eyebrows very large." This is a description of a people that does not represent the people we know as Jews today. This is not the description of Arabs, blacks, or any other type of people. This is the description of our ancestors – the white Europeans. Valleus Paterculus, a Roman Historian, met and interviewed Jesus and made a report to Pilate, who in return made a report to Caesar. Paterculus states, "One day in passing by the place of Siloe, where there was a great concourse of people, I observed in the midst of the group a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus… His golden-colored hair and beard gave his appearance a celestial aspect… " Lastly, as we can see, Jesus was a person who resembled a particular race of people. Only one race has blond, auburn, or red hair, with blue, green, and hazel eyes. All these characteristics identify the white race, the true Israel. However, as our nation becomes more Judiazed and non-white, no longer will our ancestors in the Bible be depicted as a reflection of us, but will be depicted as a typical dark mideastern Jew. Tom Roberts, editor of the Catholic Reporter said, "artists should feel free to reinterpret Jesus for each new era." The era that is approaching and coming upon us is a Jewish era, an era that does not reflect the traditional Christian morals and values of our people, but is an attempt to change the core values of our people in preparation of the one world church. The fact is Jesus Christ was a white man. He came to the lost sheep of the House of Israel as their Kinsman Redeemer. Can anyone of any race follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Yes, but it doesn't make them kinsmen. It doesn't give them the authority to change the historical and correct image of Jesus' white racial background into their own. And saying that Jesus Christ is white doesn't make a person an evil hater any more than it would were they to say that George Washington or Queen Elizabeth is white. They are merely stating the facts.

January 25th, 2007	#12
Sándor Petőfi Banned Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: In your head Posts: 5,325	Oh, but first one must answer another question: was Jesus?