Nearly everything you said is wrong, but let's just focus on the specific claims.
People on Tiktok excited that Putin just exposed that “Jesus” (Yeshua) was black… well if you read about ancient texts you probably wouldve already came to that conclusion as well.
It takes about 5 seconds to debunk the claims that were made on social media. The translation was fake and nearly everything claimed about the context was fake too.
Moscow has increasingly pursued close ties with several West African nations, including Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso. Users in Africa recently shared two videos claiming they show Russian President Vladimir Putin saying that newly discovered religious icons proved Jesus was black. But the claim...
factcheck.afp.com
In an Instagram video, Russian President Vladimir Putin sits at a table and opens a triptych. "Today, Vladimir Putin rev
www.politifact.com
In the original video, Putin delivers his annual address to Russia's Parliament
checkyourfact.com
The icon is a copy not an original, the original is fairly recent not ancient, it's a common icon used by the Russian military, and Putin didn't say anything whatsoever about "Black Jesus" or Black anything when he presented it.
That, of course, has no bearing on whether Jesus was actually black or brown.
Like there was a council who decided what was in the Bible.
Of course they had a council to decide what was in the Bible, what else would you have expected them to do? People came together and made a final decision, you would have preferred they do.....what exactly?
But the "council to decide what was in the Bible" didn't come until 382, by that point everyone had already basically agreed what books were legitimate for 200 years. You can see various lists from theologians and bishops in the 100s and 200s regarding which Biblical books should be considered canonical, and they almost perfectly match the final decisions of the 382 council. The only potential New Testament book I can think of that came close to canonical without making it was Shepherd of Hermas. The main debates were over various Jewish texts that some of the early Fathers had referred to from time to time, but which the Jews themselves didn't consider part of their scripture.
Note that by the time the Catholic Church had that council, many of the Orthodox churches (including the Egyptian, Ethiopian, Syrian, and the church of Jerusalem) had already split off from the western churches, so those eastern churches weren't even part of their council. Yet they still used the same Biblical canon without any direction from the Catholic leaders.
The Catholic church whitewashed the Dead Sea Scrolls, removed SPECIFIC books out of it
Dead Sea Scrolls hadn't even been discovered when the Catholic Church made the canon, so how could they "whitewash" them?
The Dead Sea Scrolls are a huge conglomeration of writings from some fringe Jewish group writing before Christianity even existed, so why would you take them as authoritative as opposed to anything else? They were some people writing in caves who could write whatever they felt like writing. If 2000 years in the future, someone finds the book of Mormon or the Koran in an archeological dig, should they say, "Look at this! The Bible is wrong! Why didn't they include the Koran and the Book of Mormon in their sacred text?"
the OLDEST version of the Bible is the Ethiopian one that has all the books in it…
The Ethiopian Bible is not the oldest version of the Bible.
The Ethiopian Bible is exactly the same as the Catholic Bible except that they also include Jubilees, Enoch, 2 Ezra, and 3 Maccabees. All of these were rather late-written Jewish texts that aren't considered part of Scripture by a single sect of Judaism. They have nothing to do with Jesus. If the Jews don't even consider these writings to be part of the Old Testament, then why do you care whether Christians do or not?