First off, i'm not into the org religion or the church in any way.
But this is supposedly a christian nation, so the bible is important to many.
One thing that simply doesn't add up is the description of jesus isn the bible, vs the image of jesus that we're bombarded with worldwide.
Here's what the Bible says about Jesus
In Revelation 1: 14-15
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
If you read this carefully, you can only deduce that the man written about, known as Jesus Christ was a Black man. The bible makes that very clear.
Is there a reason why the world has portrayed Jesus as the exact opposite?
Also, I saw this in another scripture that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last. Aren't black people the original man on earth?
vs
I.
Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up
In 1931 Austrian Jewish Biblical scholar and art historian Robert Eisler published a classic in Josephus scholarship, his
The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: According to Flavius Josephus' recently rediscovered 'Capture of Jerusalem' and the other Jewish and Christian sources. Through a meticulous analysis of extant manuscripts, Eisler endeavored to restore the original reading of a first century text that discusses John the Baptist, Jesus and the early Christians. This first century source is the
Halosis or “Capture (of Jerusalem)” of Josephus (37-100 CE). Originally written in Aramaic, a Greek rewriting was published around 72 CE. This is an important text for the discussion of Christian origins, particularly given the section therein treating “the human form of Jesus and his wonderful works.” Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, is believed to have had access to official Roman records on which he based his history of the early ‘Jesus movement.’ He is thus a singularly contemporary witness. His texts passed through Christian scribal hands,[1] during which process the texts were no doubt altered: some ‘offensive’ passages were omitted and some Christian embellishments interpolated.[2] However, according to Eisler, a Slavonic (Old Russian) translation made from the original Greek text preserves – in scattered form – that original
Josephean Testimony. By reconstructing the relevant passages, Eisler ‘restored’ what he believed is the original, first century description of the man Jesus.[3] His very significant restoration follows:
“At that time also there appeared a certain man of magic power … if it be meet to call him a man, [whose name is Jesus], whom [certain] Greeks call a son of [a] God, but his disciples [call] the true prophet who is supposed to have raised dead persons and to have cured all diseases. Both his nature and his form were human, for he was a man of simple appearance, mature age, black-skinned (
melagchrous), short growth, three cubits tall, hunchbacked, prognathous (lit. ‘with a long face [
macroprosopos]), a long nose, eyebrows meeting above the nose, that the spectators could take fright, with scanty [curly] hair, but having a line in the middle of the head after the fashion of the Nazaraeans, with an undeveloped beard. (*
Halōsis,ii.174).”[4]
This is a remarkable image of Jesus! A short, hunchbacked black-man with a unibrow, short (kinky)[5] hair with a part down the middle, and a scanty (nappy?) beard would have made the
Passion of Christa profoundly different experience for undoubtedly
every viewer. That this basic description goes back to Josephus is affirmed by a number of early Christian ecclesiastics, such as Andreas Hierosolymitannus, Archbishop of Crete (8th cent.) and John of Damascus (8th cent.).[6] Most of the details of this description are found in other Christian literature of an even earlier period. As T.W. Doane quotes: