First published on April 12,2017
I consider myself a historian. As such, perhaps the entities I loath the most are revisionists. I detest people who manipulate historical fact for their own personal agenda. This is one of those situations where we don’t even need to delve into religion or faith, but can actually deal directly with history, science, geography, genealogy, genetics, art, logic, and reason.
For some strange reason, the past forty years or so, revisionists have tried to perpetuate a great big fat fraud on anyone who is foolish enough and ignorant enough to listen to them.
They want to tell us that Christ would not have been anything near a Celtic appearance. Because of their assumption – assume as in ass-you-me – looking at the world today, they have brainwashed the ignorant wretches of the world into thinking that Jesus of Nazareth would have resembled someone of today’s Arabic Middle Eastern appearance. There are so many problems with this view including the fact that today’s genetic mix basically did not exist until at least a thousand years after Christ. That alone should make what comes next farcical if it weren’t so darn delusional. It is a lie.
One of the other big problems is that the group who is promoting the idea of Black Jews and a Black Christ are recognized, by the SPLC as a hate group. There is an author, Aylmer Von Fleischer, who has authored such gems as books about the black builders of Stonehenge, UFOs and abductions of blacks, how the ancient Brits were black, how the US is killing blacks with Ebola, and that Christ was black. People are using his books as a basis for stating that Christ was not white. The problem with this specific author is basically I don’t think he exists. I think Aylmer Von Fleischer is a fake. He claims that Socrates was black, as was Cleopatra. He is using the following as proof that Christ was black. He uses this specific image of Peter and Paul to prove they were black.
The images come from the Catacomb of St. Thecia dated c. 4th Century. Then
On Saturday, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright had the intellectual dishonesty to lie about Christ being Palestinian. I detest intellectual dishonesty. This is as intellectually dishonest as they come. In order to fight the man’s claims, a person runs the risk of being declared a racist. People like Wright, and the well-meaning, but increasingly extreme progressive mind-set now damns anyone who dares try to contradict the lies spewed by racists like Wright. We’re not to even consider the possibility that the man has a political agenda. We’re also not allowed to call him down as lying.
“…“The same issue is being fought today and has been fought since 1948, and historians are carried back to the 19th century… when the original people, the Palestinians — and please remember, Jesus was a Palestinian — the Palestinian people had the Europeans come and take their country,” Wright said. He said African-Americans in the United States have much in common with Palestinians in Israel.
“The youth in Ferguson and the youth in Palestine have united together to remind us that the dots need to be connected,” Wright said. “And what Dr. King said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, has implications for us as we stand beside our Palestinian brothers and sisters, who have been done one of the most egregious injustices in the 20th and 21st centuries.”…”
The history of the region we today consider Palestine, or ‘Palestinian’ dates from the dawn of history. It is a convoluted soap opera. Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, a part of the Roman Empire. Before the Children of Israel conquered the region, it was ruled by a smorgasbord of anyone and everyone who was part of the Middle East. It gets its name from the Philistines, who were also known as the Sea Peoples, the Phoneticians, and numerous other nationalities. They were not, in any way shape or form related to today’s version of “Palestinian”. Syria Palæstina, of which Judea was a part, did not exist until the time of Marcus Aurelius, who was born nearly a century after the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. In order to understand the genetic mix of today’s Palestinian people, one must fast forward nearly a thousand years, after the conquests of Mohammad, the Turks, Mongols, and so forth and so on. By this time, very few Jews remained in the area, having been scattered after the sack of Jerusalem in 70AD.
This has NOTHING to do with the genealogical background of Jesus of Nazareth. He was born in Judea. He was Jewish. There is absolutely nothing, nothing at all related to Palestinian within his genealogy, or his Jewish DNA. We don’t know the exact DNA of people living in the time of Christ. There were assumptions that the Jewish people from that era were genetically closely related to today’s Palestinian people. BUT, the most recent studies indicate this is not true. Instead, the Jews of the era of Christ were far more closely related to European ancestry of Greece, Italy, Roman, etc. A 2001 study showed that the DNA of the ancient Jews was NOT Palestinian or Arab, but close related to the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Assyrians, Turks, and Armenians (the people ISIS likes to slaughter).
This is extremely logical, and fits directly with Biblical History – we’re talking the Cradle of Civilization. Abraham, the founder of the Jewish people was from Ur. Ashkenazi Jews are primarily European in DNA. Contrary to the LIES the politically correct world likes to tell, that the ancient Jews were of African ancestry, NOTHING is farther from the truth. But, a lie is a glorious thing, when it serves the right purpose.
One of the best views we have into the world of Christ, how he would have appeared is in a relief carved on the Arch of Titus in Rome. It depicts the Jewish people, conquered by Titus in 70AD, maybe 40 years after the Resurrection.
I hate to break it to you, but they looked a heck of a lot like the ancient Romans, not Palestinians, Arabs, or Africans – but their Mediterranean Greek, Roman, and Fertile Crescent ancestry. Dr. Kaveh Farrokh, thinks this is how Christ appeared. Naturally, the ignorant wretches of the brainwashed liberal world have jumped at this, not bothering to even see if it resembled what we do have out of Judea, from the era. In fact, David, of whom Joseph was descended had red hair. He was what we call a ginger – maybe even Celtic? The earliest known depictions of Jesus of Nazereth show a man with no beard, and his hair worn in the style of the Romans. His appearance had no resemblance to the Neanderthal depicted by Dr. Farrokh. The earliest know depictions of the Apostles also show them to be ‘Roman’ in style. The bearded version is Byzantine, no earlier than the 5th Century or so.
The Apostle John was the 1st cousin to Christ. The earliest known depiction of him, coming from a Roman catacomb, looks shockingly – Vulcan? Golly, who knew that John had reddish brown hair, was fair, no beard, and looked like a Vulcan? The earliest known depictions of John are very Roman, and most likely Forth Century
Then there is the earliest known version of the Good Shepherd, who is a reference to Christ. You might want to note the red hair, no beard, and the Roman appearance. Once again, we go back to the ancients, like David, who was ruddy. Sarah was blond.
So, the dirty little truth is that the early version of Christ, as the Good Shepherd, are totally and completely Roman. There is a bottom line here. Christ was the product of the early Roman Empire. There is a remarkable consistency of the early ROMAN images of Christ. He has short hair, no beard, and his hair is brown to reddish brown. The consistency lasts until the late Sixth Century, when styles changed. We then see him with a beard, and darker, longer hair. The historian in me says we go with the Roman versions. They are closer to when he lived.
The problem with this is that there is no possible way we are looking at a person who was Arabic, Palestinian, or African. These images did not evolve until the past fifty years or so, two thousand years after the fact when black ministers felt the need to lie about who Christ was, so that they could cover up for their own abject ignorance and total and complete racism.
I loath anyone who lies about history, especially for their own agenda, no matter what that agenda is. What we are talking about is lying. It’s one of the Ten Big Ones, as in thou shalt not…. but that’s what people like Jeremiah Wright are doing – lying.
As a historian, I am going to back to the sources nearest the time any person existed. The sources here are Roman. They come from frescoes from Roman Catacombs, where the early Christians were forced to go, underground, to worship. People like the fake Aylmer Von Fleischer, are strange. Yes, they have an agenda. It is one based on pure hatred of anyone who is white. We’re told that whites who exhibit this same agenda, and publish racist based material are evil, yet people like Aylmer Von Fleischer can get away with it. What he’s doing doesn’t bother me. Only fools will fall for his crap. It is the people like Jeremiah Wright who are they truly despicable ones.
One other little problem is the Shroud of Turin, which shows a bearded man, said to be Christ. The simple fact that the earliest versions of Christ’s image were Roman with short hair and no beard completely debunk the Shroud.