Why Do Liberals Need to Dye Christ Black?

Share

One of my favorite topics is trying to locate the earliest known images of Christ.  One of the fascinating trends, which is now reflected in a Google search, is for enterprising young racists to change the ancient images of Christ and early church leaders from Caucasian to Negroid.  Genetically and archaeologically, this is utterly impossible, but the left has never let documented facts get in the way of a good revisionist lie.  I suspect the hoax can be traced back to black nationalist hate groups.  They are the ones who began the push for a black Jesus.

Yet another Facebook related lie is being spread.  Oh, it looks good, but, when you track it, once again, the left is trying to lie about Christ.  This is the claim.  I’m tracking it to Pintrest, to an account where historic figures are being racially readjusted to be more politically correct.  Allegedly, this is the person who is telling the whole truth.  It is called a Black Jesus from an American Coptic Christian’s view.  Interestingly, the image may come from the St Simon the Tanner Monastery, which dates back to the 10th Century.  The images in the monastery, while stunning, all reflect Caucasian features.

Reasonable People Unite

This really is about racism.

Pintrest

Further research has found that the original version of the lie might come from yet another interesting site.

“…Did you know that the standard image of Jesus hanging in many homes is a false one? Though the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth cannot be taken as an historical fact, historically and genetically the people of Palestine and Lebanon during that time were 95% African in all aspects; it is not well known that Jesus, the Christ of Nazareth if he existed was an Afrikan/black man. The evidence of the earliest visual representations of him showing him to have been that and nothing else.

1400 year or so after his death the Roman Catholic Church decided to use the image of the Italian Cesare Borgia an incestuous murderer and a homosexual to represent the son of God, it was already a well-established fact that Christ was black and there are many paintings, sculptures and statues that depict Christ, Mary and Joseph as black, scattered around the world today. Of course you will never hear about these representations in the mainstream news nor will you find them openly, you will have to search for them on your own….”

I am still trying to find the original image.  So far, I have located this.

Do 

This is a copy of the image. Do you know anything about ancient art? This IS NOT ancient. Just look at it. Look at the shading, the colors, and formation of the facial features. It is not PRIMITIVE enough.  There is way too much detail in the facial structure.   Allegedly housed in the Coptic Museum in Cairo, if the museum contained the earliest known image of Christ, they would be advertising it.  There is NOTHING about this image.  NOTHING.  I’ve traced the scam back to 2012.

Revelation Now

I do think it is taken from a piece that includes the following:  Please note the differences.  There is also a very specific depiction of a person who is Black.  From what I gather Miriam Guilliams is the expert on the above ancient piece.

Coptic Museum

This image is from the 5th Century and is housed in the Coptic Museum.  Please note the differences in color and craft.

Getty Images

We need to finally finish with a valid list of the earliest images of Christ. The problem is the fact that there is no specific name for the icon.  That’s a real tell as to validity.  ALL famous ancient icons of Christ have a specific name.  There is nothing.  I also cannot find a depiction of the original image.  I minored in Fine Arts and Humanities, and have a decent background in art history. I know what I’m doing when it comes to art and history.

Additional information about the early images of Christ proves just how ignorant those who are perpetuating the fraud are.  It is quite easy to reference the claim that the image is the ‘oldest’. But, it is much easier to believe what is not real.  Just a knowledge of the early history  of the images of Christ can prove the claims to be false, simply because the earliest known images – to date – go back to the early part of the Third Century.  The claim is this image dates to the Sixth.

The image is an artistic fraud.

Why is it necessary to lie about the genetics of Christ?

“…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…”

Genetically, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Christ to have been of African ancestry.  It is genetically impossible – if you believe the Bible.  Instead, I suspect he might have been a ginger.

 

Share