Presenting Jesus as a “Palestinian” has become a political weapon. This is why it is actually important that Jesus be presented as a “Palestinian,” particularly a “black Palestinian.” In this presentation, both Black Lives Matter (Marxist) and the Palestinian jihad are promoted as woke and therefore good. Beckford says this is particularly important “in this year of protest and change.”
The “Palestinian resistance,” presented to the world as peaceful, which it is not, should be recognized for what it is: an active jihadist war against Israel to obliterate it “from the River to the Sea.” There is no reason whatsoever that it should be associated with Jesus.
Jesus was of Middle-Eastern Jewish heritage. He was from the house of David and arrived in Bethlehem long before the 1995 Oslo Accords, when Bethlehem was assigned to the Palestinian Authority. This should be obvious. The Palestinians are historically Ottoman South Syrians, with no historical claim to the Holy Land.
In exploring some of the roots of how and where it became popularized to claim Jesus as a Palestinian, the Israeli monitoring agency Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) focused upon a Palestinian Authority TV interview in 2010, in which author Samih Ghanadreh from Nazareth was asked about his new book Christianity and its Connection to Islam. Ghanadeh states that he personally heard Yasser Arafat several times affirm that Jesus was the first Palestinian martyr, whereupon the host replies: “Jesus was a Palestinian, no one denies that.” PMW cited the regularity of this declaration by prominent Palestinians, including the Governor of Ramallah Leila Ghannam (“We all have the right to be proud that Jesus is a Palestinian”), Senior PA leader Jibril Rajoub (“The greatest Palestinian in history since Jesus is Yasser Arafat“), and an editorial in the PA official daily — Al-Hayat Al-Jadida — referred to the “holy Trinity” as being Arafat, Abbas and Jesus.
Abbas did his PhD in Holocaust denial, and Rahman Abdul Rauf al-Qudwa al-Husseini (a.k.a. Yasser Arafat) learned under the tutelage of his revered uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, who worked with Hitler and Adolf Eichmann to slaughter six million Jews.
Palestinian propaganda has become rooted in the modern-day Church via many outreach programs, which has unfortunately lead to a new antisemitism, tailored especially for evangelicals. Bible researcher and author Jim Fletcher wrote:
Even LifeWay bookstores, the chain owned and operated by the Southern Baptist Convention, stock Sunday school maps depicting “Palestine in the Time of Jesus.” Never mind that neither Jesus nor the apostles knew anything of “Palestine,” but the regional name has compelled too many evangelicals (like Philip Yancey) to label Jesus a “Palestinian rabbi,” or the “Palestinian Jesus.” This false historical label was popularized by none other than Yasser Arafat, yet evangelical leaders are good with it.
Ed Stetzer, president of research at LifeWay — the resource arm of the Southern Baptist Convention — referred to Jesus as a “Palestinian Jew” in his article published in Christianity Today entitled: “Monday is for Missiology: Some Thoughts on Contextualization.”
Robert O. Smith, program director for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America/Middle East and North Africa and co-moderator of the Palestine-Israel Ecumenical Forum of the World Council of Churches, blames the Israeli “occupation” on the dwindling number of Christians in the Bethlehem regions. Smith’s agenda is anti-Zionism, and thus he helps to advance the false narratives about Israel and about the Palestinians which some evangelical leaders have fallen into, in sync with the late Arafat and the PLO.
Jesus is presented not only as a Palestinian, but an oppressed Palestinian. In an obscene Easter message presented by Bethlehem Anglican Canon Rev. Naim Ateek, president of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, Ateek stated:
In this season of Lent, it seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him. It only takes people of insight to see the hundreds of thousands of crosses throughout the land, Palestinian men, women, and children being crucified. Palestine has become one huge golgotha. The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily. Palestine has become the place of the skull.
Read more about this type of propaganda HERE.
“BBC WS radio promotes the claim that Jesus was ‘Palestinian,’” by Hadar Sela, CAMERA UK, December 23, 2020:
On December 18th the BBC World Service radio programme ‘Heart and Soul’ aired a 27-minute programme (since repeated several times) titled ‘Black Jesus’.
“The identity and colour of Jesus – and why it matters – has taken on a new significance in this year of protest and change. Seeing Jesus as a darker skinned Palestinian rather than blonde European is both historically accurate and theologically important, but it’s not a new idea.” [emphasis added]
The notion of Jesus as ‘Palestinian’ is repeated during the programme itself by its presenter Robert Beckford.
01:16: “Despite the fact it’s more realistic as a first-century Palestinian Jew that Jesus was dark skinned, somehow the white Jesus has become the most popular and accepted image.”
25:37: “The colour of Jesus matters, both literally and symbolically. A first-century Palestinian Jew had colour…”
Beckford is of course by no means the first to promote the notion of Jesus as a Palestinian, be that for political ends or as a result of lack of knowledge.
As CAMERA observed in 2008 when the New York Times claimed that Jesus ‘spoke in Palestine’:
“Bernard Lewis has noted that the word “Palestine” was sometimes used by Greek and Latin authors prior to 135 CE, though that appears to have normally been used as an adjective in apposition to “Syria” (Palaistine Syria or Syria Palestina) and in reference to the coastal area formerly inhabited by the Philistines but not “Judaea,” a region that “in Roman times was still officially and commonly known by that name,” as Lewis explained, or the region around Nazareth (“Palestine: On the History and Geography of a Name,” The International History Review, January 1, 1980).”
Earlier this year when the same paper referred to “first-century Palestine” CAMERA noted that:
“…during the time of Jesus, Bethlehem and Jerusalem were in what was commonly called Judea and Nazareth was in what was commonly called the Galilee. The land where Jesus lived did not take on the name Palestine until the second century, well after his death. Thus, the notion of “first-century Palestine,” […] is totally fictional…
In 132 (Common Era or AD), approximately 100 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, the Jews fought against Roman rule for a second time in what is known as the Bar Kochba Revolt. After the Romans defeated the rebellious Jews in 135, they renamed the land of the Jews Palestina to punish the Jews and to make an example of them to other peoples considering rebellion. The Romans took away the Jewish name, Judea, and replaced it with the name of an ancient enemy the Jews despised. The Philistines were an extinct Aegean people whom the Jews had historically loathed as uncultured and barbaric.”
One must assume that it is not a lack of knowledge which prompted “one of the UK’s prominent black theologians” – as Beckford is described in the programme’s synopsis – to repeatedly promote the anachronistic notion that Jesus was “a first-century Palestinian Jew”. In fact, Beckford’s political/theological agenda is abundantly clear throughout the programme, which begins by describing Jesus as “a leading figure in the fight against racism and discrimination” and goes on (apparently missing out the word ‘to’) to claim that:
“…in reality Jesus was a refugee whose family had to flee North Africa due to persecution. He was one of the oppressed by the colonisers of his day.”…
mortimer says
Poppycock! It is preposterous to call Jesus by a name (‘Palestinian’) which came into usage 100 years after his death. That is called an ‘ANACHRONISM’.
Example: If a movie about ancient Egypt showed a Pharaoh wearing a wristwatch, the wristwatch would be an example of an ‘ANACHRONISM’.
Similarly, to call Jesus ‘Palestinian’ is an ANACHRONISM, because the Romans re-named JUDEA
as ‘Syria Palaestina’ in 135AD, about 100 years after the death of Jesus.
‘Syria Palaestina’ was a Roman province between 135 AD and about 390. It was established by the merger of Roman Syria and Roman Judaea, following the defeat of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 AD.
ANACHRONISM is defined as the representation of an event, person, or thing in a historical context in which it could not have occurred or existed.
ISLAM’S source texts are FILLED with ludicrous ANACHRONISMS, such as PHARAOH existing at the time of HAMAN (when they lived many hundreds of years apart) or Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron assumed to be the same as the Virgin Mary (who lived .
Muslims think of ANACHRONISM as NORMATIVE ISLAM … thus their minds are discombobulated and asynchronicity is accepted as part of Islam.
Allah contradicts reality and logic and Muslims do not challenge it … Muslims censor the faculty of critical thought so they may remain in Islam.
Jesus called himself and his followers Israelites by nationality and Jews by religion.
The Koran was written by humans … confused, careless humans. Muslims imitating the Koran are careless and confused by real history. They have no use for it.
For a map of Israel at the time of Jesus:
https://www.conformingtojesus.com/charts-maps/en/map_of_israel_at_the_time_of_jesus.htm
mortimer says
Note: the sister of Moses (Miriam) lived approximately 1500 years before Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Koran conflates the two women on the basis of their names in one of the stupidest anachronisms in the Koran.
Kepha says
An honest mistake, since in the Semitic languages Miriam, Sister of Moses, and Mary (Maryam), Mother of Jesus Christ, have the same name (along with how many other Jewish women throughout history). Still, it’s a mistake and one more reason why Uncle Kepha sees the Qur’an as a fraud.
JayBee says
Importantly, as of September 2020 more than 256 000 people are no longer paying their TV license and the number keeps going up. The BBC is losing its relevance on a massive scale – their far left woke reporting is without doubt failing. I hope they will be defunded at some point soon. I watch either Netflix or Prime for the same money – I will never support nor watch the BBC again – their far left rhetoric is poison and misleading.
Jayell says
An honest mistake? Surely the sort of stupid, careless mistake that one would make if one wasn’t capable of/wasn’t bothered about the level of intellectual integrity necessary to cross-check simple facts in the cause of honesty, accuracy and keeping your academic reputation? If it’s understood that there would be a lot of Maryams/Miriams/whatever involved in a certain body of information, the first thing any half-brained researcher/scholar would do is double-check that they’re talking about the correct ‘Miriam/Maryam’ in each case if the researcher/scholar concerned wants to avoid looking like a total idiot. So either the Qur’an was compiled by ‘honest’ deluded idiots or/and it was a bogus project from the start because all these new ‘holy men’ and ‘scholars’ needed a library of convincing-looking ‘religious’ texts to back them up in the eyes of the multitudes of new ‘disciples’ who being ‘persuaded’ to submit to this religious/political scam – and the leaders knew perfectly well that they could throw together any old incoherent or inaccurate bits and pieces and get away with it, which they have indeed done for 1,400 years. And of course it’s even easier if you say ‘Believe this lot, or we’ll beat you up/cut your head off/rape your wife or daughter……..’ then proclaim that you represent the ‘Religion of Peace/Mercy/Tolerance/whatever’ and the fools will believe you – or else.
Brenrod says
Hmmmm, is the true name Rhodesia or Zimbabwe? Perhaps the real indigenous folks there are the white Rhodesians, using the logic of the black Anglican preacher.
mortimer says
REAL FACE OF JESUS ? A forensic reconstruction of a first century Jew on the basis of skulls found in Israel:
Led by retired medical artist Dr Richard Neave, formerly of the University of Manchester, the images constructed by the team of scientists suggest that Christ might have had a wide face, with dark eyes, short dark hair, a bushy beard, and tanned skin.
Dr Neave and his team based their reconstruction on the analysis of three ancient Semite skulls—found by Israeli archaeologists and dated to around the same period when Jesus lived—and combined the data with anthropological references.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jesus-face-forensic-anthropology-art-392823
Michael Copeland says
“Ghanadeh states that he personally heard Yasser Arafat several times affirm that Jesus was the first Palestinian martyr”.
Hold it just a moment, Yasser fans: Jesus was a “martyr”?
For a martyr to be a martyr it is necessary that he be killed.
The Koran emphatically states “They did not kill him”.
He denied a verse in the Koran.
That makes Yasser Arafat an apostate.
Kepha says
Good point, but, since when were Muslims ever logical?
somehistory says
Yes, it does.
And he was a lot of other stuff too…liar and really ugly, for two.
Kepha says
The picture of the “dark-skinned Palestinian” strikes me as 1960’s black militants’ answer to the popular Sallman head of “Christ”.
Disclaier: Uncle Kepha freely admits that while he believes firmly that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn. 1: 14) and in Jesus God and man are eternally joined, he is also sure that the Holy Spirit had his reasons for not leaving a physical description of our saviour.
While I have taken to using “Eretz Yisroel for the territory between the Jordan and Med, I’m old enough to remember when “Palestine” didn’t have the poitical connotation it has today. For the record, I am also old enough to remember when “Palestinians” were “Arabs” (along with Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, inhabitants of the peninsula shaped like the leg of someone with elephantiasis, etc.).
Yes, the Romans renamed the land of Judaea Syria Palaestina. The medieval German poet Walther Von der Vogelweide also used “Palestine” as the name of the Holy Land. The term was also used for the territory of the British mandate of 1918-47. It was used as well by historiographers and archaeologists, much as “Anatolia” was, and is, used for the Asiatic territory of Turkey.
As for materials targeting Evangelicals, and Evangelicals themselves, keep in mind that nobody can read the first page of the New Testament in a fundamentalist manner and not believe that Jesus is a Jew. But it is also the case that there are numbers of traditionalist Protestant Christians, especially those who hold to the historical Lutheran and Reformed confessions, who do not accept the Dispensationalist reading that the restoration of a Jewish polity in ‘Eretz Yisroel is necessarily a sign that the end and that Last Judgment are going to happen in this generation. I, for one, have no inclination to own either the old or new Scofield Reference Bible, and see Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, and their ilk as sensationalists with a mistaken understanding of divine history and eschatology. For me, the modern state of Israel and its place in the world is merely one more case of nation rising against nation (Matthew 24:7), of which Jesus himself spoke. I will also admit that, unhappily, there are numbers of Christians of various theological stripes who are more than ready to fault the Jews, or be misled by the cause of the moment (I am equally disgusted by those who’d have us join an unbelieving cultural consensus on sexuality).
Yasser Arafat (or whatever his real name was or is) using Jesus as “the first Palestinian martyr” is one more case of using “Jesus” as an undefined banner around which people are called to rally. I fault liberal theologians of the West for the same abuse of the Messiah’s name to serve a host of other causes more or less foreign to the intent of the Scriptures.
The greater error of Yarafat and those who accept his assessment is that they see Jesus as a “martyr”. This insults the Lord of Glory. No, Jesus gave his life to pay for the sins of his people, offering the final, complete atonement for sin, after which no other sacrifice is possible (one reason why the veil in the Temple was torn in two at his death; and why the generation that saw Jesus’ earthly ministry lived to see the destruction of the Temple later). Stephen was martred for his faith in Jesus (Acts 7), as were a “noble army” in following ages. But Jesus’ death was the crucial (conscious word choice) thing in the redemption of the people of God. As for Jesus being a “freedom fighter” or “rebel” in the modern sense, I would print such a meme on soft tissue paper and use it to clean my @r$e.(I’ve been reading some Luther recently). Jesus’ crcifixion was his obedience to the divine Covenant of Redemption, not rebellion; the penultimate stage of his humiliation (prior to burial) which precedes his exaltation (resurrection and ascension).
The Qur’an peddles a soul-killing error in saying that Jesus did not die on the cross, and Arafat disparages the greatest inhabitant of ‘Eretz Yisroel ever by seeing him as a mere “martyr”. Jesus is the one who worked redemption for us, and offers that alvation as a gift. Jesus is Redeemer and Lord; God’s Anointed. End of Story.
Infidel says
Jesus was a Jew: all that stuff about him being the messiah and spinning off another religion came later. If despite that, he was ‘Palestinian’, so is every Israeli Jew alive today. Otherwise, how is it that Jews can’t be Palestinian, but only Mr Christ could be?
owensgate says
I don’t give a rat’s patootie if Jesus was so Black he reflected Purple, or White as a ghost. What matters is He was God incarnate, 100% Human, and 100% God. The only thing certain beyond that is He was not “Palestinian” or Arab. He was a Jew from the line of David, which makes Him a lot lighter skinned than the “Politically Correct” Left would like to imagine.
Barry Ziderman says
Hard to see how anyone could be human & G-d. I stopped believing in fairy tales when I grew up
David Longfellow says
Whoa, that is some pretty awesome spouting. I’m sure convinced that most people are fools. Thanks for pointing that out!
owensgate says
The ignoramuses in the long line of fools denying the fact and Deity of Christ are more than ready, able and willing, with great anticipation, to welcome “Space Aliens” to Earth. Whatever space aliens are, they are not “altruistically motivated” to “help” us transition into some Great Intergalactic Empire; they are DEMONS moving inter-dimensionally, not physically mortal, nor moving between stars in the galaxy in “spaceships”. The “Catholic Church” and the “Pope” are looking for them; that ought to explain a few things. If I were to meet up with one of these spindly slant-eyed gray things in a forest, I’d draw a bead between its eyes with an AR-15 and blow its squishy brain out through the back of its head. If the “Lost” were to know what is really coming, they’d wet themselves from fear. The door to Salvation through Christ will be closing soon. The point I’m making is that 2021 will be a lot stranger than 2020, and it’s all downhill from now to the end.
Mount Zion says
“..and the word become flesh….”But I do see your point , if you don’t believe that the Bible is the word of God then there is only one option left , God incarnate must be a fairy tale.
David says
Let’s not forget that Muham-mad was WHITE!
Barry Ziderman says
No proof Jesus even existed but if he did he was a Jew
marc says
there is good evidence in Jewish scripture and Roman writings of the time, Jews generally don’t doubt his existence, they just reject the whole son of Sod thing.
https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence
James Lincoln says
Barry,
Even Left-leaning Wikipedia acknowledges this:
“Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
somehistory says
Several years ago, an ossuary was found with the inscription “James, the brother of Jesus.”
I watched a program on tv about it and other evidence that Jesus Christ was a living Jew during the time the Bible says He was.
I found this account with images.
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/06/25/james-jesus-ossuary/
Rarely says
Just make up whatever “facts” you want to fit your agenda. Is the BBC’s agenda really a secret? If so it’s the worst kept one in years.
somehistory says
Had there been a designation of that sort, the Bible writers who wrote about Jesus would have said so. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Jude…all wrote verses about Jesus, Who He was, why He came, what He would do, and none of them said anything about His being palestinian.
He was born in Bethlehem of Judea (there were two cities by that name), He was from Nazareth, His mother was Mary who married Joseph the carpenter. Mary and Joseph were both Jews, and Joseph was from Bethlehem.
Had there been such a designation for Christ Jesus:
it would be evident, as so much is evident from Genesis to Revelation. If it was of any importance to Who Jesus is, was, would do, is doing, etc.
Had there been such a thing, there would have been a prophesy about it long before Jesus was born, just as there were hundreds of other prophesies foretelling things about Him, such as the city of His birth, what He would do for the people of earth, how He would die,…but there was not a word saying He would be palestinian.
Jesus was not “black” of skin. Natural born Jews, not the converts like Sammy Davis Jr., are not Black.
And, Jesus was a Perfect Man…that is why when White people paint Him, He is White. Portrait painters paint what they see. Because no one since the very earliest years of the First Century has actually seen Jesus, the painter sees Jesus as he/she sees perfection And like it or not, each skin color race of people see their own color as the ‘perfect’ color. It’s a part of how humans feel and think.
If the painter knows that Jesus was a Jew, and the painter wants to be as authentic as possible…rather than be inclined by their own personal likes…Jesus will have the coloring of the Jews. Not all Jews are exactly the same tone, just as not all Whites are the same, nor are all Blacks the same tone. Hence, any portrait of Jesus is a guess by the one painting.
The ‘painting’ with this article is meant to cause contention, not be authentic or ‘right.’ It isn’t even well done.
People are just trying to make a name for themselves by stirring up contention and making bold statements. Adding fuel to the race fire is meant to give credibility to the ‘black matter’ issue and make Whites and others feel “subdued.” Much like moslims want Christians to feel “subdued.”
After all, many see Christianity as a “White” people’s religion…even though there are people of all skin tones who are Christian…so if Jesus was a Black Man, what a blow to White people. They think.
But it still doesn’t matter, even then. It’s faith in the Man, the Son of God, “Mighty God, Eternal Father, Wonderful Counselor, Prince of Peace,” King, Savior, Lord, in Whom Christians put their faith.
Someday, soon, “every eye will see Him, coming on the clouds with great glory.”
Infidel says
Nazareth would have been a part of Galilee, right, not Judea? If Joseph belonged to Judea, how did Jesus belong to Nazareth? Or did he get his regional affiliation from Mary, and was she from Nazareth?
Mark says
Study your Bible. Joseph and Mary, though living in Nazareth, a town in Galilee, were both from the lineage of King David. Therefore, their family regional connection was from the City of David, Bethlehem, in Judea. They were returning there to report for the Roman census. Jesus was born there, fulfilling the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, in Judea.
somehistory says
When Joseph, Mary and Jesus returned from Egypt…where they had fled to keep herod from killing Jesus…they settled in Nazareth.
If one is born in a city, but moves to a different city, they are then “from” their new location.
Bad Penguin says
Well written. If it makes people of color happy to see a black Jesus then let them paint him as Black. It wouldnt be historically accurate but I truly dont think Jesus would care.
I know black people who truly believe that ancient Egyptians were Black even though painting show them as tanned and the Nubians as being very black.
somehistory says
Thank you. I don’t think Jesus cares. What matters is that we “obey His commandments” which are “not burdensome.”
Fred Middleton says
His genealogy is in the gospels. not a Hamite among them. The original ‘Palestinians’ were the Philistines, from Cyprus, I believe.
GreekEmpress says
I read one account that Philistines were the “Sea People” —meaning Greek!
Does that make me a Palestinian?
😆
PS—Best wishes for a Happy, Healthy, and a Prosperous (better) 2021 to all here at JW!
Evangeline Golding says
I believe that quite recently some graves of philistines were found in Israel, and various tests were made, as they always are, but at least one had to be comparative, and it was discovered that the fakestinians have absolutely NO connections to the philistines at all. The philistines were a sea-faring people from somewhere in Greece.
The fakestinians are arabs, so they came from the arabian peninsula, before they went marauding round the middle east, raping, slaughtering, lying and thieving as they went, under the auspices of their pervert prophet and his fifth-rate demon.
It was the terrorist yasser arafat who invented the lie of the fakestinians and that wasn’t until 1964.
Chrissie01 says
recently, I watched “Merlin” on Netflix and noticed that, absurdly, Guinevere, wife of king Arther, was a black halfbreed, educating us that color does not matter. Obviously it just doesn’t matter when whites are replaced, or Jews, for that matter.
Otherwise I am awaiting the day when Kunta Kinte is impersonated by a blonde.
This anti-racism thing stinks. And badly.
Lavéritétriomphera says
Especially given that it’s the message that is important, the messenger does not really matter.
Fred Middleton says
The picture clearly shows a man of equatorial African descent, not a ‘Palestinian’. There is no ethnic difference between the Jews and other indigenous peoples of the area, falsely called Arabs when they were there before the Arab invasion. Some say these once Christian inhabitants of the Holy Land were actually descended from Jews. The whole black thing is just a myth.
somehistory says
Those “first called Christians,” by “Divine Providence,” were Jews. Peter, James (the brother of Jesus and the other James), John, Simon, Nathanael, etc. were all Jews.
When it was time for the Jewish festivals and Jews came to Jerusalem from all over, they heard the “good news about the Christ,” and “many became believers.”
But there are people who wish to cause divisions among those who believe in Jesus and mislead those who have not put faith in Him.
Race problems are a tool from satan the devil as “God is not partial.”
gravenimage says
BBC: ‘Seeing Jesus as a darker skinned Palestinian is both historically accurate and theologically important’
………….
Firstly, Jesus was not a “Palestinian” in the way this is meant–an Arab. he was Jewish.
Then, he was not African, which is clearly the features of this figure on the stamp. So no–there is nothing at all historically accurate about this.
Jayell says
I believe that the best informed and most authoritative estimates have long concluded that Jesus, as a Nazarene, would probably have had an ‘olive’ complexion typical of those of a fair-skinned Mediterranean background who are subject to strong sunlight in that part of the world. I believe it’s probably wisest simply to ignore anything that comes out of the BBC, just as most people with any sense in the UK are trying to pretend that the BBC doesn’t exist anymore.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Jayell.
And I don’t mind if Jesus is depicted as White, Black, Chinese, Native American, Hispanic, or anything else–but touting this as “historically accurate” is absurd.
Anna says
What a load of rubbish !!!!! The BBC has nothing else to do so lets go with Christianophobia !!!!! Jesus was a JEW, Palestine did not exist it was a province and belonged to the JEWS. He was not black but brown skinned I wish someone would sue the BBC and ruin them once and for all !!!!!!!
Evangeline Golding says
We’re wishing the same thing…
Lavéritétriomphera says
“BBC: ‘Seeing Jesus as a darker skinned Palestinian is both historically accurate and theologically important’”
To my knowledge, no Registered Document describe the physical appearance of Jesus.
Thereby this BBC’s statement is one more proof that history has always been manipulated by the political power.
After this, how can we blindly trust texts that copistes, terrorized by local power barons, have written about sensitive topics?
I particularly have in mind Muhammad’s biography and the Quran.
Ugly Sid says
Don’ t fall for it. Jesus was Jamaican, dreadlocks and all. I have his Polaroid. I got it from a shop in Kingston, but not until I swore an oath of secrecy. He looked strikingly like Bob Marley. And I can prove it: I kept the receipt and Diner’s Club will back me up.
Past that, I gotta keep mum. I took an oath.
gravenimage says
🙂
Crusades Were Right says
“BBC”
B razenly
B lackwashing
C hrist
OLD GUY says
I’am not a biblical scholar but I recognize bullshit when I see it. Nice try B.L.M. and mussies, but not buying it. But I can top their claim, I saw him on the beach in 1971 white guy with nice tan and blonde long hair and beard, wearing cutoffs and sandals that was the give away that it was him. Oh he had a tattoo of a squirrel running up the inside of his leg. I’am pretty sure it was him, If I dig through those old boxes of pictures i’am sure I’ve got one.
Gamzu says
In the “for what it’s worth” department, I remember decades ago, on 60 minutes, Harry Reasoner said that the prophet Isaiah described Jesus as unattractive. A Jewish fellow wrote in to ask how that was possible, since Isaiah lived hundreds of years before Jesus. Reasoner replied that it was possible because Isaiah was a prophet. He was referring to Isaiah 53:2. “He had no form or beauty, that we should look at him: no charm that we should find him pleasing.” Personally, I don’t think Isaiah was talking about Jesus or any future messiah, but I thought some readers might find this interesting.
somehistory says
Isaiah did write about Jesus. Because he was given the information by God. And:
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
Many saw Jesus Christ as a bad thing….they didn’t want things to change as they were at the top of the heap and liked it that way. They could see that His being there was going to “open the eyes of the blind,” and “set the captive free.”
The “eyes” of many were spiritually blind to the Law due to the Pharisees application of it. That is why Jesus said, “Do as they say, not as they do.” And, “The Truth will set you free.” These would be free from the idea that they had to do as the Pharisees wanted, and that they were all “doomed” by that group.
So, even though Jesus Christ was a Perfect Man in the human flesh, and would be “beautiful” for that reason alone (besides all of the other spiritual reasons), He was not beautiful to those who hated the Truth of His words.
Gamzu says
I don’t wish to engage in religious polemics. I’ll just say I don’t recommend relying on the Gospels for my knowledge of the Pharisees or of first century Judaism (or, for that matter, of Jesus).