Why is it that Caucasians think Yashua(Jesus) was white, when in Rev 1:14-17 gives his description?

Question

Jew is not a race it simply means wander. The oldest bones were found in Africa. No, Jew bones were ever found.

Answer 1

Yashua is Hebrew for Jah is Salvation and Jesus is Jah and Zeus combined to make Zeus equal with Jah equal with Salvation, and this makes your question a deception with brackets to show you have been deceived.

The Bible shows Jesus to be the name of Two Thieves Crucified.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

"That they said, we killed the Messiah Isa, the son of Mariam, the Apostle of Allah, but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for a surety they killed him not". Quran 4:157

We can rest assured that the Messiah was not crucified as is claimed in the Gospels, but that some form of deception or trick has left them in much confusion and doubt about what had really taken place.

With this assurance from the Quran and the fact that the Quran is the Final Message from Allah that confirms all Scripture that was sent before it, we can, just as assuredly, make a successful examination of the sayings of the Bible, in order to prove the non-crucifixion of the Messiah.

Muslims must therefore believe that whatever is reported as past revelation must contain sufficient evidence of the truth in order to be examined for the truth, even if the extensive plotting by evil ones corrupt the truth and further blend this corruption with a faith that is alien to Islam that seeks to deny and destroy Islamic belief and worship.

To say that Jesus was crucified would be wholly true according to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John of the New Testament of the Bible, and this would depend on the true identity of Jesus.

To say that the Messiah or Christ was crucified would definitely be false and misleading and contrary to the claim of the Quran, and the evidence of Scripture as contained in the Bible.

The name of Jesus is a New Testament name that is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament, so that the Old Testament of the Bible disagrees with, or, it cannot be said to be in total agreement with this name that is used to identify the Messiah in the New Testament.

The four Gospels are the claimants of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and they are the Gospels of the crucifixion by four, that is to say, that they are used in repetition of the alleged crucifixion, but they are certainly not the Gospels of the fulfillment of the prophecy of the child as named in the prophecy and command of the Lord God of Israel of the Book of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) of the Old Testament of the Bible.

Two of the four Gospels (Matthew and Luke) make mention of the naming of the infant Messiah with the name of Jesus, which name defies the prophecy and command of the Lord God of Israel. (Isaiah 7:14)

Jesus of the Gospels replaces Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), which is referred to as Emmanuel (Matthew1: 23). This represents an annulment of the command of the Lord, by an angel of the Lord, after the child was conceived in the mother’s womb (Matthew 1:20-21).

Matthew attempts to justify this annulment of the command of the Lord as a fulfillment of the prophecy as “spoken” by the prophet (Matthew 1:22), but the prophecy is again altered, with the authority for naming the child being shifted from the virgin to “they,” whoever they may be.

The prophecy and command of the Lord, was one of conception without a father, “a virgin shall conceive” (Isaiah 7:14), which is repeated in Matthew’s reference, with what seems to be a slight twist to the original prophecy, becoming, “a virgin shall be with child.” (Matthew 1: 23)

The command of the Lord (Isaiah 7:14) made no mention of father or spouse or husband, but the angel of the Lord effects a major adjustment to the plan of the Lord with the inclusion of Joseph, the spouse. Matthew introduces a pregnant wife who appears to be guilty of attempting to conceal her pregnancy from an annoyed and angry husband who harbors thoughts of putting her away. (Matthew 1:18-20)

Having cast aspersions on the character of the virgin with an uncharacteristic version of Scriptural fulfillment of prophecy, and with an atmosphere of mistrust, Matthew creates yet another annulment of the prophecy with the statement that, “she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew 1:18)

While Joseph slept, the so-called angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, and in an attempt to lend Heavenly approval to the scandalous affair, the virgin birth that was the promised “Sign” from “the Lord Himself” (Isaiah 7:14) became the official child of the Holy Ghost, “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” (Matthew I: 20)

“Then Joseph being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: and knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son: and he called his name JESUS.” (Matthew 1:24-25)

The Gospel of Matthew opens the New Testament of the Bible with all of the confusion and doubt and conjecture that is spoken of in the Quran, in the lead up to the quadruplicating of the hoax of the crucifixion of the Messiah.

Luke reports that an Angel of God, Gabriel by name, appears to the virgin before conception (Luke 1:26-31), which would be before Matthew’s angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph “in a dream,” after conception. (Matthew1: 20)

Luke appears to be reading his command to the virgin from the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) as he states, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” (Luke 1:31) Here, Luke agrees with the earlier prophecy that the virgin shall name the son, with the exception and/or alteration of Immanuel, (Isaiah 7:14) and/or Emmanuel. (Matthew 1:23) and the insertion of JESUS.

Luke goes one step further and reports the naming of the child eight days after his birth, at his circumcision, at which time, “his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)

Luke comes after the duplicated crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, by which time Matthew has already named the child, who has twice gone through the crucifixion of Jesus King of the Jews.

Luke introduces a different chronological order of events that does not help to remove uncertainty and confusion, so that the breach of the command of the Lord God of Israel comes from what can be said to be:

·One or two different angels (the angel is not named in Matthew while Gabriel is the angel of Luke),
·In two different locations, (to Joseph, after he became conscious of her pregnancy, while he slept, in Matthew, and to Mary, before conception in Luke),
·On two separate occasions, (which is quite obvious, being before and after conception).

We are informed by Luke that the mother was aware that “that which was conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1: 20), before she conceived and after she “was espoused to a man named Joseph” (Luke 1: 27), and yet Joseph was not considered until after he contemplated putting her away for being unfaithful. This confusion and scandal must be viewed as no more than a sacrilegious distortion of Scripture.

We have Joseph being authorized to name the child Jesus in Matthew by the angel (Matthew 1:21) to which he complied (Matthew 1: 25). The mother is authorized to name the child Jesus in Luke (Luke 1:31), to which Luke offers no evidence that she did comply. Both Gospels therefore do agree that the virgin was in no way responsible for the alteration of the name of her child nor for the confusion in the naming of the child with an improper name.

Muslims are aware that Angels do not disobey the commands of the Lord. The prayer that states, “Thy will be done in Heaven, so in earth,” (Luke 11:2) indicates that the will of the Lord is honored by those in Heaven, which questions the existence of angels assuming the role of mischievous and disobedient messengers.

Faith in the power of the Quran will lead us to even more uncertainty in the reports from the Gospels of the Crucifixion, about the identity of the of the Messiah and the Jesus of the cross, of which Allah reveals as a magnificent hoax in which the Messiah surely was not the victim.

Answer 2

In the bible it says (and I paraphrase) man was created in God's image. If you are white, would you not believe that Jesus is white? You would because since before the time common man could read or write we were lead to believe it true. Ah.. but what is white. To a dark skinned person a person of lighter skin could be considered white. Its relative. To an albino we are all dark skinned. Not all Caucasians think Jesus is white... it is depicted that way to help acceptance.

Answer 3

not all caucasians are from the caucus mountains ! Jesus was a Jew, from the house of David of his father Joseph. if you read Matthew the first verses tell you from Abraham on ,the geneology of Christ. I believe, Abraham was from Iraq. both of Jesus parents were from the original 12 tribes of Israel. this makes up a good bit of the middle east.

Answer 4

Not all Caucasians think that Jesus was white,and anyway,the description in that verse was of Jesus in Heaven,not when he was on Earth.On Earth,he looked like the people of the country he was born in which was Middle Eastern.

Answer 5

Jesus is depicted in art in general (since the middle ages) as a person with light brown hair, blue eyes and Caucasian features, so I guess people are used to believing he looks that way. But I guess he must probably look like a Muslim or Jewish person.

I´m going to check out your bible passage (I´m not sure if this is how you say it in english.... passage) and check out his physical description.

Answer 6

Well, when we were kids, we would see the Painting of him done by Micheal Angelo. Since it was hung in a church, and one of the commandments is not to lie. Therefore, the Painting of the " white Jesus " was correct.

Yes, I know. But understand that this is a child's logic. Some of us just haven't grown out of it yet.

Just out of general principle, I've added a relevant link. I hope it help.

Answer 7

When Christianity was spread through the Roman Empire around 300 A.D. the European churches made him look more Anglo so the believers could easily relate to him. This is how we get the "Kris Kristofferson" Jesus.

Answer 8

I am caucasian and I dont think Jesus is white, I would say a light to medium brown, with brown eyes and brown or black hair.

Answer 9

Because it is the white mans vision tis hat he was pure which is supposed to be white. Been that way for a long time and will probably stay forever.

Answer 10

Not all whites think that -- He was born and lived in the Middle East, so it makes sense to believe he probably had ruddy skin, dark hair and dark eyes...and remember, that verse is also referring to Him after his ascension into heaven. Just because his hair is white doesn't mean he is white...

Answer 11

what are you talking about? he is what that verse says:

1:14His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.

Don't that mean he IS white? if not then please tell me what this passage means.

By the way I am not raceist I have never heard this verse before.