Item description for What Color Was Jesus?: A Mad Economist Takes a Stroll by William Mosley...
Overview "What Color Was Jesus?" shatters the myth of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus and examines the psychological effect of the white image of Christ.
Publishers Description Aims to shatter the myth of a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus. This title examines the psychological effect of the white image of Christ.
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Studio: African American Images
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 8.52" Width: 5.47" Height: 0.32" Weight: 0.25 lbs.
Release Date Aug 1, 1997
Publisher African American Images
ISBN 0913543098 ISBN13 9780913543092
Availability 2 units. Availability accurate as of Oct 24, 2016 04:18.
Usually ships within one to two business days from La Vergne, TN.
Orders shipping to an address other than a confirmed Credit Card / Paypal Billing address may incur and additional processing delay.
Reviews - What do customers think about What Color Was Jesus?: A Mad Economist Takes a Stroll?
THE WORLD MUST KNOW THE REAL TRUTH NOW... Jun 15, 2004
THE WORLD MUST KNOW THE REAL TRUTH NOW BEFORE IT IS TO LATE...ALL THE SO CALLED JESUS FOLLOWERS BEWARE WHEN HE COMES BACK YOU WILL NOT KNOW HIM.. WHY BECAUSE YOU WILL BE LOOKING FOR THE WRONG MAN JESUS WAS BORN BY A BLACK WOMEN , HIS BLOOD LINE IS BLACK, HES BROTHERS AND FAMILY WERE BLACK..AND SO YOU MUST UN DO THIS DUMB SPELL YOU WERE PUT UNDER AND THEN ONLY THEN YOU WILL YOU LEARN TO LOVE THE REAL JESUS A BLACK MAN TYAKE IT OR LET IT ALONE..THE TRUTH WILL MAKE YOU FREE..STOP FOLLOWING THE IMPOSTER WITH THE BLOUND HAIR AND BLUE EYES...HE'S A FAKE..IF TO THE WORLD IT DIDN'T MATTER WHAT COLOR HE WAS ..WHY'D THEY PAINT HIM WHITE..ALL YOU PREATCHERS AND LEADERS TELL THE TRUTH STAND UP FOR JESUS YOU MAKE MILLIONS IN HIS NAME..
The True Description of Jesus Sep 13, 2000
First, let me start by saying, I love everyone white, black, barney purple and kermit the frog green, but the facts are facts and based on the bible's description of Jesus, when he appeared to John on the Island of Patmos in the book of revelation. John's description of Jesus and I quote: HIS HEAD AND HAIRS WERE WHITE LIKE WOOL AND HIS FEET WAS LIKE UNTO FINE BRASS AS IF IT WAS BURNED IN A FURNACE. Okay now for the intrepretation: Jesus was clothed in a white robe with only his feet uncovered, now you be the judge, when brass or any other metal is burned, not even biblically speaking, scientifically speaking, OXIDATION DOES OCCUR does it not? Okay, here's another example, any of you non-cooks out there ever burn a pot, I have, now that pot doesn't turn white, it turns even darker than the original color doesn't it. And, as for John Bart-Plange's idiot statement about Jesus could not have been exclusively black while all his ancestors were white. Well, that's true, so I'm taking it a step further by saying that not only was Jesus an Asiatic black man, but so was his ancestors all the way down to yes you guessed it Adam. And here is also another example, remember Mary and Joseph's attempt to hide from King Herod, they fled into EGYPT, which is and will always be apart of Africa no matter what the historians say. Now how could they have hidden from Herod if they had white skin? I don't think so. And for those people who say that color isn't important, well does flesh have color on it? For those who deny the color of Jesus, denies that he is come in the flesh and the scripture clearly states:
1 John chapter 4:2-3
"Hereby know ye the spirit of God. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God and every spirit that confesseth NOT that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of GOD AND THIS IS THAT SPIRIT OF THE ANTICHRIST, whereof ye have heard that is should come, and even now already is it in the world."
Again to deny Jesus' skin color is to deny that he in fact has come in the flesh and now we know who those people are that always say oh! Christ is not a color or it doesn't matter. It must matter, because the only way we can be of God is to confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
Now, to display a false image of christ is blasphemy, when you read in the bible that Jesus looks one way, and you look up at almost every church that have looking the opposite way, one would have to wonder why did people go to great lengths to hid Jesus true identity. If it really didn't matter what color Jesus was, why did they choose paint him white with blue eyes. The verses in the book of Revelation is clear and it reads
AND I TURNED TO SEE THE VOICE THAT SPAKE WITH ME. AND BEING TURNED, I SAW SEVEN GOLDEN CANDLESTICKS (Rev 1:12). AND IN THE MIDST OF THE SEVEN CANDLESTICKS ONE LIKE UNTO THE SON OF MAN, CLOTHED WITH A GARMENT DOWN TO THE FOOT, AND GIRT ABOUT THE PAPS WITH A GOLDEN GIRDLE (Rev. 1:13). HIS HEAD AND HIS HAIRS WERE LIKE WOOL AS WHITE AS SNOW (Jesus had gray wooly hair I don't know too many wooly headed European Americans. Do you?) AND HIS EYES WERE AS A FLAME OF FIRE (see that knocks the blue-eyed theory out the box right there) (Rev 1:14). Last but not least, the clincher the description: Rev 1:15 STATES AND HIS FEET LIKE UNTO FINE BRASS, AS IF THEY BURNED IN A FURNACE; AND HIS VOICE AS THE SOUND OF MANY WATERS. Now that don't sound like the Guy they Michaelangelo painted (did I spell his name right?) anyway who cares. What I really care about is the truth. Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.
God Speed yes even to John Bart-Plange.
Was Jesus Really Black? Aug 4, 1997
In a bid to raise the low estate of Black people,
this book seeks, albeit very unconvincingly, to
prove that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was Black.
The book begins by rhetorically stating that Jesus
was Black and that white supremacists, in their
long, time-tired efforts to cast the Black man in
a negative light intentionally painted Jesus White, beginning with the paintings of Michaelangelo.
The book hinges its Biblical evidence on three (3) main persons in the genealogy of Jesus Christ as given in Luke 3 and Matthew 1. These are:
(1) Tamar, Judah's daughter-in-law whom Judah, in playing the harlot, unknowingly slept with (Genesis 38).
(2) Rahab the harlot who hid the two spies sent by Joshua into Jericho (Joshua 2), and
(3) Bathsheba, King David's wife, whom David took to be his wife after scheming the death of her husband Uriah the Hittite.
ALL these three cannot be EXCLUSIVELY proven to have been Black. The evidence that the author adduces from the Bible is only circumstantial. In fact, a good concordance will show us that these people were not Black at all.
Even if only these three (3) persons (as argued by the author) were Black in a long genealogy of so many generations of White people, spanning from Adam through Abel, Shem, Abraham, David all the way down to Joseph and Mary (Jesus' parents), how could Jesus have been Black? Also, Jesus could not have been Black in isolation. If He was Black, then His people, the Jews, and indeed all Israel (including the supposedly lost 10 tribes) should also have been Black, and if still on earth today, must retain evidence of Israelitish and Jewish rites and worship from of old. Looking around today, the Jews in Jerualem today are mainly white, and even the Ethiopian Jews will tell you that they are Jews by belief in the Jewish faith and not by birth. [I will be providing a detailed analysis of this and other biblical concepts on my personal home page soon. Persons interested in this should send me private mail at: firstname.lastname@example.org, and I'll be happy to send them the URL when it's ready].
The book's historical evidence relies VERY HEAVILY on paintings of the Black Madonna and her Black Child in her hand throughout history, especially in European churches. But any person that has read any history at all probably knows that the image of a Black Madonna and her Black Child has its genesis in ancient Babylon, and has nothing to do with christianity at all. [Those interested in finding out more about this fact may wish to read Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons"].
In later sections of the book, it becomes clear that the author's main motive in writing the book was to encourage Black self-worth and importance through the representation of key personalities in the past whom he believes were Black but whose pictorial image and impressions got distorted/mispainted to look White, by Whites. Laudable as this is, I think that it betrayed the sincerity of the author's effort, and also left a gnawing sense that people will do anything to prove a "point" that they believe would help them in an argument, with little regard to what may have been the truth or reality.
For whatever it's worth, you may wish to know that I am a Black person myself and have absolutely no regrets for being one.