Jesus Was Not Black

Agreed. If we want to take that description of Jesus in revelatiosn literally then that means his feet are made out of bronze... and since his eyes are like fire.. the only conclusion that i can come to is that he is a F'n Cyborg! Just kidding. But anyway who really cares? Anyone with any basic logic can come to the outcome that he was semitic(arabs,persians,palistinians,etc..)

Oh and that article from the BBC where it mentions that jesus spent a fair amount of his childhood in egypt and trys to support the idea that he was black since he wouldnt look different... Well by the time Jesus came around the egyptians were no longer black and were already dark skinned. But this was only mentioned in exodus if you read into what it says.

how is this thread not DEAD?

honestly, what is there to be gained from any further posts?

we all know that jesus lived in the middle east

that gives us 2 logical options

dark-skinned semetic
and the less likely
black jesus (which people should have no problem with)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
how is this thread not DEAD?

honestly, what is there to be gained from any further posts?

we all know that jesus lived in the middle east

that gives us 2 logical options

dark-skinned semetic
and the less likely
black jesus (which people should have no problem with)

Or, the possibly most logical option, considering the available evidence on the subject. Jesus was a fictional character, created after the supposed time he was to have lived. This is not my personal position, btw, but I do feel that it is likely the most logical explanation for the total lack of contemporary accounts of any of his entire group in the writings from that area at that time.
Though I tend to feel that there is some truth to the story, that is a gut feeling, and I base it on no evidence, since outside the bible there is none.
It's alive!

A little history note: Black people were the first people created. There is probably no straight verse in the bible that will tell you his race, but if you look at the people back then like Moses, Abraham etc..Then you would know..Now when Jesus was a baby his mom (Mary) took him to africa. He didn't seem to stand out, no one looked at them different nor casted them out as outsiders (I wonder why?) Here is a little proof, If you need more just reply and I'll post more. Here's a short poem on the subject.

Why is that?

The day begins with a grin
And a prayer to excuse my sins
I can walk anywhere I choose
Cause everybody listens to the B.D.P. crew
We're not here for glamour or fashion
But here's the question I'm askin
Why is it young black kids taught [flashin?]
They're only taught how to read write and act
It's like teachin a dog to be a cat
You don't teach white kids to be black
Why is that? Is it because we're the minority?
Well black kids follow me
Genesis chapter eleven verse ten
Explains the geneology of Chem
Chem was a black man, in Africa
If you repeat this fact they can't laugh at ya
Genesis fourteen verse thirteen
Abraham steps on the scene
Being a descendent of Chem which is a fact
Means, Abraham too was black
Abraham born in the city of a black man
Called Nimrod grandson of Kam
Kam had four sons, one was named Canaan
Here, let me do some explaining
Abraham was the father of Isaac
Isaac was the father of Jacob
Jacob had twelve sons, for real
And these, were the children of Isreal
According to Genesis chapter ten
Egyptains descended from [Hahm,Kam]
Six hundred years later, my brother, read up
Moses was born in Egypt (Also Moses married an Ethopian woman, why would he mary out of his race? )
In this era black Egyptians weren't right
They enslaved black Isrealites
Moses had to be of the black race
Because he spent fourty years in Pharoah's place
He passed as the Pharoah's grandson
So he had to look just like him
Yes my brothers and sisters take this here song
Yo, correct the wrong
The information we get today is just wack
But ask yourself, why is that?

[edit on 10-10-2006 by ballawjordan23]

[edit on 10-10-2006 by ballawjordan23]

WOW..... I have not posted a thing on ats in almost a year (this thread even older) and i see that a thread that i mistakenly put up (as noted from the beginning..I was trying to reply but being a newbie i scrwed it up) is still going strong.

But i agree this thread should have been dead a long time ago. Actually this thread should have never been made. I still however stick to my beliefs on the matter. I am krishna consciounce (God consciounce) which means that i follow the Vedic tradition of soul science and am a Hare Krishna. I have a deep love for God and believe that all religions are interconnected and brought forth by him. So i do like to read other biblical text. I do believe there was a "Hebrew" phrophet sent forth to the "Hebrew" people to preach God consciousness and deliver them from there suffering. And yes I maintain that since he was "Hebrew" he was not "African" but closer to "Arabian" in origin and look. This does not change his teachings or his importance. So as i end this post i hope that this thread will die too...........

Originally posted by plague
WOW..... I have not posted a thing on ats in almost a year (this thread even older) and i see that a thread that i mistakenly put up (as noted from the beginning..I was trying to reply but being a newbie i scrwed it up) is still going strong.

But i agree this thread should have been dead a long time ago. Actually this thread should have never been made. I still however stick to my beliefs on the matter. I am krishna consciounce (God consciounce) which means that i follow the Vedic tradition of soul science and am a Hare Krishna. I have a deep love for God and believe that all religions are interconnected and brought forth by him. So i do like to read other biblical text. I do believe there was a "Hebrew" phrophet sent forth to the "Hebrew" people to preach God consciousness and deliver them from there suffering. And yes I maintain that since he was "Hebrew" he was not "African" but closer to "Arabian" in origin and look. This does not change his teachings or his importance. So as i end this post i hope that this thread will die too...........

First, I don't know how anyone can know for certain there even was a Jesus. The proof is very tenuous, and all of it was written after his alleged crucifixion. That he was of one or another skin type or ethinicity is the same. How can we know that? I say that at best we can make a guess, offer an opinion, and leave it at that. You maintain he was 'Arabic looking', and that is a fine guess, and no more. My only question about your original question and the start of this thread is this. Why did you feel it was important to claim he was not black? What was your motivation? Did you consider what the reason was for you to want to express your view that this figure was definitely not of that particular ethinicity? However impossible you may feel it to be, I contend that it is well within the boundaries of possibility for him to have been black. But so what? Good books exist promoting all of the different theories, or at least all of the most popular ones. I have read one giving evidence he was black, and two others that laid out why he was never a real person at all. Both viewpoints were supported well by the authors. Whose right?
I can't see how anyone can really be sure. We can't even seem to agree who killed JFK and that was less than 50 years ago.

Im pretty shure Jesus did exist as he is mentioned in many other religious text and is recognised by many other religions.

The reason for the original post is this.............
One day i was looking around on the net and came across this website and a post that said "Jesus was a black man" and it went on to use jesus as racial propoganda.
Gave alot of rumored info ( you may consider the biblical text to be made up but it is still the only info we have on jesus and the 12 tribes ) that is not found in any authorised text (or any real solid text), but yet spread by the black suppremest groups to try and prove themselves supperior. He had used alot of made up facts and i was trying to call him out on it but instead ended up making this thread.

Yea...Jesus wouldn't have been black, nor would he have been white with blue eyes. He would have probably looked close to what a modern day palestinian person looks like..."colored" but not "black". And it is also a historical fact (accepted by the majority of historians) that yes Jesus existed, of course what he actually did/didn't do or what happened to him can be left to speculation. If you are a real Christian though, I think if you had learned anything from Jesus' teachings you wouldn't care what color his skin was, rather his words spoken and actions performed...

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Shoktek]

'Im pretty shure Jesus did exist as he is mentioned in many other religious text and is recognised by many other religions.

The reason for the original post is this.............
One day i was looking around on the net and came across this website and a post that said "Jesus was a black man" and it went on to use jesus as racial propoganda.
Gave alot of rumored info ( you may consider the biblical text to be made up but it is still the only info we have on jesus and the 12 tribes ) that is not found in any authorised text (or any real solid text), but yet spread by the black suppremest groups to try and prove themselves supperior. He had used alot of made up facts and i was trying to call him out on it but instead ended up making this thread.' Plague

Originally posted by Shoktek
Yea...Jesus wouldn't have been black, nor would he have been white with blue eyes. He would have probably looked close to what a modern day palestinian person looks like..."colored" but not "black". And it is also a historical fact (accepted by the majority of historians) that yes Jesus existed, of course what he actually did/didn't do or what happened to him can be left to speculation. If you are a real Christian though, I think if you had learned anything from Jesus' teachings you wouldn't care what color his skin was, rather his words spoken and actions performed...

[edit on 17-10-2006 by Shoktek]

First, I totally agree with Shoktek's last point. It doesn't matter. But, regarding Plague's post, I don't know what he is referring to. I have yet to see any physical description of Jesus. That is understandable because we have not a single original eye witness account of him, his disciples, family, or entourage. So until we do, no one can state for a fact that he even existed, never mind what he looked like. I dislike any supremacist rhetoric, but the book I read that made a case for the theory he was black was not like that. It was a reasoned, well researched, respectfully written book.
And as for Shoktek's claim that he wouldn't have been black, I cannot see how he can be so sure. The black Jewish community has been around for centuries before Jesus. That and the lack of any surviving eyewitness records of his existence at all make me question how anyone could claim to know for sure he was anything.
I doubt he was Native American, or Asian, but he could easily have been black. The bible is full of African experiences, and it is right next door. If Abraham, Joseph, and Moses lived in Africa for many years of their lives, how can you rule it out?

Why does this thread remind me of the Star Trek episode Let That Be Your Last Battlefield? I've been involved in these arguments before. No one ever convinces anyone that their side is correct, and everyone goes away even more convinced that their side was right.

The two aliens begin arguing and almost come to blows. It is quickly shown that Bele believes his black and white coloration is superior to Lokai's, even though Kirk sees no difference in the two.

Good analogy. I like the Dr. Suess book that tells the same tale. All over the world, throughout history, there has been a competition going on. My nation is best, my church is best, my culture is best, my ethnicity is best, my school, my team, etc. And it is rare to hear someone say everybody is basically the same. Individuals of every type inhabit every group. And it defies logic. Here we have a number of claims, stated as though they are fact, when there is no substance, no proof, no data to support their statement. It is a debate without a foundation. It is all a 'best guess', all speculation, all conjecture, all just opinions and no more. Some people feel confident that they know for sure, and don't allow the possibility that they are wrong. Luckily I have been wrong a lot, so I know being wrong very well. And just as fortunately for me, I decided that I no longer needed anyone to believe me, agree with me, or change for me. I just worry about my beliefs. And I'll share what opinions I have, but I am very aware they are just that and no more. If others feel I am wrong, I will listen to find out if they have some new information that might change my opinion. If they do, I'll change my mind, if not, I won't. And if it is important to me, I will do the research, I will decide which views I accept, and I will live or die by them.

First, I totally agree with Shoktek's last point. It doesn't matter. But, regarding Plague's post, I don't know what he is referring to. I have yet to see any physical description of Jesus. That is understandable because we have not a single original eye witness account of him, his disciples, family, or entourage.

I guess I'll start with the easiest..

Josephus. He was a first century jewish historian. I guess he would be considered the least biased since he wasn't a christian. He writes about Jesus, James the brother of Jesus and John the babtist.

Then we have the writing of the first century church fathers.
Polycarp
Clement
Justin Martyr
Ireanus

All of the early church fathers actually worked under the various disciples of Jesus and they wrote about it.

I have now listed five eye witnesses to the Jesus movement of the first century. All five have left written accounts. Not really sure if this is proof enough for you, but you didnt ask for proof you just simply said thast these writings didn't exsist.



[edit on (10/17/06) by Dr_Suess]

how did such a craptastic post get so many replies?

roflmao.

Yea, it mostly depends on where you are...of course here in the US, Jesus is white/european...in Africa he can appear black as well as the saints...in Mexico, mestizo in appearance. Of course no one knows for sure. And the idea of "race" didn't even exist in Jesus' time, so it wouldn't have made any difference in the minds of those who were actually around back then...there wasn't really anything solid written about him until a few hundred years after the time, so the stories of oral tradition before that certainly could have been quite different, as well as earlier texts we may not even know about.

The idea that he had African blood, or Indian, Arab, etc. is certainly possible (more likely Greek or Roman I would think), but the chances of him being "black" are pretty slim...yes, there were "black jewish people" before Jesus, in Africa. There certainly could have been some people in ancient Israel with African blood at that time, but I don't think any "black" Africans. Besides, Jesus was incarnated anyway, conceived by God, not man... Really, no one will know for sure, and it doesn't matter. He could have been black, red, or green, but no one would remember/care about the "race" of the son of God, at least not at that time.



[edit on 17-10-2006 by Shoktek]

Originally posted by Dr_Suess

I have yet to see any physical description of Jesus. That is understandable because we have not a single original eye witness account of him, his disciples, family, or entourage.

I guess I'll start with the easiest..

Josephus. He was a first century jewish historian. I guess he would be considered the least biased since he wasn't a christian. He writes about Jesus, James the brother of Jesus and John the babtist.


[edit on (10/17/06) by Dr_Suess]

No, I said there were no eyewitness accounts, and since the earliest one you cite, Josephus was not born until around 30 AD, he could not have been one. Hence my assertion that I see none at all. Josephus has been caught telling tales as well so I wouldn't trust him totally.

There were eyewitness accounts, but only passed on by oral tradition for a couple hundred years before they were committed to writing. Or so the story goes..

Well well. I think i started the original jesus is black thread. It took me a couple of days to get myself to read thru all 17 pages of this. I would just like too say that for 400 years black people have been in America, and have been told that jesus was white. I dont think that there is anyone here who can deny that America makes it seem like Jesus was white. I would also like to blame television for this. People have always said if your not careful tv will raise your kids. So when someone comes and says that Jesus was black shouldnt that be ok to research to find the truth. I also believe that before we all go off at the mouth we should all read the other gospels outside the bible befroe we judge what color Jesus was. African people have wooly hair. White people have diffrent hair from africans that is a fact dosent matter if you are a hippie or not. Have you all here at ATS seen negro hair that is fashioned like an afro but has not been picked thru. looks rather wooly.

Second i would like to say that America has been a racist palce for a long time who knows when it will be otherwise. Look at our textbooks and see how they fail too mention that all our forefathers were racist. Textbooks just want to make it seem like it was a sign of the times. How can this be when they were smart enogugh to write the constitutuon. With every man being created equal but the slaves it seems and even when laws are written to free slaves states still make it extra hard on black people to be equal.

Random thoughts hers.

Whats was Kane scared of after he killed able. When they were only 4 people at the time. Unless it was just the animals.

I dont believe in evolution. I think that there are certain things that are undisputed. One white people came from blalck people. When white people and blacks have kids. the child always takes on the characteristics of the darked parents. Meaning the black genes are more dominant. So without black people white people wouldnt be here. This is whites will become the minority in about 10 years. This is how it always has been and always will be. If it wasnt for the african holocaust blacks would probably out number whites. Evolution plane and simple is a fraud. I know some of you out there believe that our government gets together with other countries to misled us with generic information. Evolution is a part of it. Long thought there.

Lastly anyone of us could post a link saying jesus was white or black, and be discredited with the next link.

This is to plague. I am an without a better way to put this i am an african american albino. I have accpted everyone as is. It has been hard enough for me to gain acceptance from my own race. I have about every kind of ethnicity of friend imanigabele. I know how to put things without anyone feeling that i am a racist. I saw people calling you this i belive on ocassion, and to you i say just watch how you post and this shouldnt be a problem. In other words watch what you say.

In closing I have a couple of links alson that i hope you all will enjoy. I believe as said earlier that all the gospels tell the truth. We jsut need to know what the translation is.

OOps... one more if anyone here would like to help me in my search for the truth u2u me. The books and omitted books of the bible are too much for me too read alone and people here would like too help me start with the bible and read on to find the truth of everything in those books help would greatly be appreciated.

One last time i think that this whole thing is because of how america protrays jesus.

lastly i come in Peace as a friend to everyone here.

Thanks for your time.



[edit on 20-10-2006 by 4th disciple]

Originally posted by 4th disciple
I dont believe in evolution. I think that there are certain things that are undisputed. One white people came from blalck people. When white people and blacks have kids. the child always takes on the characteristics of the darked parents. Meaning the black genes are more dominant. So without black people white people wouldnt be here. This is whites will become the minority in about 10 years. This is how it always has been and always will be. If it wasnt for the african holocaust blacks would probably out number whites. Evolution plane and simple is a fraud. I know some of you out there believe that our government gets together with other countries to misled us with generic information. Evolution is a part of it. Long thought there.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for this. Evolution is something that is really beyond dispute now, if you read the science behind it. Black people were around first, of course, as human life originated in the African grasslands. When early hominids left Africa, they no longer benefitted from the dark skin to protect them from the intense sun which is present in Africa. So the skin became lighter because of different vitamins that were needed from the sunlight. This is pretty much the only difference between races, just biological adaptations to the different environments they lived in. Our DNA is about 99% the same. "Black" is more dominant, because we all trace back to Africa eventually. Everyone has at least that small amount of African ancestry in them, or more. I don't see why you're against evolution, unless you're equating it to the social darwinism theories, or just think it is against the idea of God automatically. I know evolution is real for a fact, but I also believe in God and creationism. If you would like me to explain how they both work together in my mind, I will. But the two don't have to always fight each other for control in your thinking...

(want a simple, fast example? When you take an antibiotic, you are killing off a population of bacteria. They don't all die, however, the "strong survive". When you stop taking the antibiotic, these more powerful bacteria reproduce, creating even more powerful versions. This is because of the fact that they naturally are adapted to the environment with the antibiotic, and they pass this trait on to their offspring, which is why taking an antibiotic for extended periods can lead to your problem worsening, or dangerous creations of ultra antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In bacteria populations, this evolution can be observed without the guesswork that spans hundreds or thousands of years, as they die off and produce entire new generations within weeks or days)

wikipedia's explanation on skin color, which is basically what modern scientists agree upon:

"While dark skin protects vitamin B, it can lead to a vitamin D deficiency. The advantage of light skin is that it does not block sunlight as effectively, leading to increased production of vitamin D3, necessary for calcium absorption and bone growth. The lighter skin of women may result from the higher calcium needs of women during pregnancy and lactation.
The evolution of the different skin tones is thought to have occurred as follows: the haired ancestors of humans, like modern great apes, had light skin under their hair. Once the hair was lost, they evolved dark skin, needed to prevent low folate levels since they lived in sun-rich Africa. (The skin cancer connection is probably of secondary importance, since skin cancer usually kills only after the reproductive age and therefore does not exert much evolutionary pressure.) When humans migrated to less sun-intensive regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem and light skin color re-emerged."


[edit on 20-10-2006 by Shoktek]

Originally posted by Shoktek
Evolution is something that is really beyond dispute now, if you read the science behind it.
I know evolution is real for a fact, but I also believe in God and creationism. When you stop taking the antibiotic, these more powerful bacteria reproduce, creating even more powerful versions. ... taking an antibiotic for extended periods can lead to your problem worsening, or dangerous creations of ultra antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

wikipedia's explanation on skin color, which is basically what modern scientists agree upon:
... lighter skin of women may result from the higher calcium needs of women during pregnancy and lactation.
...haired ancestors of humans had light skin under their hair. Once the hair was lost, they evolved dark skin ... When humans migrated to less sun-intensive regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem and light skin color re-emerged."
[edit on 20-10-2006 by Shoktek]

First, I would summarize Darwin, who said that as time goes on new informations will come to light, and the theory will change, and he was happy with that. So, while it may be 'beyond dispute', and 'real for a fact' as you claim, it is not infallible, and almost certainly we will find parts of it that we thought were right, were wrong. The whole issue of OOParts, which count into the thousands, and come from every corner of the earth, and from strata dating back up to 100's of millions of years...? These do not disprove evolution. But, as for latitude and skin colour... the map doesn't support it. Go around the world at 30 degrees latitude north and south and you will see cultures of every shade. But there are countless of these seemingly contrary statistics. Sweden is the same latitude as Alaska, Central America is the same Lat. as Africa, and the people are quite different skin tone as well as other things. What is the evolutionary theory for red hair? Why do the other areas of the world sharing the latitudes Africa covers have no black?

Originally posted by 4th disciple
I would just like too say that for 400 years black people have been in America, and have been told that jesus was white. I dont think that there is anyone here who can deny that America makes it seem like Jesus was white.

What about Europeans? They've been depicting Jesus as a white person for almost 2000 years. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a painting in Rome that depicts Jesus as a black person.

Originally posted by 4th disciple
African people have wooly hair. White people have diffrent hair from africans that is a fact dosent matter if you are a hippie or not. Have you all here at ATS seen negro hair that is fashioned like an afro but has not been picked thru. looks rather wooly.

I assume you're using the "Hair white as wool" verse in Revelation 1:14. That verse clearly states his hair was white as wool, not the texture of wool. If we go there it also says in verse 16 his face shined like the sun. What does the sun look like? Basically it looks white with a slight yellowish tint. Maybe he's really oriental?

No, the only thing we can take away from Revelation 1 is that Jesus doesn't look like any human you know, and defies explination. Debating race is silly. We all know that Jesus was a Jew, so in reality this whole 17 pages of discussion is are the Jews really black.? Which brings us to the question, are the current people in Israel the real Jews? I can see through this thin veil of disguise.

I've already countered this same discussion here if you're actually interested in reading it.