It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus was truly an African!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   
DaTruth, there has been a movement going for quite sometime that has been pushing the issue of God or Jesus or Santa or whatever to be white, black, etc.

The meaning of my initial post, that you failed to grasp, was what the hell difference does it make whether Jesus was BLACK, WHITE, PINK, or YELLOW!?

Cu#e is and has been providing links that basically amount to pushing what is called by those who are advocating a color being placed on Jesus and Santa, etc. as Black Theology. This same theology, as with White Theology's opposing view, decrees/believes that Israel, as described in the Hebrew Scriptures, was a nation of blacks, and that Jesus was black; that his sole purpose was to liberate fellow blacks from oppression by white Gentiles.

Here's a thought and question: if after all these thousands of years since Jesus's death, why is and has it NOW become so important to claim or project that Jesus, as with the issue of Santa, etc., is black? Wasn't a concern before, wasn't a concern those thousand's of years ago.....why NOW? Agenda, maybe? Cause I'm sure that if Jesus was real and alive today, he would say the very same thing: Why the need to claim a color or race upon me (Jesus); it mattered not then and definitely shouldn't matter now, but for some reason it has become a focal point of contention....why?




seekerof

[edit on 6-6-2004 by Seekerof]




posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Kano

You are right on that one, about all of us coming from Africa, but do not let to many people know that, you will make a lot of enemies.


At least I still know how to dance.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Kudo's to you seekerof. Well done on your post. How true it is.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   


TextHere's a thought and question: if after all these thousands of years since Jesus's death, why is and has it NOW become so important


Why? Because now you can do it.
Back then you would had been persecuted and kill just for having and opinion.


This has been a good topic, at least for me I am in a search for historical facts agenda not religious.
So if anybody wants to make a new religion base in color or whatever they can go ahead and do it I care less.
This is a free country and hallelujah for that.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Sure it doesnt matter what colour Jesus/God was, but I dont like the idea of people going to worship their lord in a false image its not right in the sense that, if Jesus was black then he should be portrayed as black. The idea that it doesnt matter what colour he was is not right in my opinion. Why is it so important? Well if you go to the shops and buy a bag of white sugar thats been advertised as the purest white cane sugar and then you get home and find out after you have bought it that its a bag of black coffee. Well its not on. Its false advertising its incorrect. Its not the TRUTH. When the good white people of America and England get up on Sunday and go down on there knees to give praise, they are giving praise to either an Arab/ Black, and they should be told this as they do seem to forget. They should always be reminded of this so that they dont get fixed into a false belief that Christ was a white man. When I go to church I am constantly upset by how white Jesus looks on the cross at the front of the church, sometimes I want to stand up and remind the white church goers that Jesus wasnt white he was Arab/Black like Saddam, Hussein Osama, Bin Laden, Arial Sharon, Yasser Arafat/ Malcolm X, Bob Marley, Martin Luther King. But one thing is for sure, Jesus was certainly not, a white man. Not even close. Personally I think Jesus was Arab looking. And thats not what I see on the cross in the churches of England. And the same goes for the effigy of Mary. Im no bible basher but didnt god say something about not doing art. Maybe it was because he knew a bunch of white people would be deceived into believing something that was not true. But this is just my HO.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
After reading through this entire thread, IMHO, what a waste of perfectly good electrons! Since when should we value "original thinking" over truth. Concepts as the one presented here are just plain hogwash by people who simply can't accept things as they are or were. To the revsionist historians, go write the Clinton memoirs.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
If Jesus was truly the Son of God, skin colour makes absolutely no difference. The same people who are always screaming about colour only being skin deep use the same argument against themselves here. Do you honestly believe that God is of a specific race? The outward, physical appearance of Jesus should be absolutely nothing in comparison with his inner being.

Personally, I don't believe he ever existed - at least not in the way that the story has been handed down to us. Jesus was a symbol. And that symbol was one of the whole of humanity. Not of a specific race. My belief is that we all strive to become Christs by following Jesus' example and his teachings. If that is the case, Jesus is every colour.



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Then when I go to church next time I hope to see a black Christ on the cross and an Arab Christ on the cross and a Chinese Christ on the cross and so on........



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Kode thats alot of churches, to me i am not really bothered what skin colour he was cos i am not religious but i was lead to believe he was a Jew cos at school we where encouraged to read the Bible but me being a lazy reader i just listened to waht others said( kinda like disciple hey)



posted on Jun, 6 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEXone

Im not threatened by anything, and i do care about the topic, if not I wouldn't be posting here. It just seems to me a trivial matter what the color of skin was of a man who told us to ignore stuff like that.
Finaly theres a difference between being informed about history, and being obsessed with petty details.


Did you ever say in your previous post you did not care about the topic? I don't think you did, so its logical that my comment wasn't meant for you. I was responding to "I see you" comment, but it's a given my response was an open comment to anyone who feels like him.

As I have said before I wouldn't mind if Jesus was black, but I also read a comment that the first Jewish people were black and turned white, according to one of Cu#e's posts. That would mean that religion is as old or older than the evolution of men into the different races, if we evolved this way.

First the Jewish religion is what...from about 2,000 century B.C, at the most. The oldest religion in existance is Hinduism, from about 5,000-3,000 century B.C. Did we evolved from one race into the known races in 2,000-4,000 years? no. The Jewish religion is at the most 4,000 or so years old.

Second I agree with crazy Ivan, if Jesus existed, he would have looked alike, more or less, like the picture that another member posted in this thread.

BTW, why isn't it possible that we are actually evolved from a red race, perhaps from the Hindus, and races like the Aztecs and Mayans?....

Seekerof, great post, i agree with you.



[edit on 6-6-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   
First, Arabs are not race specific...there are black Arab nations such as the Sudan. Only americans would call arabs a race and not a culture. It is ones culture that makes them arab--language mostly but religion and location as well. Saying Jesus was an arab does not exclude him from being black. It just shows how truly simple we are to try and define folk by their skin color.

There are only three races. Caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid. What Seek is talking is about is the belief that modern day arabs are a mixture of negroid and caucasoid because cacasians are the line cursed with leporacy. If you believe the bible then there are scriptures that could be interpreted that way. Check out Song of Solomon Chapter 4. Many believe this speaks of the mixing. Also, his father David's marriage to the hittite of the cursed line (if you believe David was black and Bathsheba white). During that time there was a lot of mixing. I don't claim to know all of this crap just a lil from of what i was taught growing up which is all man was black until the curse and the forbidden mixing with the cursed. All the races supposedly came from these corrupted seeds. It is know that certain figures are black and believe in certain circles that all were black including Noah (uncorrupted bloodline).

Lastly, the oldest human remains were found in Ethopia. Not to say that Science has uncovered all on this matter but from what we know at this point the human race started in Africa...not just Africa but black Africa. Don't know where the Mayan thing came from...wishful thinking perhaps?

[edit on 7-6-2004 by Saphronia]



posted on Jun, 7 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   
about the supposition that only one "race" is within god i have this to say;

that has little to do with the fact that many turn away from "god" and embrace false images (idolatry), so if this be the case they are not in god as they are projecting the image that they see of god; while at the same time destroying the godly and satisfying their human nature in death and bloodshed.

so no one "race" is not only in god; but more than one "race" is away from "god"; as factually proven by actions on a macro and micro level.


here are some thoughts refuting a "black messiah"

www.southafrica.com...

.. is the ego speaking?

here are some thoughts supporting the "theory"

www.proudblackbuddhist.org...

.. ultimately there is little you can tell your fellow man that changes the path his ancestors set before him; the road to hell is wide, and the path to heaven is narow.

[edit on 7-6-2004 by foolishbeing]



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   


Seekerof said: Here's a thought and question: if after all these thousands of years since Jesus's death, why is and has it NOW become so important to claim or project that Jesus, as with the issue of Santa, etc., is black?

Wasn't a concern before, wasn't a concern those thousand's of years ago.....why NOW? Agenda, maybe?

Cause I'm sure that if Jesus was real and alive today, he would say the very same thing: Why the need to claim a color or race upon me (Jesus); it mattered not then and definitely shouldn't matter now, but for some reason it has become a focal point of contention....why?


Agendas? Black Theology?

There is not a living thing on earth without agendas! Only after death will the agendas die. Some people are out of touch with their agendas or can't admit to them to others. My agendas speak volumes about who I am and what I believe in. I have studies history for well over twenty five years and have a great interest in the fiction that has been passed as history in our school and not to mention the media.

There is nothing new about what has taken place after the invasion of Europeans in Africa, parts of Asia, Australia and the Americas. People have questioned the re-education of the masses for hundreds of years now.

People have questioned the new image of the person we now call Jesus for hundreds of years now.

There are countless books on the subject! If anyone is interested, please let me know and I will post them.

Where have you been? Scholars and educators have been questioning all of the above for hundreds of years.

Can they get air time to let the average person know about it? No they can't, and not to mention they would have a very hard time keeping their jobs if they spoke out. There has been academic blackmail going on in this country and Europe for quite sometime. Most educators will point this out quite clearly.

I don't relate to so-called Black Theology whatever that is. I don't believe in the invention of the so-called white, black social construct. We are not opposite of each other. No god said so!

But if you must define me, let's call it African Theology, Human Theology or just plain science would be okay with me.

If it's one thing that I've learned in my years, is that when people say they don't care or that it doesn't matter, guess what, it really, really matters to them. Seriously matters! I do respect some of the people here who have been honest enough to admit it.

You ask why, well let's me quote Tim Wise for you. You know from one of the links I provided.



Tim Wise said:

Some may ask what the point of all this is though frankly, it ought to be obvious. So long as our culture pictures Adam, Eve, Moses, Jesus, Mary, the Apostles, and even God "himself" as fair-skinned, despite the obvious preposterousness of such representations, we will continue to plant the seeds of racial supremacy in the hearts and minds of millions.

After all, to believe that divinity is white like you leads one to easily assume that others are somehow less complete, less than human. If God supposedly made man in his image, and God is always portrayed as a bearded white guy (kinda like Santa without the suit), how hard a leap is it, especially for children whose introduction to religion is always nine-tenths forced propaganda anyway, to assume that persons of color are somehow not full and equal "children of God?" Not to mention the sexist aspect of the male sky, God imagery, of course, which is a whole different can of worms.





Tim Wise said:

The suggestion that Jesus would have had dark enough skin to qualify as a person of color is about as blasphemous to most Christians as anything one could say. Of course, no one wants to admit their indignation at the notion, so they typically couch it in ecumenical platitudes like, "it doesn't matter what Jesus looked like, it only matters what he did."

OK, I'm down with that. Although not a Christian, I've always thought Jesus said and did some pretty exemplary stuff. So if it doesn't matter what he looked like, then why not make him black?

I've asked this question when giving speeches on racism at religiously affiliated colleges, and let's just say, there's nothing like it if you're looking to see how fast you can get folks to start clearing their throats. Again they insist, "no you don't understand, it doesn't matter what he looked like, it's what he did." And again I repeat, O.K., fine, if it really doesn't matter then let's make him black, just for a year. Then you can change him back again if you really want to.

No dice, and no takers. We go round and round, as white folks check their watches and try to figure out how they can leave the room without seeming to be rude.

But let's be clear, the white iconography of Jesus that predominates in this culture makes absolutely no sense, except as an artifact of a white supremacist worldview.


There was someone who posted a story (and I do mean story) about how those people want to take over, or something of that nature. If he and others were truly honest, they would admit that they feel that they have special social and economic privilege globally. Could it be because of imperialism? The indoctrination of teaching people to believe in a so-called white god? Could it be because of this passionate need to push this image and icon to cultures all over the world? By any means necessary! Movies, television and print. Or even creating wars!

What are the psychology effect of indigenous people engaging in this belief? Sure, at first you would have to force these European icons on them, but in a few generations, it's a cakewalk!

So I challenge you or anyone, if it doesn't matter prove it! Action speaks louder then words! Do what Tim Wise said (the European American with an Agenda), change it not only in your mind and heart, but progressively push the African image of Jesus in your churches and homes. Progressively push it to your friends and family. You would be viewed as a traitor to the so-called white race.

I seek the truth!

[edit on 9-6-2004 by Cu#e]



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Cu#e, three things:
1) You have yet to prove that Jesus existed.
2) If he did exist and was the true Son of God, as Leveller and others have mentioned, indicated, and you have ignored, then it matters not what color Jesus was. It only matters because you and others deem to make it matter, correct?
3) Would it matter to Jesus today, if he was to appear or was around?



seekerof

[edit on 9-6-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
First of all, I don't speak for anyone or thing. I will say this, the name Jesus was more than likely not the name that was originally used. The names of the people and lands in that region of the world have been changed many times over. These people today are highly admixed due to invasions and occupations. This is what conqueror's do. Rape, kill, take land and anything else they can.

I for one don't believe in human gods of any kind. I am an agnostic; I don't convince myself that I'm that smart. We all know of the danger in people thinking that they speak for a god, so I will pass on that. I will let the George Bushes of the world do that.

We do know that the story has an ancient past and many of us do know that some of the stories originated in a past far more ancient than the bible. However, that is not the point. He was more than likely a real human being, and more than likely killed by the Romans, who had a problem with people not worshipping the gods that the Romans wanted them to worship.

So someone or ones wrote about him. So let's go with that, because that good enough.

You still ignored my challenge! I said it mattered and gave you reasons why! My reasons were the same as Mr. Tim Wises comments were.

Prove that it doesn't matter by accepting the challenge!



posted on Jun, 9 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I want to personally say that I will take Cu#e up on his offer. I will make Jesus Black for one year, Asian for the next, Native American for the next, and Caucasian for the next.

This leaves out a lot of "races" though.

Tell you what, Cu#e. I'll make Jesus black for a year in my heart... thinking... thinking... it's done. What a handsome man he is! In exchange, I'd like you to make Jesus Irish in your heart for a year. If you don't think "Black" and "Irish" are commensurate (one is a skin colour, and one is a nationality, even though the Irish are the Blacks of Europe
), I will make my Black Jesus of whichever Nationality you wish. I'm not joking, nor am I equivocating. I will try my damnedest to visualise Jesus as black every time I think of him, in exchange for you visualising him as irish... deal? I believe we can both live within the confines of the honour system.



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Interesting! Black Irish! Oh, the mixed Berbers!



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Well, I don't know anything about that... the statement that "the Irish are the Blacks of Europe" is meant to indicate that the Irish are mistreated, starved out of their land, denied freedom, under the thumb of a foreign power, etc., and also that Irish music is darned good


Anyway, when I "normally" think of Jesus, I imagine he would have been a very heavily tanned mediterranean, anyway... because I sincerely believe he would have lived with the Essenes on the banks of the Dead Sea, in the desert.

But I strongly believe that Jesus would have been pleased with being depicted as a member of all sorts of different "races," and as present during all walks of life. If a church wants to depict Jesus as Black, I don't see what the problem would be; nor if they want to depict him as Asian, or as a Carpenter or a King or a Labourer or a Thinker or whatever: he was, I think, in a very real sense, all of these things: as a human, he had a stake in all human beings.



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexKennedy
But I strongly believe that Jesus would have been pleased with being depicted as a member of all sorts of different "races," and as present during all walks of life. If a church wants to depict Jesus as Black, I don't see what the problem would be; nor if they want to depict him as Asian, or as a Carpenter or a King or a Labourer or a Thinker or whatever: he was, I think, in a very real sense, all of these things: as a human, he had a stake in all human beings.


I just had to quote that paragraph. It sums everything up so nicely, so... perfectly. I think, from now on, whenever a new "Jesus was an Albino hermaphidite Eskimo" thread pops up,this should be automaticly posted.

I for one will say thank you, AlexKennedy.



posted on Jun, 10 2004 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Creating a Jesus for different hues and ethnicity would be a interesting concept. And I'm sure it would be easier for some to handle rather than an African one!

But it's alway good for people to know that the land mass of Africa has alway been attached to the land mass of western Asia. The suez canal is the only thing seperating these land masses today. It is a modern man made creation and was built between 1859 CE and 1869 CE.

And Africans are the indigenous people in that region. So the modern term mediterranean can be rather misleading.

We should never shy away from history, even if it makes us uncomfortable. It's always good to be aware of false images!

[edit on 11-6-2004 by Cu#e]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join