"Like I said skin colour isn't important to me. The teachings are what's important. On the other hand you have a problem with a white Jesus and you've had to black face him to accept him. That's what this thread boils down to, that and also using his Jesus's name as a weapon in a race war. Bad and even worse !!!". Sounds to me that you have hatred towards a Jesus . Very possibly that the devil has taken hold and the way has been lost.
snipped to get to the meat! so skin colour is not important therefore you have no problem with him being black right? we can go round in circles all day with you continuing to deflect this quite salient point, all its doing is keeping this topic at the top of everybodies thoughts.
No you just cut bits out you're unwilling to/can't answer. Nothing wrong with Jesus if he was black. Jesus's race is insignificant , It's his teachings that are important. What bothers me is that you think Jesus's race matters. You're making out you will only accept the Son Of God only if his race ticks the right box for you. It's the stupidest and most narrow my minded think I've ever read. Jesus's race does not matter. People that think his race is important are misguided. Using Jesus skin colour to support a racist agenda and used to attack a certain group is extremely wrong.
It's not important and you literally showed disdain about white Jesus a d accepting him. Make up your mind.
Non whites don't get a free pass to be racists and stop using the son of God as bullets in your race war.
Why should anyone accept a falsehood just to pander to you? By your Anglo-American race standards, Jesus was neither black nor white. That said your American race standards are idiotic. You call yourself "black" because your ancestors were called that by a bunch of Europeans who had invented an arbitrary and unscientific race categorization system that conveniently put themselves at the top of a racial pyramid. And yet... you still define yourselves by their standards, still think in their terms. Still think it matters, because it mattered so much to them. Of course, most black Americans, unlike other descendents of immigrants to America, generally don't know who their ancestors cultures or tribes were. Their slave masters at the time neither cared nor respected it, and the entire West African coast is home to alot of different cultures, religions and languages, so your ancestors were forced to leave your ancestral languages behind quickly, too. Which brings us back to your "Black Athena" nonsense. You only care about inserting your race unto Jesus, because you see white people caring about Jesus.. and because the opinions, affirmation and approval of white people is (too) important to you - because you still live by the racial hierachy that dead white people imposed on your ancestors. Move on, and instead of trying to falsely paint everything you see White people looking up to, as "Black"... look to the history of your actual ancestors. Not Middle Easterners, not Nubians, not Ethiopians, not Egyptians... West Africans. If you are a descendent of West African slaves to the US, those people's history might not be taught in your schools, might not feature as much in libraries and book stores... but there are books about it, there are archaeological excavations of those areas, and just because their history may not look prestigious to you... well, ask yourself whose sense of prestige you're pining for, whose standards of what makes a historical people or person prestigious. Iron metallurgy in West Africa (around present day Mali) occurs at the same time as the iron age of the middle east, meaning it is likely it developed independently. The Iron Age in Northern Europe - occured much, much later. Have some pride in the truth.
ok but my point was that If Black folks have accepted a White Jesus why is it so hard for white folk to accept a Black Yesus?
I know, but your question just begs another question: Why on Earth should Black folks accept a White Jesus, since he wasn't white, either? Christianity is a global religion and has been practised in various parts of the world for two millenia. There was a period in Asian history (3rd to 7th century), where Nestorian Christianity was flourishing, even as far as China. You had depictions of Jesus looking Chinese. In Ethiopia, you will see him depicted as visually Kushitic (how they look in the region of Nubia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia), and so on far all regions of the world. I've worked in a museum where Jesus was depicted as...ginger. Apparantly, alot of late medieval and Renaissance painters would flatter their patrons by depicting their likeness in biblical or historical paintings. Black folks, as in Black people in the United States,. being a minority, and getting their Christianity and Christians depictions primarily from their white slave owners, would be used to depictions of him as White. Can we agree that that was wrong? (Although it probably was practical early on, as I imagine 19th century racists would have thrown a tantrum involving ropes and burning crosses at the sight of Jesus depicted as either black or even Jewish). So, black folks, and even Africans, really should accept neither a White Jesus nor a Black one. They should accept the one most likely to be the truthful one. All in all, your question therefore falls apart at the premise, imo.
Not to mention, if your ancestors were forcibly brought over from West Africa they were most likely Muslims.
My Jesus is most likely a hook-nosed Jew in appearance. But there's no empirical evidence extant as to what Jesus looked like. "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of the dry ground: he has no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty [Hebrew mar'eh, to view handsomeness] that we should desire him." He had no personal hairdresser or makeup artist like a Caesar or a Hollywoodite.
Should have specified Western Africa, not West Africa, perhaps? The coasts of Western Africa that were sources of slaves for the race-based slave trade, extended long past just the Muslim parts of West Africa. Went as far down as Congo, IIRC. Also, slaves were usually acquired during wars. Muslims are not allowed to turn Muslim prisoners of war into slaves. If a Muslim slave converted, though, they were not required to be set free. So, slaves from the Muslim parts of Western Africa would have included Muslims... but also non-Muslim slaves acquired elsewhere and sold on the West African slave markets to European buyers.
There's no extant evidence as to his appearance. I could only speculate. Nobody knows. It matters little anyway.
but you just wanted to put that in their that your jesus is a white man lol. so let me ask you, if blacks have accepted your white jesus why can you not accept a black yesus?
There's no extant evidence as to his appearance. I could only speculate. Nobody knows. It matters little anyway. If he's black I'll sure take him. But nobody knows. He is the primary figure in history because of what he did, not his outward appearance.
we have a pretty good idea what he would have looked like since we know what the biblical jews looked like, he would have been very similar since he was their king, we also have a description of him in revelations. looks like someone with cornrows and a deep bronze complexion...
Jesus was not their actual, recognized king, and Jews did not look like that picture. Even if you stretch the evidence, the only Sub-Saharan Africans that would have been Jewish in Jesus' time, would have been Falasha Jews of Ethiopia. Ethiopians don't look like Nigerians. The current head of the WHO is Ethiopian, for reference. Africans don't all look like West Africans... that's just how most Black Americans look because they're descended from Western Africans. Not from Nubians or Ethiopians who live on the opposite side of the huge continent of Africa. Everyone in Asia also doesn't look the same, nor do even Europeans look the same (compare an average Armenian to an average Finn, for example).
he was labelled "king of the Jews". you must think herod, the roman puppet was the king of the jews. that picture is the closest resemblance ican find as to what biblical jews would have looked like using primary sources in both the archaeological and theoretical fields. your rather dismissive attitude is not backed up by anything other than your ego and peculiar logic. lets take your logic for example and throw it back at you; meso americans were black, proof, look at obama. that is YOUR example of what constitutes evidence [your little WHO comparison] Also in case you were unaware, sudan was actually the nation closely tied to ancient egypt both geographically and politically, not ethiopia and it would have had a bigger impact in shaping Israel due to this allegiance with Aegypt. do you know much about sudan? ithink it would totally blow your mind and your understanding of africa.