What if Jesus was really black?

1. 75

   Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago

   To assume possibility that Jesus could have been a black rather than white,  is greater.  Jew among the many black Jews that lived in those times, then Christianity would no longer be seen by so many as a racist, dogmatic and murderous "white European killing machine".
   
   If Jesus was black with the 400 years of American black oversea slavery.
   Would have black slavery happened or not?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I don't see why anyone would care about this unless you're a racist of some kind and you somehow feel having a black Jesus or god offends you somehow.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         A person's culture has alot more importance to me than someones Religion or race. Most of my girlfriends were nonwhite including my ex wife.
         
         I use ASSUME (ass u me) really loosely or in fun. How can a figma or doGma of someone imagination (black or white) offend me. I can't be insulted unless it is true, if it's turn out to be true, I love it.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I find your thought processes in this topic to be incredibly racist, in nature.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               It would have to imply I'm racist to other races. What part in this post is blatant racist.
               
               Have not been called racists by any non-whites before. I have been called a few times reverse racists by whites. Which is silly too, I spend most of my time with whites, even though they cause me most problems.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  A racist never sees their racism as racism. But, your constant comments about race should be clear indicators. Even to a blind man. You seem to think Jesus's skin color is of importance, you've pointedly labeled your girlfriends as non white, etc.
                  
                  Racists see race everywhere. Non racists just see human beings.

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Kitty
                     Your comments about race should be clear indicators.
                     
                     I talk alot about a few things, yet seldom go on and on about racism. Not even with my ex girlfriends and their families who often liked me. 
                     
                     Don't remember any post last about racism. Don't find myself any better or worse than anyone else. Unlike the most Religious. Only race I belong to is the human race.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        And, there you go. Your already identified by you as non white girlfriends had family members who like you.
                        
                        What's that racist mantra? Oh yeah. 'I can't be racist, I've got black friends.'

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Nonsense.
                           Just because I live more interracial than you do, dose not make me a racist, pretty much the opposite. I live in  the most interracial and mix cultural city in the world, Toronto. Not anyone can travel over a 100 countries and be racist. The person I love most in the world is my daughter who is half British and half Azteca. A few of my non-white girlfriends I was deeply in love with, they were not sex puppets, or just occasional visitors.

                           replyreport
      2. 94

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Castlepaloma, I don't think Jesus' skin color would have made any difference in slavery of the African race. It was the mockery that Rome made of his message that allowed for slavery of Africans, and with his message skewed, I don't see what difference his color would have made. Remember, back then a slave was a slave and a warrior was a warrior, no matter what color the skin. Certain races, such as Samaritans, were looked down upon and their color was irrelevant.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            MizB, if, as I believe you did, you read that link you saw how it is most probable that 11 of Jacob's 13 children were of color, so, it doesn't really matter if Rome was the source of Africans being made slaves, it was the law of Karma being played out.
            
            Look at Abraham's first son, Ishmael, his mother was African making him be the Muslim Arab people of the middle east who sold Europeans, Joseph, into Egyptian slavery. They are also who sold Africans in slave to the Europeans. Abraham and Sara were [b]Fair Skinned[b] and Haggai, Ishmael's mother, African and who Africans say were responsible for Europeans enslaving Africans.
            
            Maybe you have some actual history I don't that say Rome was responsible for Africans being enslaved in Europe and later the Americas. The library of Alexandria was destroyed so we can't find out from African records, so I'm using the history of those called Jews, the Old Testament of the Bible and especially Moses' writings, as my source.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I had never thought of Jacob's children being of different colors, so that's a new realization for me. It certainly wasn't taught in the Baptist church in which I grew up (the same church that was all white). To them Jacob's family were all Hebrews, so I don't think the average Sunday School teacher realized it either.
               
               And you are right about its being Karma. Karma is Karma and it is going to come about regardless of whether humans think it is racist.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  They didn't teach Jacob's children had different in skin tones in the Baptist denotation I grew un in either. I only discovered it sometime after my 1976 New Birth. I questioned why were 11 of Jacob's children resented the other 2 and remembering Rachael was fair, meaning white or light, and the implication was Leah wasn't. Then, looking back at Abraham the answer found me.
                  
                  Somewhere I found Hebrew means from the other side but I don't remember where it was. Maybe the English-Hebrew dictionary where I discovered the meaning of my name, Elijah = God is I AM THAT I AM, Alfred = Wise Counselor and Alexander = Defender of Man.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     "History and Etymology for fair
                     Adjective, Adverb, Verb, and Noun (2)
                     
                     Middle English fager, fair, from Old English fæger; akin to Old High German fagar beautiful"
                     
                     https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair
                     
                     "Fair" used to refer to "beautiful", not "light skinned".  "Unblemished" was likely a part of it.  Certainly there were no light skinned people (as we recognize them) only 22 generations after Adam, especially not with the near total inbreeding the bible indicates.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        That may be, or it could be because the Hebrew word means light skinned. Also maybe it was the Strong's Concordance where I found it to mean that. If the latter that maybe because it was mostly light skinned people, after the disciples, who took the message of Christ and they were intent on making themselves the superior ethnic, as was symbolically prophesied.

                        replyreport
                        1. 76

                           wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           The point is that if Hebrew refers to color then "fair" would not have been the adjective chosen, for it did not refer to color at all, but instead beauty.  Unless you think that the writers (Mediterranean colors) found their own color to be ugly?
                           
                           It was indeed lighter skinned people (compared to the darker Africans) that carried the message north.  I doubt, however, that they were intent on making white the superior ethnicity, for they were still darker than the peoples they were preaching to.  Nor do I find that it was symbolically prophesied...unless one twists the predictions of the bible completely out of context.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Those are things I can only suppose concerning, I have yet to find my reasoning to be certain.

                              replyreport
                              1. 75

                                 Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Someone ask me to sculpture Jesus. I could not because no clear reference to go by.

                                 replyreport
2. 61

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   Who cares? Why is everything always about race with some people?

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      All the other races care more than me. I am one of the lucky ones. Why would white families care, on average they are to make 10 times more financially than black families.
      Whites sure got a huge start with a white, blue eye and blonde Jesus.
      
      What matters personal for me is the last few Christian girlfriends dumped me because I couldn't be saved. I accepted them, yet they did not accept me.
      
      Could also be, what men dislike most.
      Is women always trying to change men.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Sounds to me like you might be in denial. Don't project problems on other people.
         
         You look white. Good for you that you think you hit the genetics jackpot.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            From traveling over a100 countries, As white the most racist thing was assuming I was rich every where I go. A much higher price for a White tourists vs native price.
            
            My assumption is Jesus was most likely Brown.
            
            Homo sapiens started out fighting territorial. When another tribe dress differentially , skin color different and grunted differentially.
            Then Religion was born.
            
            Each God made in their own image and own geographic area. White man being in colder climates produced the spark of technology with fire the force of life and creative.
            
            Jesus was most likely brown. Brown people are of the earth and spirit. Most wars have been fought between whites and brown people throughout history. Like the white empires of Russians, British, and Americans. Vs. natives of the Americas, middle East and India. People in American prisons being 25% of the world's prisoners. Separate by race gangs to protect themselves for their own survi

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Your entire post is speculation. But, as to Jesus. I ask again. Who cares what color his skin was?

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  When Christians tell me they have witnessed Jesus.
                  I ask, what did Jesus look like? Was he blue eyes, blonde, and white?. Or was he brown or black?
                  
                  They give no answer, and expect me to give up my entire soul. Without any ID of Jesus or without mostly historical facts. That is a big deal.
                  
                  Imagination and image is closest to anything Godlike.

                  replyreport
            2. 60

               The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Your assumption is Jesus was most likely Brown is scriptural for both the Rod who was Jesus and the Branch who is yet to be recognized per Isaiah 11:1-12. The disruption in Revelation 1:12-15 suggests the second one will be a yellowish-brown like freshly melted brass. So my reading of the book suggests you are correct.

               replyreport
   2. 60

      The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Castaloma, the Bible doesn't say Jesus was black but a man of color who was diseased to become white like snow by those who would teach him white in Exodus 4:6-8. That passage actually indicates Moses, Jesus and the second messiah were/are to be of color. (https://hubpages.com/religion-philosoph … e-Of-Jesus gives us many details of it.)

      replyreport
      1. 94

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Elijah, sometimes you have a strange way of expressing things. That's not a criticism, by the way. I've always thought of Jesus as a member of the brown race, but some South American tribes claim that in the time period that historians say to be around the time of the resurrection, a "white man with blue eyes" appeared to them as an apparition or something and stayed with them a few days. Also some historians claim that the Mediterranean area had white or fair-skinned people living there at that time. I don't know what to believe anymore, except that I do not believe that his line was black. There are black jews in Africa that DNA tests proved are Cohen (from Aaron) descendants.
         But I don't believe that his skin color was important, only that his message was from the White Brotherhood. The White Brotherhood is not an earthly organization and has nothing to do with skin color, but it is of the spirit of light. So I believe his message was the importance, not his color.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            MizB, We've conversed long enough that there was no need to say about sometimes you have a strange way of expressing things. That's not a criticism because I respect your comments and I feel your sincerity.
            
            Your The White Brotherhood is not an earthly organization and has nothing to do with skin color may reveal why Jesus began to shine like a light on the 'Mountain of Transfiguration' and why he was preached as being white. I will have to give it some more meditative thought but that does make sense, thanks.
            
            To people who seek truth, the background of the provider of truth is not an issue, what they are revealing is and all that matters. It has been my findings, anytime an ethnic (race), age, religion, alcohol or other material factor concerning the bringer of a message is an issue the seeker is not seeking truth.

            replyreport
3. 75

   Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago

   Given that Jesus, if he weren't fictional, was of Middle Eastern origin, his being black is probably as logical as him being white and looking like the Marlboro Man, all chiseled and ruggedly handsome and what not. Most Assuming is brown.
   
   Regardless, Christianity would still be viewed exactly as it is. Why? Because it is racist, dogmatic, and murderous. Want proof of that? It's called Islam. Same religion, different color.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      When one read the Abraham fathering Ismael story, beginning in Genesis 16, we find Hagar the Egyptian gave birth to the middle-easterners. In Genesis 25:16 and following we find Isaac giving birth to twins, Esau an outdoorsman and hunter or human of color and Jacob a tent dweller or fair skinned human. Except that Esau came out red in color with a head of hair and most African-descent babies do the same, we would have a choice as to which was middle-easterners and which is African but Esau fit their description best.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Let's do a hypothetical here. Hypothetically speaking now, Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had a daughter who was taken along with her mother to France by Joseph of Arimathea after the crucifixion, and then the daughter married and established the line of Merovingians. The Merovingians became a royal line in France, and there are portraits of them. They are light-skinned people who could have come from a brown race or a white race who married into white lines in Europe. But none of them show characteristics of a black DNA. Would there not have been some evidence of black DNA in these descendants?
         Of course the counter argument would be that one doesn't believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child. But what if?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            The0NatureBoyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I've heard that hypothesis but it doesn't feel like truth to me especially since there is nothing anywhere to suggest it.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Not in the Bible, no, but both France and the British Isles have records of such that have been attempted to be hidden by the Catholic Church. As I've said many times, sometimes one has to go outside the bible to understand the bible or the church. Look up "Merovingians."

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  +10000000000000000000

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     savvydatingposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     GM...I read the book. In fact, I was dating a Frenchman at the time. Even he told me there was no record of any wife or child in French records. He was educated, but not religious. He thought it was ridiculous that I might be taking the book seriously at the time. And so I looked into it. He was right. The book is pure fiction. All serious historians know this.
                     
                     But sadly, people believe any sensational nonsense put out there. Your perogative though.

                     replyreport
            2. 0

               savvydatingposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               NatureBoy....There is no truth in it and France does not have records of any wife or daughter. Period. The Catholic Church is not hiding anything. That theory is so ridiculous that historians don't even need to debunk it, though they can within 5 minutes or less.
               
               Furthermore, the Da Vinci Code is a fictional novel written by Dan Brown, who is not a historian or even close. Serious Biblical scholars understand the facts which have been determined by the "criteria of authenticity." Period. Jesus was a Jew. He was likely tan or brown as most Jews were.
               The rest of this nonsense is pure sensationalism, so in this instance your instincts are correct..

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Would not surprise me, there is a forever wild goose chases always going on.
                  
                  Plus 30,000 various Christains denominations of loose ends, peom and fairytales. With too many wrong translations and conflicts.

                  replyreport
         2. 75

            Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The da Vinci code traces Jesus bloodline to his daughter. The church dose not accept it, yet scholars think it is a theory to Mary existence. In John vision in the Bible of Jesus feet were color bronze and coming from the middle east the most logical explanation is Jesus was brown. Probably everyone has some tone of brown race in them and if you mix all the colors you get brown.
            
            What scientists and geneticists think is that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve. Only race we can trace back to the source of all humans is the black DNA gene in all of us including Jesus.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               MizBejabbersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               That's a good way to look at it.

               replyreport
4. 84

   Readmikenowposted 5 years ago

   As a Christian I know that Jesus what not an European.  He was born in Bethlehem.  How many of you have been to Bethlehem?  When you walk around there you realize these people do not look like Europeans.  Jesus probably had the appearance of a middle eastern person.  I think this is pretty undisputed.
   
   So, what if he was black, oriental, or Indian?  It wouldn't matter.  In this day of identity politics an individual's skin color has too much value.  The color of the skin of Jesus does not matter, it was his life and teachings that attract true Christians.
   
   That is also what is lacking in the forum discussion.  It is obvious by the responses there is a huge lack of understanding and knowledge about Jesus and the Holy Bible.

   replyreport
5. 81

   emgeposted 5 years ago

   I quite agree with what is written.  It is immaterial whether Jesus was Black, Brown, or white . However realistickly Jesus could not have been black . I am pretty sure about it Neither could he have been Indian. Most likely Jesus was marginally  fair as people from the Middle East are
   I think  once  for all the iidea that Jesus could have been a black man needs to be dumped. There is nothing wrong being black but I have   just stated an obvious fact

   replyreport
6. 75

   Castlepalomaposted 5 years ago

   Probably Jesus was not black and less so white. It was a,  what if Jesus was black, would it have changed overseas black salvery.
   
   Even if Jesus was brown rather than white painted everywhere in Europe also with blonde hair and blue eyes.
   
   If Jesus was ID brown, would it have been a world record number of wars in the last 2000 years between white and browns.
   
   If it wasn't about God image or Jesus being white. What other image of Race would change the hearts and minds of these dominant groups of superiority. Remember Aliens have not been proven yet,?

   replyreport