Yes despite all the ethnic, historical, cultural & political heritage and genetic differences and ID, they should all be lumped in one group called black because you say so.
So do you disagree with labeling whites white despite all the ethnic, historical, cultural & political heritage and genetic difference and ID??
I acknowledge the differences within black people...nobody is saying there differences don't matter. Just because they don't fit the stereotype of black people doesn't make them not black.
as far as his ethnicity goes, it's likely that he just developed a tan that gave his skin a darker hue than the average Israelite of his time. Scripture dictates that Joseph was told to take Mary and Christ to Egypt almost immediately after the latter was born and wait there until Herod died, which presumably didn't happen until yrs later.
As to why he is depicted as looking like Kenny G., i guess it's a matter of ppl wanting to be comfortable with the appearance of the figure they are worshiping.
Black is the correct term..the incorrect term would "Afro" considering not all black people have Afro heritage like the Melanesian people that are Black with blonde hair. These people are black but not African.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
What makes you think I care about his actions? I don't even know if his existence is fact. Don't try to point the finger at me for questioning his mainstream inaccurate portrayal.
In accurate portrayal you only care for him to have brown skin so you can spread black supremism which is no different from white suppremism both are equally deplorable people and you arent helping anyone with useless stuff like this instead of questioning and caring about the lords skin color you should be solving ways to better the country or the world
So do you disagree with labeling whites white despite all the ethnic, historical, cultural & political heritage and genetic difference and ID??
I acknowledge the differences within black people...nobody is saying there differences don't matter. Just because they don't fit the stereotype of black people doesn't make them not black.
You entirely missed the point of what she was telling you out side of the usa black men and woman are far more different then american blacks those within i met a guy from kenya and he was more of a gentleman then most americans and was a very classy guy (he listened to classical music) there are many different black cultures out there just like there are many different whites
Theres afro blacks there are Kenyan, congo, south african and each are drasically different culture wise vs the american black
Same could be said about american whites vs europian whites which is a mix of cultures out side of steriotypical lookseach culture is vastly different and years of history shaped them into what they are today
In accurate portrayal you only care for him to have brown skin so you can spread black supremism which is no different from white suppremism both are equally deplorable people and you arent helping anyone with useless stuff like this instead of questioning and caring about the lords skin color you should be solving ways to better the country or the world
I had a feeling in my gut you were going to pull some reverse racism bullshit out of your ass. Black Supremacy? Don't make me laugh. So are you admitting that portraying Jesus as a certain skin color is a form of Race Supremacy. I'm not questioning the guy's skin color I know what skin color he was I am questioning the denial of it and his portrayal by power structures. Believe it or not White Jesus didn't make the world a better place....his image was used to commit genocide, enslavement, colonialism, etc. And is continued to be used to reinforce white supremacy.
Obviously the guy has power over people since there are so many religious fanatics in this world. So why continue to portray this supreme being white?
In my opinion his skin color shouldn't be portrayed at all...his skin color should be left out of mainstream media and other power structures. In Islam it is forbidden to portray or even draw an image of Muhammad.
You entirely missed the point of what she was telling you out side of the usa black men and woman are far more different then american blacks those within i met a guy from kenya and he was more of a gentleman then most americans and was a very classy guy (he listened to classical music) there are many different black cultures out there just like there are many different whites
Theres afro blacks there are Kenyan, congo, south african and each are drasically different culture wise vs the american black
Same could be said about american whites vs europian whites which is a mix of cultures out side of steriotypical lookseach culture is vastly different and years of history shaped them into what they are today
So do you disagree with labeling whites white despite all the ethnic, historical, cultural & political heritage and genetic difference and ID??
I acknowledge the differences within black people...nobody is saying there differences don't matter. Just because they don't fit the stereotype of black people doesn't make them not black.
Then what's up with oversimplification and stereotyping you are attempting here?
You even decided to go all snarky and sarcastic over the term Jew declaring it a religion only when the word describes a group of people too. The religion came to be known after them not the other way round.
Besides as far as I know, Jesus didn't start any religion or an organization of any sort. At this point he is a symbol. The early cultures that religion developed and shaped (adopting the teachings credited to him) is not identified with the word "black". So while his ethnicity may evoke curiosity, rest of what follows has little to do with that background.
If you are just interested in questions like his origins or whether he really existed, your OP is severely lacking and you haven't added anything since then either to make us understand what you are trying to do here.
On the other hand this thread comes of as a poor attempt to stereotype a large number of diverse ethnicity and people as black and somehow take things from others without any original contribution - beyond maybe sharing the person's skin colour, i.e. the best case scenario.
If you want to make a case- work harder and more thoughtfully.
You entirely missed the point of what she was telling you out side of the usa black men and woman are far more different then american blacks those within i met a guy from kenya and he was more of a gentleman then most americans and was a very classy guy (he listened to classical music) there are many different black cultures out there just like there are many different whites
Theres afro blacks there are Kenyan, congo, south african and each are drasically different culture wise vs the american black
Same could be said about american whites vs europian whites which is a mix of cultures out side of steriotypical lookseach culture is vastly different and years of history shaped them into what they are today
Yep. E.g. another member posted about Jarawa people from Andaman islands India. I have been there myself in January this year. So ended up reading a lot about them a few months back. If they had any connection with Africa it was from at least 26000 yeas ago. Today the people living there have at least one allele in their DNA that's completely unique to them and not found in any other group of people. Their other characteristics too are something in between African and South eastern Asian countries- People living in Tibet, China and and Japan etc. So despite them having dark skin and what not, they cannot be lumped with people of African origin that live in Africa today or have lived there in last 5-10 thousand years.
Whole focus of OP is on skin colour only and he is choosing to limit the world in Black and white terms.
You know what believe what you want to believe i really couldnt careless and racism is racism wether its white on black or its black on white no systematic crap can protect against the truth of the matter have a nice day because i rest my case
Why do people deny Jesus Christ being black assuming he was a real person??? And why do people say Ancient Egyptians were not black then use Modern Egypt as proof??
They say the color of Jesus doesn't matter but still protray him as white. Fox news and youtube users.
What do people get out of this? Rewriting history..
First of all it it is considered that Jesus is Jew.
Jews used to live in Egypt which was hot and sunny. This doesn't mean that hey are black.
Jews have a creole skin that tends to go for a brownish skin tone. Jesus wasbtanned.
How I am I stereotyping? When I am acknowledging the diversity and variety. If they are black then they are black. If it's a fish then it's a fish. Come on seriously.
You even decided to go all snarky and sarcastic over the term Jew declaring it a religion only when the word describes a group of people too. The religion came to be known after them not the other way round.
Besides as far as I know, Jesus didn't start any religion or an organization of any sort. At this point he is a symbol. The early cultures that religion developed and shaped (adopting the teachings credited to him) is not identified with the word "black". So while his ethnicity may evoke curiosity, rest of what follows has little to do with that background.
If you want to believe that then go ahead. I'm pretty sure there was diversity but to deny that any of them were black is a new low.
If you are just interested in questions like his origins or whether he really existed, your OP is severely lacking and you haven't added anything since then either to make us understand what you are trying to do here.
Stop digressing. If you wanted to know you had the opportunity to ask me before you made your first comment. So don't act like this is something you care about.
On the other hand this thread comes of as a poor attempt to stereotype a large number of diverse ethnicity and people as black and somehow take things from others without any original contribution - beyond maybe sharing the person's skin colour, i.e. the best case scenario.
Again how I am I stereotyping? So according to your rhetoric I would be stereotyping Americans for calling them American despite the large number of diverse people in the U.S....According to you I would be stereotyping all Latinos for calling Latino because of the diversity within them. Americans are American, Blacks are Black, Latinos are Latino. Quit making assumptions since when did I appropriate anything or hint at that.
Yep. E.g. another member posted about Jarawa people from Andaman islands India. I have been there myself in January this year. So ended up reading a lot about them a few months back. If they had any connection with Africa it was from at least 26000 yeas ago. Today the people living there have at least one allele in their DNA that's completely unique to them and not found in any other group of people. Result of bottleneck population maybe but that's that. Their other characteristics too are something in between African and South eastern countries- People living in Tibet, China and and Japan etc. So despite them having dark skin and what not, they cannot be lumped with other people of African origin that live in Africa today or in last 2-5 thousand years.
You keep assuming Black = African....no Black does not equate to African similar to how White does not equate European. Anyhow you must be against labeling Blacks Americans as African since that would be oversimplifying and stereotyping them considering Africans that immigrate to the U.S. are labelled African American with Black Americans. Especially considering some Africans are white.
Whole focus of OP is on skin colour only and he is choosing to limit the world in Black and white terms.
The title of this thread could have told you that...smh....on the other hand I am not trying to limit the world in Black and White terms...there is a shade or shades in between them...usually Brown people. I have seen some Latino Americans and Indians/Indian Americans identify as Brown.
Point being... different ethnicities identify as brown, black, or white. Them being black, white, or brown does not take away from their ethnic heritage.
I was trying to make that point :sdo:
I may be black but I got 0 connection to the Indian Jarawa nor the black Sri Lankan. Using the word "black" for an ethnicity is total ignorance. The are many completely unrelated "black" ethnicities. There would be no xenophobia in South Africa if the whole of Africa was the so mentioned "black". I mean I can easily see a Namibian from a distance, or any other non South African tribes man except for few Mozambiquean and Zambians which can be strikingly similar.
an example:
Me:
You must be registered for see images
Jarawa (couldn't find a picture of a modern picture)
You must be registered for see images
Amanda Du Pont(south African presenter)
You must be registered for see images
Agbani Darego (2001 miss world)
You must be registered for see images
These are just few completely un related black people from different ethnicities but people throw us into the same pot. The same can be said about many others :sdo:. An ignorant can be like he is an "Indian" in terms of ethnicity :| when there are Bengali, Punjabi etc.
How I am I stereotyping? When I am acknowledging the diversity and variety. If they are black then they are black. If it's a fish then it's a fish. Come on seriously.
In accurate portrayal you only care for him to have brown skin so you can spread black supremism which is no different from white suppremism both are equally deplorable people and you arent helping anyone with useless stuff like this instead of questioning and caring about the lords skin color you should be solving ways to better the country or the world
If he was indeed black, which is what the OP is saying, then in the mainstream they've been lying to everyone by depicting him white. That's the purpose of this thread.
Calling Japanese white is not up to me..certain ethnic groups became part of the white spectrum by chance...the Irish and others were not considered white at one point in time
Japanese people are just an ethnic group...I can think that they are white all I want but...Like I said about Jesus...I have no influence over these things though.
Calling Japanese white is not up to me..certain ethnic groups became part of the white spectrum by chance...the Irish and others were not considered white at one point in time
Japanese people are just an ethnic group...I can think that they are white all I want but...Like I said about Jesus...I have no influence over these things though.
Well you encapsulated any man with shade of brown skin as "black" even went to saying a "fish" is a "fish". Then this soft response surprises me, since Japanese are strictly white, even way whiter than most Italians, French(ignore the political meaning of the words) etc.
i was obviously referring to a natural tan, not a tan someone gets from jumping in a tanning booth or a spray. Seeing as though you're here arguing "hair as white as wool" translates to someone being black, i should be asking you that.
If you are just interested in questions like his origins or whether he really existed, your OP is severely lacking and you haven't added anything since then either to make us understand what you are trying to do here.
Stop digressing. If you wanted to know you had the opportunity to ask me before you made your first comment. So don't act like this is something you care about.
So asking to make your op clear is digressing now? And you still failed to detail it.
Point being... different ethnicities identify as brown, black, or white. Them being black, white, or brown does not take away from their ethnic heritage.
You are making thread about ethnic background of Jesus and at the same time you insist on keeping it so generalized. That alone puts you in the same category as the ones who depicted Jesus whiter than he he may have been. Exactly how you are different than them when you generalize this much?
If the whole point is - hey some of the images of Jesus have lighter skin than they should have. Another groups: hey some of them have darker skin than he might have. The third group- hey he may not have even existed. Discussions over. Not much of discussion is it?
An ignorant can be like he is an "Indian" in terms of ethnicity when there are Bengali, Punjabi etc....
Jarawa (couldn't find a picture of a modern picture)
Is using the term European for anyone coming from that continent ignorant? India is a country in INDIAN sub-continent. It is an ethnic group with many subgroups of it's own. There are certain basic common cultural traditions, beliefs, shared history and experiences etc factors that are common in most of India regardless of the state and all have contributed to the identity of India. ( Many of these elements can still be traced in Pakistan and Bangladesh even, despite them being broken off and increasing influence by middle eastern countries since independence).
It's not same as lumping people who have had not an iota of connection with each other just on the skin deep reasoning, that's going on here to justify the use of word black as one big ethnic group.
Triggered!!! Did I offend you because clearly you feel some type of way....
Jew isn't a race that's like saying Blacks can't be muslims ever heard of Malcolm X. Jews and Muslims are a group of religious people. You people sound more ignorant than Trump. I always wondered if his claims applied to Black Muslims. Modern Israel and Palestine is not the same as Ancient Israel and Palestine just like how Modern North America is different from North America before Colombus appeared. So yeah he would have been much different than an average European.
I doubt you even understand what being black means. There are different shades of black. If ancient greece or southern Italy had black people then yeah.
Did you really just say Ancient Egyptians were not black? You can describe Modern Egypt as looking black because some of them are still there obviously things change over time so there are less natives there and it has become a bi-racial society.
You must be registered for see images
You're confusing modern standards and morality with the past standards and morality. Your whole post you assume the past is like the present. You assumed Ancient Egypt is like Modern Egypt. You keep assuming and making comparison with the past and present. When the past and present contrast more than anything.
Rewriting History was merely a suggestion or me questioning the motives..
Don't sugarcoat things...if he was black he was black gawd..
And you have just proven my point. One more post like this and I will remove you from this section as it's obvious that either you are trolling or you are completely oblivious about what you are saying, which means you will only cause unnecessary arguments. The fact that, like an immature child, you're going on about "triggered triggered" says it all. Your ignorance is nothing more than a potential hazard for meaningless arguments. So either you act like a mature person or I'm going to kick you out as I don't cut corners when it comes to moderating this section.
Judaism is a religion, the Jewish people however are more than just people who have the same faith. Unlike Christianity and Islam, which are religions that always have been open towards new members, it's extremely hard to become a Jew. Jews believe that they are the chosen people by God and as such you can't just become such a chosen person. They have always been proud about their heritage, their culture and their religion. On top of that they were stigmatized and persecuted for millennia. This all resulted in that Jews had distinctive, isolated communities in society that were hard to get in to or out of. In fact the more they were hunted down, the more obstinate they became and the stronger their communities became. A Jew would almost certainly marry a Jew. Calling them a race is a bit of a stretch, but they are very well genetically distinctive. Many Jews have typical physical features that are attributed to their Jewish ancestry. It often happens in movies that a character knows that another character is Jewish just by looking at him once and/or hearing his last name as many Jews are distinctive in both. You can't say the same thing about Muslims or Christians as they are way too diverse for that. In fact that's the primary reason Christianity broke with Judaism as Christians wanted to allow everyone into their faith, something the Jews did not want.
So yeah you are completely wrong. The only thing you are right about, is that it indeed was different 2000 years ago, so I wonder how is it that despite knowing that, you are saying the absurd and false statement that Jesus was black which contradicts what you just said? And how you say that he would have been different from a European despite the reality that Europeans would have also looked differently back then? You are not even making any sense. Not to mention I am taking into consideration how the situation was 2000 years ago, everything I said was true. The Eastern Mediterranean, and even parts of the Middle East, were historically, culturally, genetically and appearance wise at the time of Jesus much more related to the European continent than Central Africa, which is where the people lived who could truly be described as being "black".
What you say doesn't even make sense. Apparently according to you there are only whites and blacks. If you would go from Northern Europe all the way down to the equator, you would go from as pale as snow in Northern Europe to as black as charcoal around the equator. This all has to do with the intensity of the sun, so if you would already start categorizing people based on distinct differences in their skin color, you would end up at least in the double digits, maybe even the triple digits. So if you would actually follow your own messed up reasoning, by all means Jesus was white as he sure resembled someone from Europe more than someone from Central Africa, unless you want to call everyone in Southern Europe black as the further north people went, the lighter their skin became.
How is it possible that you claim you are talking about diversity while you are using the term "black". That on itself invalidates everything you say. I mean look at what you just did. You just said that people were 2000 years ago different, you then ignore that same statement for Europeans and then you post a picture of modern day Egyptians to prove something about Egyptians that lived 5000 years ago. There have been many dynasties in Ancient Egypt and the territories they ruled expanded and shrunk countless of times, so there are huge differences depending on which time, dynasty and place you talk about. However by no means you can describe them as being black on average. The last dynasty was even a Greek one, which really were not black. So you could as easily have given a picture of a bunch of pale Egyptians. You can't even follow your own arguments through, it's almost pathetic that you can't even see your own contradictory statements. You are subjectively deciding who are the original natives and who are not, which on itself is a relative statement because as I said, the further you go into Africa, the darker the skin will become and the territories of Ancient Egypt varied. Jean Grey is absolutely right in saying that you are doing the exact same thing you described in the OP: you vehemently deny things that are painfully obvious.
You have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about any of the historical matters you talk about and you have even less understanding about the complexities about how history is written and perceived. That became even more obvious about your comment saying that I should not view this from the present...as that's what I have been doing all along, it's you who completely failed at that. Again you say something that's true and then you do exactly the opposite yourself. Everything I said, so far that that is possible, was seen from the correct historical perspective, something you absolutely refuse to do. "Hey, you should not view the past from the present...and here me is holding up a picture of modern day Egyptians to prove something about 5000 years ago"...what?
And I'm not sugarcoating it. If he was not black, he was not black. It's not my fault that apparently you consider everyone that's not as pale as a corps as being black. Btw this has actually already been investigated, so you are denying with non-sensical BS something that has already been researched. Let me give you yet another historical trivia: do you know where exactly several important large migrations entered Europe? Greece, Turkey and the many islands and coastal regions in the Eastern Mediterranean and I'm not talking about some far away migrations from 10 000 BC, I'm talking about migrations that occurred around 1500-1000 BC. How could someone like you who has no knowledge about history whatsoever ever look at historical themes like these with any other perspective then a present day one?
This is the last chance you will get before I will remove you from this section because it is as I predicted. You dropped a controversial statement that is wrong on all fronts which you consequently tried to defend with half-assed arguments that contradict each and every time and this will lead to nothing other than senseless arguments. One of the things I hate the most is when people like you molest and harass history just to cause a stir.
lol then please explain Revelations 1:14 & 1:15 from King james to me please.
Read Revelations 1:15 and you will know. Just because he was an Israelite does NOT mean he was middle eastern.
I don't know why people even have this argument. it started as an indigenous black civilization after the persians, greek incursion became a melting pot before the arabics settled. "Ramesses iii was the second Pharaoh of the Twentieth Dynasty and is considered to be the last New Kingdom king to wield any substantial authority over Egypt." Ramesses was clearly a black man.
But I digress. I could care less about Egypt knowing that the other African empires were just as notable in the end. Kush empire solos
You must be registered for see images
...lol
In the bible it clearly states that Jesus came from the lion of Judah. Revelations 1:14 clearly states that he was a black man, and it wasn't only that.
Have you heard the story of Esau & Jake? If so, what did Jacob look like?
He didn't exist in the jewish community. He existed as an Israelite, which who were dark skinned
Again, go read king James bible
God damn, I just solo'd everybody in this thread...too easy. Shuma's back baby
Go get some common sense and a rational mind if you are only going to quote the Bible as almost all of your quotes are irrelevant. Did you ever play that game where you have to whisper a sentence into someone's ear and that person then whispers it in someone else's ear and so on and then when the last person has to say the sentence, it doesn't even remotely resemble the original sentence anymore? Well the exact same thing happened to the Bible, only a thousand times more severe as it was done over a period over 2000 years. So you quoting a sentence about Jesus' looks has almost as much value as someone using a dorito with a face on it to prove how Jesus really looked. Even the church father Augustine said you shouldn't be taking everything that's written in the Bible literally.
There is no way a Jesus can be black, it is logically impossible. The brass verse might be implying "shining" qualities instead of "colour" qualities
OTOH: Nubians are direct descendants of ancient Egyptians kings and are blacker than me. :sdo: So it makes more sense for them to be black than not. But since they mixed with many middle eastern migrants, possible inbreeding was possible to produce the "The REDS"...
Later Kings on the other hand are a controversy, like Tutankhamen's DNA being a discussion to this day
