Skip to main content

A professor from Loyola University was on the radio last night speaking about how Jesus came to be depicted as a white man, when in fact Jesus was black.
She says black folks still accept the idea of a white Jesus as a sign of inferiority.
Robyn McGee, author Hungry for More: A Keeping it Real Guide for Black Women on Weight and Body Image
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by aryan.gentleman:
Seems like a reasonable depiction...
Though it really shouldn't matter what he looked like, what is important is his message.


If it really doesn't matter Orthodox European historians would not have gone to great lengths to falsley represent "Jesus" to look like ZZ Top.

Btw, what does "reasonable" pertain to?
getting into the bible pretty deeply, you will find out that american ideas of race (whose black, white, mexican, "middle eastern") don't exxist in the bible.

the hebrews were a mixed group of people..

here in america white Ashkenazi/Yiddish Jews have monopolized judaism, much like white xtians is all you think of when you think of xtianity....
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident:
quote:
Originally posted by aryan.gentleman:
Seems like a reasonable depiction...
Though it really shouldn't matter what he looked like, what is important is his message.


If it really doesn't matter Orthodox European historians would not have gone to great lengths to falsley represent "Jesus" to look like ZZ Top.

Btw, what does "reasonable" pertain to?


I tend to agree with this assessment. Europeans needed Jesus to be white because they were colonizing and enslaving darker skin people all over the place, according to the professor. No way could their "god" be of color, since according to them people of color are/were inferior.
Also, doesn't the Bible describe Jesus as having hair like "lamb's wool"?
quote:
I tend to agree with this assessment. Europeans needed Jesus to be white because they were colonizing and enslaving darker skin people all over the place, according to the professor. No way could their "god" be of color, since according to them people of color are/were inferior.


Weren't they portraying Jesus as White before they started colonizing.

um
Last edited {1}
Actually ... it seem pretty simple to me. People have a tendency to make their Gods into their image.

That's religion, folks!

So you don't see Renaissance Italians depicting Jesus as blond and blued eyed ... because most Italians aren't blond ...

By the same token, Northern Europeans are going to have a blond Jesus.

In a similar way, African America is now demanding a God that looks like it ...
quote:
In a similar way, African America is now demanding a God that looks like it ...


It's little late. I was at a Black church last year that had 30 foot mural on one wall. The angels were White, the apostles were White and of course Jesus was White. I was wndering how many little Black kids have gone thru this church looking at that every week over the last 40 years. And of couse how many Black churches are like that across the US.

um
quote:
Originally posted by aryan.gentleman:
Seems like a reasonable depiction...
Though it really shouldn't matter what he looked like, what is important is his message.


Spoken like a true Caucasoid!! If how he is depicted was not of any importance than surely he would not have been made into a Blond hair, sometime red hair white male.
A part of me wonders why this question is even asked?

I mean, don't have any pictures to represent Jesus on my walls or in my library, but I certainly have friends who call him Black and some friends who call him White.

But I find it kinda funny, at least in my department at school, that people are more willing to discuss the "blackness" of Jesus with an atheist or agnostic versus discussing the teachings of Jesus.
Question is. Should Blacks even be Christians. Christianity hasn't done anything good for Blacks at all. Plus it was forced on us. I take back my post I posted. Who cares what color Jesus was. Look at Africa. Most of them are Catholics or Muslims. What happen to the native Faiths. I will have to excluded the Ethiopians since they are Jewish. And are the oldest living Christians. They were the first ones to be Christians. .
Christianity along with different West African,Central African religions are still practice in some places,even though the two seem to be the strangest combinations. Some say, why be christian if you're into something else.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obeah

Obeah (sometimes spelled "Obi") is a term used in the West Indies to refer to folk magic, sorcery, and religious practices derived from Central African and West African origins. As such, Obeah is somewhat similar to Palo, Voodoo, Santeria , rootwork, and hoodoo. Obeah is practiced in Jamaica, the Virgin Islands, Trinidad, Tobago, Guyana, Belize, the Bahamas and Barbados.

Obeah is associated with both black and white magic, charms, luck, and with mysticism in general. In some Caribbean nations Obeah refers to African diasporic folk religions with admixtures such as Hindu puja; in other areas, Christians may include elements of Obeah in their religion"”Obeah is associated with the Spiritual Baptist church"”and it appears within the magical praxis found within Thelema.
Good Question!

My best guess would be that "Black Folk" are still held by the "Godspell" from a slave mentality. I say this because our ancestors were subject to 'forced ignorance' and they were held to restrictions as to:

when they read
how they read
& what they read!

I just cannot imagine the oppressor feeding the slave a true doctrine of spiritual liberation! I do know that these original teaching were passed down and held w/o question then or now.........

The fact that the 'historical' JC is black and the 'biblical' JC is white is moot. Is it a coincidence that HORUS held the same characteristics 4 thousand years before the birth of the "historical Christ"?

Six thousand years ago the treatment of salvation was handled without a mediator. Since Christianity is a hybrid religion of the mother religion [i.e. The "Ausarian" Religion] I gather from such "Giants" as Dr. George G. M. James, Dr. Frances Cress-Welsing, Dr. Ray Hagins, Dr. Ben and Dr. Claud Anderson--to name a few--that there has been a great deal of colluded:

cmissions
commissions

in the telling of the real story.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Faheem:
quote:
Originally posted by aryan.gentleman:
Seems like a reasonable depiction...
Though it really shouldn't matter what he looked like, what is important is his message.


Spoken like a true Caucasoid!! If how he is depicted was not of any importance than surely he would not have been made into a Blond hair, sometime red hair white male.


And if it doesn't matter then what's the issue with speaking truthfully about his ethnicity and why the rainbow wish tree nonsense of "Physically he probably had traits of all races..."

No, he was born of a woman. That woman had an ethnicity. Without a Rainbow theory that says MARY had something that could be "reasonable" be called a mixed heritage with significant traits from "all races" then the deracialization nonsense can stop right there.

If it doesn't make a difference... then there should be NOTHING said when someone suggest that Jesus was Black.

It's all about the message right? Then what's the problem?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×