if Jesus be a black man, will u still worship him?

Answer 1

People keep saying he was semitic/Hebrew and not black. The Hebrews were often confused with Hamites (Egyptians and Ethiopians = Africans). The middle east used to be inhabited by black people. If you believe your bible, open with me to Genesis 10.

Gen 10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim [Egypt], and Phut, and Canaan.
Gen 10:7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
Gen 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

Gen 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

Gen 10:13 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim,
Gen 10:14 And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim.
Gen 10:15 And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
Gen 10:16 And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
Gen 10:17 And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
Gen 10:18 And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.

Now, look at the maps in the back of your bible and look at where these Hamites lived. You will see that they inhabited the Middle east as far east as Babylon, built by Nimrod a Cushite (descendant of Ethiopia). And as far north as Central Turkey, inhabited by the Hittites (descendants of Heth).

There's no way Hebrews could be mistaken for Egyptians if they were white like the Jews of today because Egyptians are Hamitic (*******). Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus described the Hebrews as looking like they were from Ethiopia, in his book the Histories, which was written in the first century when they had a 95% better understanding of how they looked than we do. The Hebrews of Jesus' time were 85% black (brown-skinned), according to geneticists. No black person is actually black-skinned (before we get the, they were brown but not black argument, which is ridiculous and illogical). Blacks are brown-skin, hello, though some can be pretty dark.

If you take the bible to be a true source, then we see that the middle east was Hamitic and not Semitic in "Ancient" times. Now, there are black Semitic people as well or else there would be no confusion over Egyptian, Ethiopian, and Hebrew (read Act 21:38-39).

People known as Jews today are people who converted to Judaism in the 700s and are not physical descendants of the people in Scriptures.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jews.htm
Also, check out the "13th Tribe," a book by an Jewish Historian. Just like a Jewish Encylopedia will tell you that Ashkenazi Jews are not Semitic, but Japhetic, their scholars and the bible says the same.

Now, what does the scriptures say about Japheth's sons.

Gen 10:2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
Gen 10:3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
Gen 10:4 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

There you have it. Again, if you take the bible to be reliable. Ashkenaz is a descendant of Japheth and not Shem (Semitic). Therefore you have the term Ashkenazi Jews because they are descendant of Japheth who practice Judaism. Egyptians are not Semitic, they are Hamitic. Their language is considered Semitic though. Ashkenazi Jews (80-85% of Jews) are descendants of Togarmah and Ashkenaz, give or take a few percents due to intermingling since conversion.

Look up Khazaria. The Khazar Empire converted to Judaism. It started with the Kings and ruling class and overtime the citizens changed as well, having Christianity to the west and Islam to the east. They chose to give up their paganism for one God as well.

A Khazar King name Joseph, testified that he was a descendant of Togarmah, which supports the scriptural view. The letters have been authenticated and are without dispute in the historical community.

Gen 9:27 God shall "deceive" Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

I have place deceived in the verse because Pathah is improperly translated to enlarge. Pathah means to entice, deceive, allure, persuade, to be simple, flatter, or to be silly.

Out of the nine times enlarge is used in the OT, this is the only time it is translated from Pathah.

Pathah (Paw thaw) is translated deceive 3 times. Every time enticed is used it comes from Pathah, except once (1 of 9 times). 3 out of the six times persuade is used, it comes from Pathah. And the only time allure is used in the OT it comes from Pathah. So every time Pathah is used, it means to deceive, allure, persuade, or entice. Take your pick, but it does not mean to enlarge. I doubt anyone is foolish enough to say that out of the sixteen times it is used, this one time it means enlarge, which is something that has nothing to do with it's other meanings.

So a better question would be, knowing that Jesus is black, do you have a problem with that. You ask that question and you'll see how abominable the thought is to many.

This is what we are seeing now, Japheth dwelling in Shem's tents or promised land. the promises to Israel for returning was based upon their repentance are returning to His Law, which has not been the case with the Ashkenazi who predominately follow the Talmud and Kabbalah.

Now, you have a couple of choices. You can call me anti-semitic for no other reason than telling you what I believe and giving you evidence and substance to back it up. Or you can look into the matter yourself. No doubt, people scared of and hateful towards the truth will call me racist. But they won't look into the matter to know what is Truth.

Answer 2

Jesus' ancestry is traced back to the line of Noah's son Shem. Noah's two other sons were Ham and Japheth. Ham is the progenitor of blacks and Japheth is the father of Europeans. So Jesus being a descendant of Shem didn't look like someone who was black or someone who was Caucasian. He was a Semite, an Asiatic. He had the appearance of the Semitic or Asiatic people who lived in the ancient Middle East. The portrayal of Jesus that's common in the churches of professed Christianity was influenced by European/Americanized culture. Also the Bible shows us that Jesus is not God and he never even claimed to be. Worship by any man goes to the Father alone.

Answer 3

Historical studies have determined that Jesus was a short, swarthy, man, obviously with native skin tones, who looked more Arabic than Roman (as he is always incorrectly depicted by the Roman Catholic Church).

Funnily enough, many European countries have a black madonna as part of their religious portraiture.

His great charisma and what he had to say won people over, not his looks.

Plenty of Christians in Africa, they don't seem to have a problem.

.

Answer 4

Of course. Skin color is irrelevant. I couldn't care less if He was black, white, red, green or purple. He was and is the Son of God. Why does skin color matter?
Besides, I'm pretty sure that His skin tone was more of a bronze.

Answer 5

As long as he was still a manifestation of God in the flesh, and as long as he was still Lord and Savior it would not matter what color He appeared as... He would be worshiped.

Answer 6

Yes, but Jesus was a Hebrew, I think that he was not white and he was not black but very dark complected.

Answer 7

He wasnt white to begin with. He was near-eastern, this means he probably had black hair and black eyes and much darker, yellowish skin than white people.

Answer 8

i dont worship him now... would i look upon him as i do now? sure.

i think jesus was a great man... and i wouldnt care if he is black, white, purple or whatever.

Answer 9

GOD has no color or race. He is everything and he is to be worshipped.

Answer 10

Yes , but why did you word the question that way?