Biblical Scholars have concluded that Jesus was of African-American Descent. Why does this bother some people?

Question

I don't think it's his skin color that really matters. What's most important is his message of Love and Tolerance towards all peoples.

Answer 1

.

You are mis-using the term 'African-American'

Perhaps it would be of help for you to become
familiar with the origin and the application
of the term 'African-American' ...

Our society really needs to try to begin to understand that
the 'African-American' (AA) 'Ethnic' group is *not* the
same group as the’Black American' (BA) 'Race' group --
that the two (2) terms are *not* synonymous and that the
two (2) terms should *not* be used inter-changeably.

We are *not* speaking of ‘semantics’ here – but rather
– the BAs & AAs are two different groups of people.

The AAs are the (largely Mixed-Race) ETHNIC group.

The BAs are the (Mono-Raced) RACE group.

As confusing as it seems -- the U.S. government
[due to racism & wanting to stigmatize the part
of their lineage that was from Africa which, by
the way, is only one part of their lineage] ---

has labeled those individuals who are the known
"descendents of the survivors" of the system of
chattel-slavery found in the USA as being AAs
(the hyphen is used in reference to acknowledging
the fact that most of them are Mixed-Race,
with African & non-African blood lines)

AND

has labeled those people who are "volitional immigrants"
who are directly from places such as the continent of
African, the West Indies, etc. -- as being BAs
(with the word 'Black' used in reference to acknowledging
the fact that they are of a Mono-racial full-Black lineage).

In addition, it should also be remembered that – although
some AAs adhere to a socio-political ‘identity’ that is
often described by the slang term of “black”—the AAs
are actually *not* a "Race" group at all -- but rather
they *are* a largely Mixed-Race 'Ethnic' group
(and the socio-political ‘identity’ that a person chooses
*does not* change their racially-mixed ancestral lineage).

Most (+70%) of the people born to two (2) parents who
are of the AA ‘Ethnic’ group are are of a Multi-Racially
‘Mixed’ (MGM) lineage – while the people to two (2)
parents who are of the BA ‘Racial’ group – on the
other hand – are of a Mono-Racially ‘Black’ lineage.

There is a big difference between a largely Multi-racial
'Ethnic' group and between a Mono-racial 'Race group.

In addition, there is also a big difference between
one's socio-political 'identity' (ex. "black") and
one's ancestral racial 'lineage' (ex. 'Mixed').

Just because a person adheres to a given
socio-political 'identity' does *not* change
the composition of their ancestral 'lineage'.

Also -- the 'One-Drop' Rule (the false teaching that
'any amount' of Black ancestral lineage make a
person "full black") is nothing more than pure-racism.

The racist 'One-Drop Rule' (used only by the United States
government, by the way) was created during the antebellum,
chattel-slavery era by White racial supremacist in order to
get people to believe the false racist myth that the so-called
White "race" was "pure" and to falsely view the Black
"racial" admixture (even the slightest amount) within
someone's ancestral lineage as being "tainted".

To embrace the 'One-Drop Rule' is the equivalent of BOTH
embracing "racism" and embracing the false teaching
that a Mixed-Race person's Black lineage is "tainted".

My advice is that a non-Racist should *not* embrace
the concept of the 'One-Drop Rule' -- as "Black blood"
is *not* "tainted" -- and should never be perceived
or embraced as being so (not even in the
name of so-called "pride" and "unity").

In addition, legally-speaking, attempted forcible
application of the racist 'One-Drop Rule' -- against
any individual or group -- was made illegal and ruled
as unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court
in 1967 via the case of 'Loving vs. The State of Virginia'.

Through the 'Loving vs. Virginia' case, the U.S.
Supreme Court, ruled against both all of the laws
banning Interracial marriage -- and -- also ruled
that any so-called law which forcibly applied the
'One Drop Rule' -- was racist, discriminatory,
illegal, unconstitutional, and non-enforcible.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Generation-Mixed/message/1402

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Generation-Mixed/message/1400

Related Links:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Generation-Mixed
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MGM-Mixed
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FGM-Mixed

------------------------PLEASE NOTE---------------------

--- Dr. Luigi Caveli-Sforza, who is the Executive
Director of the Human Genome Project and the
world's foremost authority on human genetics
has both tested and proven that more that 70%
of all AAs have a full ancestral lineage which
consists of +20-30% White / European and
more than +25% Amerindian bloodlines.

--- That means that the 'average' (+70%) person
born to two (2) parents who are both members
of the AA Ethnic group actually has slightly
less than 50% Black / African blood lineage
found in his or her full-ancestral lineage.

For more information -- see supporting links listed below:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Generation-Mixed/message/1399
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Generation-Mixed/message/1032
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Generation-Mixed/message/1034
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Generation-Mixed/message/991
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Generation-Mixed/message/1570
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Generation-Mixed/message/1573

--------------------------- ADDED NOTE ---------------------

It should also be noted that -- contrary to popular belief and
myth spread among many groups who are not educated or
informed on the whole topic -- it was not the group that is
currently being referred to as being the African-Americans
(AAs) -- who chose this term for them -- but rather --
like so many of the other terms used to describe
them -- this term was also implemented by
the United States federal government
(starting with the 1990 United
States 'Census Bureau' Forms).

If a person insists on spreading the 'myth' that it was the
AAs who chose this term for themselves -- it is clearly
indicative of the fact that they have never even once
actually studied the entire topic and are simply basing
their comments on assumption-based ignorance --
rather than objective facts and empirical evidence.

.

Answer 2

What Biblical Scholar would claim that Christ (circa the year 1)belonged to a people that did not even exist until like the early 1600's? Africans were first brought to the Americas around then.

As for whether he was of other African descent, I wonder why anyone would claim this when the guy was supposed to be a Jew from Nazareth. Not many of those were Africans.

I'm not a religious guy, but I could accept the idea of a historical figure behind the layers of fairy-tale.

Answer 3

Actually, Biblical Scholars have never said that Jesus was of African-American descent. America was way across the ocean, and Jesus lived in Israel.

Was He African? No, He was Middle-Eastern. He looked very much like an Arab or Israeli today. Darkish-Olive skin, coarse hair, brown eyes.

You're right that it doesn't matter. And His message wasn't of tolerance. Jesus didn't tolerate much. He forgave much. He hates sin, which is why He came. To defeat sin's power over mankind.

Answer 4

Jesus most likely wasn't white skinned and blue eyed like many forms of art present him to be. He was probably darker skinned or olive with brown eyes and brown hair since he was of Jewish descent. If you're asking if it bothers me if he looked more like a Jew, Arab or even in the unlikelihood that he was African, the answer would be "No".

What bothers me much more is when I see paintings of Jesus showing him as an anorexic, pasty white blue-eyed "Ken" doll.

I love people of color. However, if Jesus decided to come as an albino, I wouldn't have a problem with that. It would have created a dilemma, however, since He was to have Jewish royal bloodlines. I just hope he would have been able to find some sunblock.
;0)

Answer 5

Not that it matters but recent scholars say He was a Black Asiatic Jew (Hebrew Jew).
Jew=Judah


Maybe 100 years from now their studies will say different.

Maybe it bothers people because deep down inside everyone wants to be directly connected (in a earthly sense). Maybe it's pride, racism or stupidity. But He made it clear that we can all have the same claim to His Holy name. Many blacks are use to others seeing a negative connotation when you say "African American descent." which I think you mean African descent.

It says in scripture God hates oppression.

It doesn't matter when He returns it's all about salvation not race.

Answer 6

Sounds like these "scholars" need to study more.

"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew 2:23

Jesus was called a Nazarene, the city of his mother and "earthly" father. Jesus was constantly referred to as a Jew and when directly questioned, admitted to being Jewish.

We won't even get into the fact that America would not exist for another 1500 years or so.

Answer 7

Both the Bible and Josephus, the most well respected Roman scholar of his day have consistently reported Jesus was a Jew. I don't care what color his skin was. He was probably not lily white as often portrayed, as most Jewish people of that time weren't. Jesus performed many miracles during his life, time travel was not one of them. He would have to been born in America and travelled back in time to have been African-American. You may have mean't African. If he was an African Jew, sounds ok to me.

Answer 8

Jesus used to be an African American? Hahahahaha. So Jesus used to be a black guy who lived in America? Hahaha what pupils have you ever been studying approximately? Anyway, the Jews weren't black. Abraham (i.e. the patriarch of the Jews) got here from Mesopotamia, no longer Egypt. Aside from that, the Egyptians weren't entirely black. There have been Pharaohs that regarded East Asian, a few that regarded European, and so forth. The early Egyptians fairly regarded numerous. Apart from that, Israel isn't a aspect of Africa. Nor is it a aspect of Europe. It is in Asia. Jesus used to be extra Asian than African or European.

Answer 9

I like this. You are so indoctrinated with PC that you call all blacks African-Americans. There was no America back then, so I am fairly confident that jesus was not an American. Perhaps you are suggesting that an African-American went back in time to pretend to become a jew born in Israel. That is certainly at least as believable as any of the chrisitan tenets. I buy it.

Answer 10

Whether Jesus was of a darker skin color of not can be debated. However, the skin color of Jesus Christ has no bearing on His ultimate identity as Son of God. People really shouldn't care what color He was, as long as they realize WHO He was.

(sidenote) How could Jesus be "African-American" when He lived in a time where the Americas weren't even established?

Answer 11

As a Biblical scholar, I just want to point out that NO Biblical scholar has ever made such a nonsensical claim, for the reasons other intelligent people have already pointed out here.