Biblical Scholars conclude that Jesus was an African American, so why do pictures portray him as a Caucasian?

Question

I mean seriously, why are some people so threatened by his ethnicity? His message of Peace, Love, and Tolerance of all people is much more important than the Color of his skin.

Answer 1

.

Jesus was not an African-American.

Apparently you do not understand
who the African-Americans are.

Perhaps this information will be of help to you.

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

Except Bibilical scholars could not have proved he was an African American since there was no such thing at the time.

Did you think this out before posting it? Or do you like looking foolish?

And um... by the way He was a Jewish boy.. He wasn't even African. He was semetic.

Answer 3

No Bible students feel that Jesus was once African-American. Africans didn't come to the Americas, so far as we all know, till the 1500s. The ancient list says Jesus was once a Jew, and nearly all of Jews then and now have been White. This does not turn out he was once White of direction; the modern-day resources didn't bear in mind his look to be most important sufficient to write down down. Jesus has frequently been portrayed as White amongst the ones of European descent for the reason that, for decades, such a lot fans of Jesus have been White. In Europe, he was once portrayed as a European, almost always in European apparel. In Ethiopia, Jesus was once portrayed as mild brown, lighter than the dermis of the Ethiopians. Ethiopia was once the primary country to undertake Christianity as its legit faith, they usually have been near sufficient to the time and position of Jesus' ministry to grasp greater than the later European converts did. People from all components of the sector, now, painting Jesus as a member in their possess persons, to make it simpler to narrate to him.

Answer 4

From Wikipedia;
Different societies have depicted Jesus and most other biblical figures as their own ethnicity in their art, for example he is primarily white in the West, and black in Africa. Such representations are not, in the modern day, usually intended to be historically accurate.

Answer 5

Actually, Jesus was a Jew. From the lineage of King David. It says so in the Bible. People hate Jesus because they are blinded by the Devil. They hate the light because Jesus is the light of the world.

Answer 6

Really? I thought "America" wasn't named until the 1500's. And Jesus certainly wasn't born here. He was born in Bethlehem. Please show me the research that "PROVES" Jesus was a "African-American" 'cause you would need to be born here to qualify. No one cares if he was black or middle-eastern, we know the color of the people from that area of the world. Maybe you are the only one who cares.

Answer 7

Everything you said taken to be true, which is detracting from the message more, someone painting Jesus in their own image, or spending time complaining that they got it wrong because you know the real color of his skin?

Answer 8

I think he was Jewish, and probably resembled those in the middle Eastern area. But yeah, his skin color doesn't really matter, in the long run.

Answer 9

Jesus wasn't an American. He was Hebrew!

Answer 10

Biblical scholars conclude that Yeshua bin Yosef was MIDDLE EASTERN

Answer 11

Liberal Bible scholars have come to MANY false conclusions. I don't bother with them. And like the first answer said, He was olive-skinned. Not black OR white. And like you said, WHY DOES IT MATTER???

Chill!