- Nov 21, 2011
- 2,809
- 410
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Recently, I created this video about what color Jesus Christ could have been. As some of you know, the last video I created about His color, or race, was about the fact about many people may have seen Jesus. The point was, if Jesus were black, or white, or Asian, would it matter to You, or even me. Anyways, I created this recent video about as a New World person, how Jesus would have been identified. He was a Jew from Galilee, of the Tribe of Benjamin, I think.
Jesus was a Semite meaning that He was not a black African purely or a white European purely or even a pure Chinese person in my estimation. He was a "descendant" of David, Isaac, Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, and Ruth the Moabite who became a believer in God. To me, a New Worlder, I have to see the Bible in its truest context. Jesus was a Levantine Semite; there is also diversity in the Middle East just as it is in Africa, especially in genetically, culturally, etc black Africa.
Israel is of course a country in the Levant between West Asia and East Africa. The so-called "black" race is extremely diverse as is the "White" race, such as the Europeans, whose progenitor was Japheth. The ancient Egyptians, Ethiopians, and other black Africans' progenitor or rather, ancestor, is Ham. The ancestor of the Jews of Galilee as well as the Chaldeans, Assyrians, and the Arabs is Shem.
Also racially the point also is about who Jesus Christ outside of his racial or national or ethnic identity is the Lord, Savior, and the Son of the Living God. Many of us New Worlders including myself at times fail to see that in the Bible, race is seen from an Old World context. Therefore, the Bible didn't see or even have the 200-300 year old terms Mongoloid, Negroid, or Caucasoid. Most, if not all Semites were seen as Caucasoids and thus, seen as the same "race" or genetic similarity as those who were European and most if not all South Asians.
Black Africans were/are Negroids, yet at the same time, some believed that those of the Horn were seen as a branch of the Caucasian "race" according to some. Mongoloids were the "yellow" race, which of course including the Japanese and the Chinese. Many in the New World followed this racial/racist model, which wasn't always about genetics, but about skull shape and other factors. Also, the problem with this is that black Africans are too diverse genetically (the most genetically diverse in the world) to just count as one way, just as Europeans are.
The terms, above are based on racist, outdated pseudoscience. There is no such biblical basis at all. People in the Bible were identified by tribal affiliation, descriptors such as black as in the case of the Ethiopians (to a point). They were also identified by nation such as the Ethiopian who baptized by Phillip, and the Jews such as the Persians and Arabs who had the Holy Spirit come upon them. Nowhere in those verses did the Bible (dependent on some versions) say that Phillip, a "white" man baptized a "black" man. My point is, if we were to answer that question, we have to understand that we as New Worlders, in general, need to see God's Word in its Old World writings. That has been my so-called racial point. That is only a part of what the video is about. However, there is more to the video as well than just how Jesus could have been described and how He looked. His Character has also been taken into account as well.
Forgive me for this rant being so long. This video has these exact points as what I have written about. I look forward to reading your comments. Let us all be constructive. All constructive criticism is welcome.
Jesus was a Semite meaning that He was not a black African purely or a white European purely or even a pure Chinese person in my estimation. He was a "descendant" of David, Isaac, Abraham, Jacob, Solomon, and Ruth the Moabite who became a believer in God. To me, a New Worlder, I have to see the Bible in its truest context. Jesus was a Levantine Semite; there is also diversity in the Middle East just as it is in Africa, especially in genetically, culturally, etc black Africa.
Israel is of course a country in the Levant between West Asia and East Africa. The so-called "black" race is extremely diverse as is the "White" race, such as the Europeans, whose progenitor was Japheth. The ancient Egyptians, Ethiopians, and other black Africans' progenitor or rather, ancestor, is Ham. The ancestor of the Jews of Galilee as well as the Chaldeans, Assyrians, and the Arabs is Shem.
Also racially the point also is about who Jesus Christ outside of his racial or national or ethnic identity is the Lord, Savior, and the Son of the Living God. Many of us New Worlders including myself at times fail to see that in the Bible, race is seen from an Old World context. Therefore, the Bible didn't see or even have the 200-300 year old terms Mongoloid, Negroid, or Caucasoid. Most, if not all Semites were seen as Caucasoids and thus, seen as the same "race" or genetic similarity as those who were European and most if not all South Asians.
Black Africans were/are Negroids, yet at the same time, some believed that those of the Horn were seen as a branch of the Caucasian "race" according to some. Mongoloids were the "yellow" race, which of course including the Japanese and the Chinese. Many in the New World followed this racial/racist model, which wasn't always about genetics, but about skull shape and other factors. Also, the problem with this is that black Africans are too diverse genetically (the most genetically diverse in the world) to just count as one way, just as Europeans are.
The terms, above are based on racist, outdated pseudoscience. There is no such biblical basis at all. People in the Bible were identified by tribal affiliation, descriptors such as black as in the case of the Ethiopians (to a point). They were also identified by nation such as the Ethiopian who baptized by Phillip, and the Jews such as the Persians and Arabs who had the Holy Spirit come upon them. Nowhere in those verses did the Bible (dependent on some versions) say that Phillip, a "white" man baptized a "black" man. My point is, if we were to answer that question, we have to understand that we as New Worlders, in general, need to see God's Word in its Old World writings. That has been my so-called racial point. That is only a part of what the video is about. However, there is more to the video as well than just how Jesus could have been described and how He looked. His Character has also been taken into account as well.
Forgive me for this rant being so long. This video has these exact points as what I have written about. I look forward to reading your comments. Let us all be constructive. All constructive criticism is welcome.