Jesus Was Black, Not White, Group Says

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 2/24/04 | Melanie Hunter

[kattracks]

(1st Add: Includes comments by Rev. Jesse Peterson, president of B.O.N.D.)

(CNSNews.com) - One day before it debuts in theaters, a black activist group is protesting the Mel Gibson-written, directed and produced "The Passion of the Christ" film, not because of the film's violent depiction of Jesus Christ's final hours. Instead, they say the film is historically inaccurate because Jesus is portrayed as a white man, not a black man.

"Strangely absent from the debate is one very basic inaccuracy which has been long promoted in order to bolster white supremacy and maintain a revisionist history that is beneficial to only people of European descent," said Malik Z. Shabazz, national chairman of the New Black Panther Party in a statement Tuesday.

"This purposely omitted fact is that Jesus was not a European white man. Jesus Christ was a black man - a dark skinned Hebrew Israelite from Northern Africa and even the only Biblical physical description confirms this (Rev. 13:20)," said Shabazz.

"Not only does this film wrongfully depict Christ as white but all the disciples and Israelites are people of European descent, which presents a historical and physical impossibility," he added.

The New Black Panther Party and other black activists plan to stage protests nationwide over the controversy. Not only does the group claim the movie is "false," but also "harmful and racist."

The Anti-Defamation League recently expressed to Gibson its concern that the film would drum up anti-Semetism. Shabazz said his group disagrees with the ADL's claims that the film is "anti-semetic" and challenged the ADL to "deny the historical accuracy of the Jews' attack on Christ."

But Shabazz says, the "true controversy" surrounding the film "lies in the maligned history of African people through the world and the continual inaccuracies presented in every Hollywood production to date of any Biblical story from the 10 Commandments to the Christmas Story."

"These false images presented are 'anti-black' and these false images and interpretations only seek to further the racist and white supremist idea that God and Jesus Christ 'The Messiah' or 'Savior' is European and white," he added.

"This is clearly one more example of how black people in this country are treated unfairly. Black/African history has and continues to be misrepresented, black people worldwide are subjected to the psychologically abusive images of white supremacy and have no collective voice to defend or promote a Black agenda," Shabazz concluded.

Movie 'not racist,' says black conservative

But Rev. Jesse Peterson, president of the black conservative group, B.O.N.D. (Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny) said claims that Jesus is black takes away from the overall message.

Peterson said he saw the movie last weekend and "there's nothing in this movie that is racist at all."

"It was inspiring spiritually," he said. "I think that it's gonna reconfirm the faith in many Christians and it's gonna encourage those who had doubt about Christ. There will be many, I believe, that will believe in him. I knew that this thing would come out that 'he wasn't black' and that 'it's racist.' It's not."

Peterson explained that "the Bible clearly states that Christ was in Israel and that he was a Jew." The movie, he said "clearly points that out as well."

Peterson said to "cry racism is a non-issue. This is an attempt for attention. It's shameful to make that kind of assertion about this movie."

When asked specifically whether Shabazz's physical description of Jesus and his birthplace of Northern Africa was accurate, Peterson said, "I've heard that over and over again, and at one point when I resented white Americans, I believed that too."

But, he said, "in all honesty there is no, I think, perfect description of what Christ looked like anyway, and I think that each race…the white race at one point said that he looked white [with] blue eyes and blond hair. That wasn't true. The blacks are trying to claim him…Hispanics, everybody are trying to claim him as their own."

Peterson said that's why the Scripture clearly states "'do not create a graven image of him, because it will divide and cause confusion.'

"The most important thing is that he was a spirit. It's the spirit of the man, not necessarily what he looked like. And that's the focus that this movie brings out," Peterson said, adding that he thinks blacks and white are likely to focus on Jesus' "spirit rather than the color."

He said the Bible does point out that Jesus was "born in that area, but still he was a Jew, and at that time, maybe they didn't have the straight hair, but it doesn't mean he was…a black, African man."

Peterson said in the movie, Jesus is a dark-skinned man, not white with blue eyes, but a dark-skinned man. "He's not black, but he's not white either," he said.

Race not an issue

Peterson took the New Black Panther Party to task for making Jesus' race an issue.

"It's a shame that you have racist organizations like the New Black Panther Party that will come out and allow the devil or darkness to use them, because that's what's happening," he said. "It's a distraction. It's a trick of the devil to come out and call this movie racist…that he was black, he had nappy hair. That's a distraction."

Peterson believes the group is taking away from the spiritual message of the movie, a message, he said that can possibly help people that are hurting spiritually.

"I think that when people go to this movie, they need to look beyond the color. And I think most will, whether they want to or not…look at the spirit and the suffering that Christ went through," Peterson said.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

[Cronos]

Did you get that from the reverend Al? Maybe Louis Farrakhan.

Sheesh, you're as blinded by their garbage as those who follow them. The Egyptians were NOT a Nordic-Germanic people. They were also NOT a West African Negroid people. There Were two (or possibly 3) distinct ethnic groups of people in the area of Egypt at that time (c. 3100 B.C. which is the accepted date for the unification of Egypt): Ethiopian-like or Nubian people to the south, Semites to the North and maybe Berbers to the West. The Indo-Europeans were still in Central Asia-Eastern Persia-Western India.
The Semitic peoples were already pressuring the Sumerians and intermingling with them.

The Egyptians were hence a mingled group, a distinctive group. In fact, looking at their origins you might call them a proto-USA.

[Cronos]

EVen more so, the Gods worshipped by the Egyptians had no relation at all to the Aryan gods. If anything they had similarities to Canaanite Gods.

[R. Scott]

The Immaculate Clone?

[Cronos]

Winston Churchill mentions visiting his troops in North Afica and being surprised to see them as dark as the native Arabs from the sun.

Ok, so they were browned. The Arabs too are brown, so are the Indians. They're both Caucasians. So, you conclude that the 'white' race = the 'Caucasian' race?

[yarddog]

You are a bald face liar.

I just did a Google search and found the information you posted about Ramses having dyed hair. The only problem is you left out the part where the French scientists examined the roots and confirmed they showed he did in fact have red hair, although it would have been white when he died.

[Cronos]

A Black African Semite? Oh well, they same bunch claim the Ptolemy dynasty (Greek) was black.

There IS a difference between the WEst African/Bantus and the Ethiopian tribes, physically, culturally, linguistically, culturally, everything. The Ethiopians were in the horn of Africa, very close to the centres of civilisation (Egypt-Sumeria-Harappa). Things are not as black and white as certain persons like Farrakhan would like to potray.

Egyptians were a mixed people -- maybe that's why they reached their greatness -- by taking the best of both worlds available to them.

[Cronos]

I just did a Google search and found the information you posted about Ramses having dyed hair. The only problem is you left out the part where the French scientists examined the roots and confirmed they showed he did in fact have red hair, although it would have been white when he died.

If you KNOW how to google, you'll also find other sites which state that the Red hair was due to dye.
I'll grant you that some argue that he HAD the red hair, but all posts agree that this was very rare and they can't say it wasn't due to the embalming process.

[Cronos]

BAsed on that, how can you say it was a FACT that Ramssess had red hair? You can't prove it, science hasn't proven it.

[Cronos]

Furthermore, how the *** do you call me a liar, this is what the link I posted says in total:

What are some interesting facts about Ramses II?

Ramses II was the son of Seti I and Queen Tuya.  

He was the third king of the 19th Dynasty. 

He was commonly known as Ramses The Great. 

Because of the widespread looting of tombs during the 21st dynasty,   the priests  removed Ramses body and took it to a holding area where   the valuable materials, such as gold-leaf and semiprecious inlays,  were  removed.  After this, the body was rewrapped and taken to the tomb   of an 18th Dynasty queen, Inhapi.  The bodies of Ramses I and Seti I   were treated the same way and all ended up in the same place.  Three   days later, the bodies were moved again to the Royal Cache that was   inside the tomb of High Priest Pinudjem II.  All of this information was   written on the linen that covered the bodies. 

Ramses II was given managerial tasks by his father, Seti I,  as early as   9 years old. 

He outlived the first 13 of his heirs. 

Ramses II had 200 wives and fathered 156 children. 

96 of his children were boys, and 60 were girls. 

Ramses II is said to have lived to be 96 years old, however researchers  believe he died at the age of 50 or 55. 

Ramses II had dyed red hair.  This is substantiated by viewing his    preserved remains which show white roots at the base of dyed red hair.

[yarddog]

You have been caught in a false statement and are now trying to muddy the waters.

Like I said, the scientists stated his hair was dyed red, (did you not get that the first time) they also said it was white when he died but that electron microscope examination of the roots showed the characteristics of red, wavy, hair.

I am not a scientist and have no idea what the scientific characteristics are. As I said the people who were interviewed on the History Channel were in possession of the mummy and stated he had red hair. I just figured they knew what they were talking about.

[Cronos]

A Black African Semite?
Oh well, they same bunch claim the Ptolemy dynasty (Greek) was black.

The Ptolemy's black???  huh?  They intermarried -- brother and sister, that's why Ptolemy's son was nicknamed Philadelphus -- brotherly love.  So they were Greek, or to be more correct, Macedonian (which was a mix between Greek and barbarian tribes -- Alexander's royal family was supposed to be pure Greek, but...)

Based on the geographical location of Egypt itself, you have to say that a Ethiopian-SEmitix mix for the old Kingdom makes sense.  BAsed also on the fact that Indo-Europeans didn't move into Anatolia until much later, they couldn't be Indo-European. 

LAter dynasty's would have been mixed -- and there WERE Libyan and Nubian dynastys.  There were also Assyrian and Persian invasions, but they didn't really mix with the locals.

There would NOT have been any Bantu blood in Egypt at any point in her history -- the west Africans didn't leave West Africa and the Congo until much later in years A.D.

[Cronos]

You have been caught in a false statement and are now trying to muddy the waters.

Like I said, the scientists stated his hair was dyed red, (did you not get that the first time) they also said it was white when he died but that electron microscope examination of the roots showed the characteristics of red, wavy, hair.

What you actually said in your post #189 was

As noted earlier, the fact that Ramses had red hair, and that is for certain, should throw a real curve ball into some of these theories.

I posted as in post #229:

Ramses II had dyed red hair.  This is substantiated by viewing his    preserved remains which show white roots at the base of dyed red hair.

How does that make me a liar?

[Cronos]

Before discussing further, I'd like to quote from  http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/social/race.html

The Question of Race in ancient Egypt

A disputed terrain

The human catastrophe of early modern slavery juxtaposed west and central Africans with northwest Europeans in the Americas. Out of this genocidal experience, race has become a dominant category for uniting and dividing people in modernity. Within the race debate, ancient Egypt has become a terrain contested by three mutually exclusive views:

• modern Egyptian: the ancient Egyptians are the same group of people as the modern Egyptians
• Afrocentric: the ancient Egyptians were black Africans, displaced by later movements of peoples, for example the Macedonian, Roman and Arab conquests
• Eurocentric: the ancient Egyptians are ancestral to modern Europe

My opinion is a variant on 1 -- I say that the Old Kingdom was a mixed Ethiopian-like and Semitic Kingdom.  As the centuries passed, other influences came in, but NOT West African.  Indo-Europeans may have come in with the Sea Peoples in 1200 B.C. and did come in with the Greeks and Romans, but not in significant numbers.

Now, the Egyptians are the same mixture with perhaps more Semitic (Arab) blood.

The same link DOES talk about blonde hair -- but in the NEW KINGDOM (around and after 1000 B.C.)

[yarddog]

As I said, (just noticed I said white when he died instead of dyed red origiinally) but the fact it was dyed red is totally unimportant.

The fact that the scientists stated flat out that his original color was red is what is important.

Like I said you have been caught in a false statement and are trying to confuse the issue by making statements about it being dyed red.

BTW in one place they mentioned that the reason it was dyed red was to restore it to it's original color.

Now lets state that again so even the dumbest can understand it.

The French scientists, after examining the roots under electron microscope, said he had red hair. That his natural color was red.

Also, I had always assumed that the stories of King David having red hair was just legend but in fact a Google search indicated there is some evidence in the Bible that he did have red hair.

In first Samuel he is described as ruddy. That was taken to mean red haired by some, at least.

[Cronos]

And back to the main topic -- was Jesus black or white?  He was brown.

Racially he was Semitic NOT Indo-European.

[yarddog]

I have no idea what Indo-European means but Jesus was Semitic which means Caucasian.

I believe pure Semitic is as white as other Caucasian ethnic groups.

The Berbers of North Africa are a basic Celtic group btw.

[Cronos]

BTW in one place they mentioned that the reason it was dyed red was to restore it to it's original color.

You may be right. Yeah I am admitting I may be wrong.  But seriously, this is the first time I've heard about a Pharoah having red hair and it does seem fairly ludicrous to me -- too much like Farrahkhan insisting that the Egyptians were Black Negroids or like some stormtroops saying no, they were white, Indo-Europeans.

Yet, I do believe the earlier posts I said about them being mixed race.  How could he have red hair if he didn't have Indo-European blood?  How is it possible for him, the Pharoah to have had Indo-European blood in 1300 B.C.?

[yarddog]

You can have the last word as I have to go.

[Cronos]

Again, for the case of King David, how could he be red-haired if he was Semitic not Indo-European?
Red and blonde hair IS purely an Indo-European trait, not even amongst other Caucasians like Semitics or Dravidians is there hair of other colors.

Could
a. The Israelis be of mixed Semitic and Indo-European blood. And if so, how? that would refute the O.T.
b. Red hair not be restricted to Indo-E. and if so, how come we don't see it around?

[Cronos]

I have no idea what Indo-European means but Jesus was Semitic which means Caucasian. I believe pure Semitic is as white as other Caucasian ethnic groups.

Persians and Indians are also Caucasian. So, would you count them as being white too?

Indo-European is another term for Aryan.