The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Jesus Is Black!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,550 times Debate No: 63389
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




White man changed the real face of Jesus from black to white, to promote white supremacy on world! Abraham was an African from Ethiopia.. Now the LORD said to Abram, " Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; 2. And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing;"Abraham left Africa to the middle east as a black man not as a white man and certainly not arab man.Jacob was African. David was African and his Decedent Jesus was African! Evidence is there in very Ancient African and European architects. Who in the world can challenge this fact. ln the name of Jesus let that person come forward and deny this!


Everyone changes the appearance of a deity to reflect their culture and ethnicity.
Religion has and will serve the needs of the day.

Michelangelo's Apollo-esque Jesus in the Vatican Museums

Slave-era blacks painted an African Jesus

Chagall depicted Jesus as having a tallit (Jewish prayer shawl) for a loincloth.

Jesus took on almond eyes in Asia and blond hair in Scandinavia.

The truth is, Jesus was a Galilean Jew, with an ancestry from Mesopotamia (present day Iraq).

We have no reason to believe this man differentiated from the people he was born and raised among.

PRO claims that Jesus was a black African and will undoubtedly provide abundant evidence to this claim to solidify what historians and scholars have been arguing about since the time of Jesus.
Debate Round No. 1


How did the Hebrews turn White? Of course they didn't really; just in the imaginations, and then the histories of White people. Who for probably practical reasons, decided that Hebrews the Blacks who originally lived in the Country's that they took over, should all become White for posterity's sake.
Seeing as how it only takes three generations to turn a Black person into a White person (and visa versa). No doubt there came a time when as Europe's formerly bi-racial populations, became more homogeneously White, White people decided that they could no longer acknowledge that all that they knew and had, was derived from the minds and labors of Black people - even down to their religious beliefs. The logic no doubt being that Whites could not progress to their full potential, if they were always looking up to Blacks, as the personification of knowledge and wisdom. So a change had to be made, and at some point, by somebody, that change began.
Of course, we have no way of knowing when this process of Whitinizing Blacks began, or who did it, or where it was first done. But we do have some materials by which we can track the process, somewhat.
But first, let us go back to see what Hebrews REALLY looked like. The earliest authentic pictures of real Hebrews that we have, date back to before Christ. They are Assyrian relief's showing Hebrews, and others that they conquered, in pictorial scenes detailing the battles fought, with associated text. These relief's decorated Assyrian palaces, and were no doubt used to gloat over their conquest of the Hebrews and others. Here we are using pictures of: Assyrian King Shalmaneser IIIs "Black Obelisk" (858 B.C.). Assyrian king Tiglath-pilesar III"s relief's of his conquest of a city near the Sea of Galilee (730 B.C.). Assyrian King Sennacherib"s relief's of the conquest of the Judean City of Lachish (701 B.C.).
The pictures below depicts Jesus as a black,
Fresco from the via latina catacomb Rome painted in 320 AD
This fresco of Christ Among the Apostles 2nd century
Fresco fro latina catacomb 4th century painting the resuraction of Lazarus
Samson and the Lion painting 350AD latina catacomb Rome
It is worth mentioning, that the Hebrews were just as literate, and just as artistic as the other Black civilizations around them. The reason that we have to depend on outside sources for pictures of them, is because Whites destroyed all that the Hebrews ever created. Even down to the very religious writings that they claim to worship by. That fact is that ALL Hebrew writings, even the SEPTUAGINT {the original Bible}, which was only roughly Hebrew (it was made for the Greek King of Egypt, Ptolemy II (Philadelphus) in 282-246 B.C.), has been destroyed. Everything except for the "Dead Sea Scrolls" which were found in 1947, in Qumran, a village situated about twenty miles east of Jerusalem. The Scrolls are under the joint custody of the Catholic Church and the Israelis. The translated contents of those Scrolls has never been made public, and probably never will be - no doubt the differences in teachings and facts would be irreconcilable. (A few inconsequential snippets have been made public - the entire Scrolls is a huge work, which contains the entire old Testament plus many other works).
Why wasn't the material in these pages destroyed? Because after it's fall, Assyria came under the control of the Persian Empire, which was itself a Black Empire. It then came under the control of Greeks, who were at that time, seeking to merge with the Black Persians, not in denying that they were Black people. Then Assyria again came under Persian control, and then finally under the control of the original Black Arabs. So at the time when Whites were destroying vestiges of Black history, they had no access to the Assyrian artifacts.
But at those times when Whites did have control of an area, they seem to have been very through in destroying all vestiges of the former Black inhabitants; there is nothing left to suggest that Carthage was a Black city, Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley civilizations are some of the oldest known, yet very little is left - next to nothing in the Indus valley. Ancient Anatolia (Turkey), was home to many great and famous civilizations, but very little has been found there. The Egyptian artifacts, of which there are many, were mostly recovered in modern times, when Whites rather than simply destroy, instead modify artifacts; sometimes just by breaking the noses off, in order to make them look like White people, and then proudly display them as proof of the White mans greatness.
The Khazars, a Turkish tribe who had established a Kingdom in the Caucasus region, and converted to Judaism in the 8th century A.D. Must have seen the doings of the Romans and Greeks, and seen it as an opportunity for them to take over the Hebrew identity, and thus control of the orthodox branch of the Hebrew religion - which indeed they did. They logically thinking that if Jesus can be White, why not then, the entire Hebrew nation - which was by then a diaspora anyway. The Islamist side-stepped the entire issue by forbidding imagery of any kind.
Further compounding the irony is the fact that America actually has an obsession with the (presumed) color of Christ and has exported her White Americanized Savior around the world, as recently documented by Edward J. Blum and Paul Harvey in their book, The Color of Christ: The Son of God and the Saga of Race in America (2012).
In fact, the world"s most popular and recognizable image of Christ is a distinctly 19th-20th century American creation. It is true that versions of the "White Christ" appear in European art as early as the 4th century of the Christian era, but these images coexisted with other, nonwhite representations throughout European history. The popularity of the cult of the Black Madonna and Black Christ throughout Europe is evidence of the fact that the European "White Christs" never acquired the authority and authenticity that the White Christ now has globally. This Christ and his authority are American phenomena. As a predominantly Protestant nation Early America rejected the imaging of Christ that characterized European Catholicism.
By the mid-19th century, however, in response to American expansion, splintering during the Civil War and subsequent reconstructing, "Whiteness" took on a new significance and a newly- empowered "White Jesus" rose to prominence as the sanctifying symbol of a new national unity and power. As Blum and Harvey observe:
"By wrapping itself with the alleged form of Jesus, whiteness gave itself a holy face " With Jesus as white, Americans could feel that sacred whiteness stretched back in time thousands of years and forward in sacred space to heaven and the second coming " The white Jesus promised a white past, a white present, and a future of white glory."
As America rose to superpower status in the 20th century she became the world"s leading producer and global exporter of White Jesus imagery through film, art, American business, and Christian missions, and has thereby defined the world"s view of the Son of God. This globally recognizable Jesus is a totally American product. Indeed, he is an American. Warner Sallman"s iconic image of Jesus called Head of Christ (1941) became the most widely reproduced piece of artwork in world history and its depiction the most recognizable face of Jesus in the world. By the 1990s it had been printed over 500 million times and achieved global iconic status. With smooth white skin, long, flowing blondish-brown hair, long beard and blue eyes, this Nordic Christ consciously disguised any hint of Jesus"s Semitic, oriental origin"and departed from the older European depictions. It both shaped and was shaped by emerging American ideas of whiteness. The beloved White Jesus of today"s world was Made in America.
he first century Jewish writer Josephus (37-100 AD) penned the earliest non-biblical testimony of Jesus. He reportedly had access to official Roman records on which he based his information and in his work Halosis or the "Capture (of Jerusalem)," written around 72 A.D., Josephus discussed "the human form of Jesus and his wonderful works." Unfortunately his texts have passed through Christian hands which altered them, removing offensive material. Fortunately, however, Biblical scholar Robert Eisler in a classic 1931 study of Josephus" Testimony was able to reconstruct the unaltered testimony based on a newly-discovered Old Russian translation that preserved the original Greek text. According to Eisler"s reconstruction, the oldest non-Biblical description of Jesus read as follows:
"At that time also there appeared a certain man of magic power " if it be meet to call him a man, [whose name is Jesus], whom [certain] Greeks call a son of [a] God, but his disciples [call] the true prophet " he was a man of simple appearance, mature age, black-skinned (melagchrous), short growth, three cubits tall, hunchbacked, prognathous (lit. "with a long face" [macroprosopos]), a long nose, eyebrows meeting above the nose " with scanty [curly] hair, but having a line in the middle of the head after the fashion of the Nazaraeans, with an undeveloped beard."
This short, black-skinned, mature, hunchbacked Jesus with a unibrow, short curly hair and undeveloped beard bears no resemblance to the Jesus Christ taken for granted today by most of the Christian world: the tall, long haired, long bearded, white-skinned and blue eyed Son of God. Yet, this earliest textual record matches well the earliest iconographic evidence.
The earliest visual depiction of Jesus is a painting found in 1921 on a wall of the baptismal chamber of the house-church at Dura Europos, Syria and dated around 235 A.D. The Jesus that is "Healing the Paralytic Man" (Mark 2:1-12) is short and dark-skinned with a small curly afro - see below.
This description has now been supported by the new science of forensic anthropology. In 2002 British forensic scientists and Israeli archaeologists reconstructed what they believe is the most accurate image of Jesus based off of data obtained from the multi-disciplinary approach. In December 2002 Popular Science Magazine published a cover story on the findings which confirm that Jesus would have been short, around 5"1", hair "short with tight curls," a weather-beaten face "which would have made him appear older," dark eyes and complexion: "he probably looked a great deal more like a dark-skinned Semite than Westerners are used to seeing," they concluded. The textual, visual, and scientific evidence agrees, then: Jesus likely was a short, dark-skinned Semite with short curly hair and dark eyes.
Colossians 1:15 describes Christ as the "image of the unseen God" and in the Gospel of John (12:45; 14:9) Jesus declares that whoever sees him has seen God. What Jesus "looks like" then is not irrelevant as it is in some way a pointer to God Himself.


When someone is referred to as "black" that person is considered to be of of Sub-Saharan ancestry, and of darker skin than the group being compared to.

While this is a loose definition, it's tight enough for us to have a discussion on.

Here's a handy visual of what's considered Sub-Saharan (in green):

This would mean that by definition, Jesus or his recent ancestors would need to come from this area in Africa, and must have a dark enough skin tone to stand out amidst the people of the Middle East.

Using either Biblical or secular history, we can see this statement is not true.

Biblical History

Abraham, who is considered by the Bible to be the distant, direct ancestor of Jesus (and considered the father of ALL faithful), was born in Mesopotamia. (Present day Iraq between the Tigris and Euphrates):

Abraham's family line would eventually lead to Jesus, but not only was Abraham born in the Middle East, he was more than 40 generations before Jesus. This means even if he had been of African descent, (which he most definitely wasn't) by the time the family line traced down to Jesus they would be overwhelmingly Middle Eastern in appearance and genealogy. This is due to the fact that there is NO evidence that Jesus or any of his ancestors were anything other than Middle Eastern.

This line is well documented in the Bible and can be seen in these various charts (charts differ based on opinion and sources, but none violate my premise):

Secular History

The historical Jesus was a Galilean Jew, believed to be born somewhere between 7 and 2 BC.

Either account means that Jesus was born in the Middle East.

As for the depiction of Jesus, he will always resemble those doing the depicting:

Because it's easier for people to love




to themselves:

What little evidence we have would overwhelmingly suggest that Jesus was neither "white"
In the European, Anglo-Saxon understanding of the term

Nor "black"
in the Sub-Saharan, comparatively darker skinned understanding of the term.

Jesus had the same characteristics of all Middle Easterners of the time:

A dark haired, olive skinned Caucasian born and raised in the Middle East. This is based on either Biblical or secular history, and we have no evidence to suggest anything other than this conclusion.

Thanks for reading
Debate Round No. 2


Check these latest images from bbc depicting jesus as black breaking news's%20High%20Tech%20Jesus.htm

l'm putting up this topic because I see everyone saying jesus is black and jesus is white or jesus was middle eastern. I'm here to crush all this non-sense with the scriptures (God's Word). I"m not here to start racial tension or anything I'm just here to tell you the truth. If you don't believe in God or the bible this isn't for you.

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." - Hebrews 7:14

So we all can agree with this scripture since it is of the bible right. Christ came for the tribe fo Judah which was one of Jacob's twelve sons.

"His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters." - Revelations 1:14,15

His head was white showing that he was a very wise man. But it was white like wool. Now wool who has hair like wool, the so-called black man. Okay there's more, his feet was like fine brass as if it were burned in a furnace. Now that should make it clear that Christ was a very dark-skinned man. When i say black no one one black but that is how we are classified in the world today. No one is white or black but so called black people are shades of brown and so called white people are shades of red. But this should make it clear Christ was black. And i want to clear this up just because your black doesn't mean you come from Africa. Noah had three sons which populated the whole world aftre the flood. Ham, Shem, and Japheth. Out of Shem were the Hebrews (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob[Israel]), out of Japheth were the Asians, out of Ham were the Africans but not the Negro, which is the so-called Black, African American, Africans, Original Man, etc. Look up Ham in a Zondervan Bible Dictionary. People try and say the so-called black race all came from Ham which is not true. Just because of your skin color doesn't mean you come from the same place. Christ was African he was a Hebrew Israelite meaning he came out from Jacob (Israel). Why is it that so-called Jewish people don't believe in Christ, shouldn't that let you know something is wrong.

"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan." Revelation 2:9


"I"m not here to start racial tension or anything"
You sure? Because:
How did the Hebrews turn White"the histories of White people"should all become White"White people decided"that Whites could not"process of Whitinizing Blacks"because Whites destroyed "when Whites were destroying"when Whites did have control"when Whites rather than simply destroy"look like White people"then proudly display them as proof of the White mans greatness".look like White people"if Jesus can be White"exported her White Americanized Savior""White Christ" appear in European art"the White Christ now""Whiteness" took on a new significance"that sacred whiteness"white Jesus promised a white past, a white present, and a future of white glory".ideas of whiteness".The beloved White Jesus"
Unfounded statements like this repeated over and over tend to give off the impression that you hold a disdain towards white people. Especially since this debate has NOTHING to do with white people.

"Seeing as how it only takes three generations to turn a Black person into a White person (and visa versa)."
None of Jesus' recent ancestors were black, and even if his ancient ancestors were sub-saharan, by PRO's logic it wouldn't matter, and Jesus still wouldn't be considered black. This reasoning negates PRO's entire claim.

"The pictures below depicts Jesus as a black"
Depictions are not enough. If I could provide 100 pictures of a blond haired blue-eyed Jesus would that make him so? This information is not evidence of a black Jesus.

"the Persian Empire, which was itself a Black Empire."
A wild assumption, since Persia was centered in what is now known as Iran, of which is most definitely not what anyone would reasonably consider a "black empire".

"The Islamist side-stepped the entire issue by forbidding imagery of any kind."
You'd do well to go read the second of your god's commandments.

"he probably looked a great deal more like a dark-skinned Semite than Westerners are used to seeing"
A dark skinned Semite is a middle easterner, and middle easterners aren't considered black.

"Check these latest images from bbc depicting jesus as black breaking news"
Neither of these two links have anything to do with the BBC, and are obviously slanted. The first sentence of the first link is "Golly Gee!" for crying out loud. They have no citations and hold no merit.

"Christ came for the tribe fo Judah which was one of Jacob's twelve sons."
Of which were all Israeli, not African.

"His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters."
Are we to believe that a symbolic description of a man two thousand years dead is evidence?

"No one is white or black but so called black people are shades of brown and so called white people are shades of red."
This sentence proves my opponents ignorance on the subject. We have definitions of what is considered black, and Jesus does not fit this definition.

I would like the voters to consider that my opponent did not counter a single point from my opening argument and only provided two (faulty) sources that were not what he claimed them to be.

All of my points stand, and PRO has failed to establish evidence in his 3rd round that Jesus was black.

Thanks for reading
Debate Round No. 3


The noses in the following pictures when l have tired to download on his page were shot off!!! The history books you used in high school--approved by the local board of education, will tell you Egypt was not invaded by Rome until about 300 BC. Also, the King James Bible reads like this: The Continent of Africa was inhabited by two sons of Ham called Mizraim and Cush. Mizraim is translated Egypt and Cush Ethiopia. Knowing that it is easy to use common sense when reading the following:

No European tribes were enslaved in ancient Egypt, nor were there any European tribes in Africa 6,000 years ago at the dawn of Egypt's "civilization"--The civilization you and I know. For those people to think Egypt was inhabited by Caucasoid is totally absurd. Just look at the picture on the left--Narmer (Menes) the 1st Pharaoh of Egypt.

Now ask yourself this question: "Why do most Egyptian artifacts have noses missing?--Are the noses MISSING FOR WHITE LIKE POSES?" The average person believes the noses have worn off because of deterioration caused by age. Look at the artifact. The sculpture has been distorted intentionally with facial features destroyed so that you cannot see the flat nose and full lips. Why did they bother with shooting off noses? The Negroid features are still apparent. This Seti I sculpture (2nd Pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty) shows the great ruler who restored order to the kingdom and returned Egyptian art and architecture to the powerful style of past dynasties. This is Seti because his name appears on the back of the sculpture in a cartouche.

In Gary Greenberg"s book: Bible Myth: The African Origin of the Jewish People, the Hebrews were originally Egyptians and devotees of Akhenaten"s monotheism""Moses was his high priest""who had to flee after Akhenaten died and Horemheb violently rejected the new religion.
The Biblical Genesis
The King James Version of the Bible has been used as a reference and is the same Bible most people have in their possession.

Pharaoh Horemheb waged a bitter campaign to eradicate all vestiges of Akhenaten"s heresy, eliminating the evidence stone by stone and word-by-word. As a result, Akhenaten remained lost to history until nineteenth-century Egyptologists discovered the ruins of his capital city.Israel's presence in Egypt preceded by an earlier presence in Palestine is mentioned no place other than in the Bible. No archaeological record exists of Israel or the Hebrew people prior to the thirteenth century (13th) BC? No extra-biblical evidence linking any specific Semitic tribes to the Hebrew people exist either? Why did the so-called "ten lost tribes" disappear from history without an archaeological trace of their prior existence?

Americans and Europeans assume that the Bible is about them, but the Bible is about my ancient ancestors and me".whitesworstnightmare..

Modern-day Jews see the Bible as a record of their history because the King James Bible is centered on the history of Israel.

The Jewish people of Europe and America still carry African Tribal names. They carry the names of their ancestors who were Africans.

Statistically, the Lemba people from Southeast Africa are more Jewish than European Jews. In a particular Lemba Clan known as the Buba Clan, 53 percent of the males carry the unique DNA signature of Jewish priests. Males form the Lemba Tribe carry a higher incidence of the Jewish priestly DNA signature than the European and American Jewish population.

The early Roman Catholic Church portrayed Jesus and his mother in the original Black images of the Jewish people at that time--The Black Madonna. What African tribe were they from? Look at the sculptures below.

Euro-America did not count on Africans knowing their past when great strides were made to destroy antiquity.
The world has been presented with a White Jesus from the Roman Empire when Augustus (31 BC "" AD 14) was the royal leader. The Euro-centric Christian World knows nothing about the bona fide Judean Jesus from the Tribe of Judah (Ethiopians who spoke Aramaic). As Europe abounded, it provided the global world with a White Jesus as the Bible was being translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. Plato and Socrates provided Christianity with philosophy and mystical thought of which they borrowed from the ancient Black Egyptians. Europeans pasted pictures of the blonde blue-eyed man and his disciples on the Bible end pages and inserts which lead the global world to believe in a White savior for soul salvation.

The Hebrew language belongs to the Afro-Asian language family. The Afrasian language family includes six groups, or branches: Cushitic, Egyptian, Omotic, Chadic (Hausa), Semitic, and Amazight (Berber). Even though a correction over earlier names, Afro-Asiatic is a misnomer because these languages are spoken nowhere in Asia unless carried there by religious conquest. The languages are actually Northeast African languages native to Africa from their southern origin in the Horn spreading westward to Nigeria and on to Morocco, eastward to Oman, and northward to Syria.

Some linguists speak of a proto-Semitic language as if it were ancestral to all Afro-Asian languages. Semitic was actually near the last to separate from the phylum roughly 6,000 years ago; whereas, Kushitic became distinct 10,000 years ago. This indicates that proto-Afro-Asiatic developed in the region of Ethiopia and Somalia and began splitting by at least 8,000 BCE. Quit letting them run a "history job" on the world and open your eyes wide.

After the final destruction of Jerusalem and Judea by the Romans in 135 AD, the Jerusalem church was taken over by non-Jews. From this destruction, Eusebius says: "In this way the city was closed to the Jewish Race and suffered the total destruction of its former inhabitants. It was colonized by an alien race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name in honor of the emperor then reigning" (S. Acharya 37-8).

St. Paul and his cohorts gathered information and materials with which to start their new religion, as well as to earn promised rewards from Roman backers. They viewed the Wisdom Texts of the Yahad/Essene as great treasures to be taken by whatever means necessary. The events of Paul led directly to the revolt against Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem, Qumran and Masada. Christianity is a religious hodgepodge put together by the Council of Nicea in AD 325. It was an endeavor to amalgamate the many religions of the Roman Empire into one. Christianity plagiarizes older myths and legends historicized to suit the Roman Catholic Church while combining the numerous religions that existed at the time (Krishna, Horus, Mithraism, Osirian, Isis, and other many mystery religions).

The First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church was held in 325 on the occasion of the heresy of Arius. As early as 320 or 321 St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria. More than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya attended. The purpose of the Council was to unify the competing cults under the "Catholic" Church controlled by Constantine and Rome. The gods of the other cults were dominated under the new god and their titles were changed to "apostles" and "saints." Constantine was sole master of the Roman Empire (Constantine the Great 274-337).

The Africans Who Wrote The Bible: Ancient Secrets Africa and Christianity Have Never Told

Judaism is the African way of life. Judaism was the religion developed in Africa by African people. It was adopted and adapted in a similar fashion to the Yoruba Orisha worship (Vodoun, Santeria, Lacumi, Condomble, etc) and is still being co-opted and altered by non-Africans today. To speak of an African influence on Judaism is like speaking of an African influence on Orisha Worship. It is not an African influence. It is still African and represents an African way of life.

Along with Cheikh Anta Diop, Alex Darkwah also traces Ancient Egypt to geographical Africa. Darkwah has DNA on his side; whereas, Diopfile:///C:/windows/TEMP/FrontPageTempDir/13c8bcc0.gifused archeological artifacts, culture, and documentary text to prove his research. He was still challenged by "Europe" and his findings were labeled "untrue" by the scientific world. Darkwah proves that Africans wrote the Bible even though your personal "King James" Version of the Bible may have pages laced with White Greek characters and distributed throughout the world. I thought that the following excerpts were extremely interesting. A website visitor suggested that I read the Darkwah's book. Thanks to the website reader who suggested that I limit my research to Sub-Saharan Africa. You"ve started a greater quest to delve deeper into Europe's concealment of our history and to shed more light on how the global world exists in its current state.

The word Israel itself is an Akan word (Ghana). Darkwah points to the story of Jacob in Genesis 32:24-29, where the angel renames Jacob calling him Asrae or the European version, Israel. Asrae, Darkwah declares, is not the name of a nation, but instead means "the first one who visited."

According to Darkwah, if you as a Christian question the Bible, you were led by your pastor to believe that you were blaspheming God. Here there is a faith versus reasoning quarrel. Now he has been able to reason into faith. Originally, he just had faith. But, as he learned more, he began to reason himself into faith.

It is almost impossible to understand the significance of many Old Testament events and themes apart from the geographical, cultural, and historical situation that existed during the Old Testament times. First of all, the name "Africa" was given to the Continent by Romans. Africa was also called Kemet, Libya, Ortegia, Corphye, Egypt, Ethiopia and/or Sedan, Olympia, Hesperia, Oceania, and Ta-Merry. The ancient name for Africa was "Akebu-Lan" (mother of mankind) or "Garden of Eden."


PRO's round 4 argument was copied and pasted from a single website almost entirely. Unless he is truly the author, Alex Darkwah, he should refrain from quoting the website as though it's in his own words.

For your convenience, I'll organize PRO's scarce points:

1. PRO claims that Egyptians (or at least most of Egypt) descended from recent sub-Saharan ancestry.
This is irrelevant. Jesus' ancestors did not come from Egypt. Even if they had, by PRO's admission it wouldn't matter due to incremental changes every generation. The genealogy of Jesus had become Caucasian dozens of generations before his birth.

2. PRO claims that no European tribes were enslaved in Egypt and to consider Egyptians Caucasoid is "totally absurd".
No claims have ever been made to suggest Jesus was European, and PRO continues to make assertions that show ignorance on this topic.

3. PRO asserts that because statues have missing noses, it was a conspiratorial attempt to hide the fact that the statues were of black people.

This is a case of cherry picking facts. ALL statues extremities are fragile, and noses and fingers are easily broken off. Even subtracting vandalism, theft, war, and disasters, these damages come naturally with time even in the most ideal storage conditions available in ancient times. Considering North Africa and the Middle East haven't exactly been what we'd call calm and tranquil for a few thousand years makes this an incredibly liberal hypothetical.

Speaking of noses...

The Nasothek:
was specifically designed to replace such common maladies of ancient statues. The picture in the link is essentially a nose museum.

Romans and Greeks, whom PRO considers a hostile white power against the black Jesus, also have several missing noses, fingers, arms, and extremities missing from their works. Are we to believe that someone chopped them off in a feeble attempt to conceal their appearance?

This claim has nothing to do with Jesus, but PRO was wrong nonetheless about the supposed racist acts of early explorers.

4. "No archaeological record exists of Israel or the Hebrew people prior to the thirteenth century BC?"
No archeological evidence of several ethnicities and nations would exist prior to the 1300BCE, either. I'm not sure what point this makes.

5. "No extra-biblical evidence linking any specific Semitic tribes to the Hebrew people exist either?"
Hebrew is synonymous with "Semitic Israelite"

6. "Why did the so-called "ten lost tribes" disappear from history without an archaeological trace of their prior existence?"
Because this is one of the many points that Biblical and Secular history diverge. This story is mythical and only exists within holy texts and other Apocrypha. Regardless of how factual we believe this story to be is irrelevant, however, as the Bible and secular history both clearly state the origin of Jesus and his ancestors.

7. Judaism is the African way of life.
The practices of Shabbat, Yom Kippur, Cholent, Mikvah, circumcision, Hanukkah, Kippahs, and dietary observations do not originate from Africa, and are not respected by any African unless adopting the Jewish lifestyle. To suggest the opposite is laughably contradictory to our understanding of societal, religious, and geological histories.

8.The word Israel itself is an Akan word (Ghana).
PRO suggests (without sources) that because the name of a place is a certain dialect, than a specific person born there must therefore be the ethnicity reflecting the dialect.
I was born in Texas, which must mean I'm of Caddo descent. I'm Native American and this whole time I thought my family was from Ireland!

PRO ignores all my points, cites no sources, and pulls all information from one obviously biased (and frankly racist) website.

PRO's own logic defeats his claims, and he makes erroneous, unprovable, or outrageous declarations out of either willful ignorance or deceit.
Debate Round No. 4


whitesworstnightmare forfeited this round.


PRO forfeits the final round, didn't counter any of my arguments in the rounds prior, and made prejudice and dubious assumptions unsupported by evidence.

Thanks for reading!
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Bennett91 1 year ago
Wow whitesworstnightmare you're pathetic. This is your second debate on this subject and you still plagiarize crappy incoherent rants about Jesus being black. Your entire argument is "Jesus wasn't white therefore black". What's wrong with you?
Posted by Mrkelly 2 years ago
I really don't care if he was black or any other color, his teachings are good, love one another.
Posted by whitesworstnightmare 2 years ago
His hair was like sheep's wool. It didnt say his hair was straight like a donkeys tail!
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
There are black olives.
Posted by Dpowell 2 years ago
Actually he wasn't either. He was actually olive colored because 1: he was born and raised in the Middle East and Egypt. 2: All points extended.

I've never seen a natural Middle Easterner with white or black skin.

I'm going to keep up on this debate.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
So what is the first step, whites? :(
Posted by whitesworstnightmare 2 years ago
@mightbenihilsm,l agree with you our perspective of life has to change! We'have been lied too and have been living a lie!
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
Wow, if this is true, my whole perspective on life has got to change.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF