Why do you ignore the evidence that Jesus was a black African?
I thank you for highlighting that Jesus Christ was a REAL person and his story can be backed up by multiple accounts. I am a believer. But, my question to you is why did you omit the facts on Jesus’s black skin color or African Hebrew heritage. It is convenient for one to say that Jesus’ color or his TRUE African heritage does not matter. But, it does. If the majority of people knew that the blond hair, blue eyes, and Caucasian-skinned depiction of Jesus are simply a fabrication and a counterfeit, would they still worship him? It is a BASIC truth that Jesus was black. Please conduct your own research and answer the question–why does the church continually depictsJesus as a being Caucasian when, in fact, he is of African decent? Why lighten the skin of Jesus and deny the melatonin in him? Here are some starters: Biblical references: Isaiah 53:2 and Revelation 1: 14-15. “…like a plant out of dry ground.” “Wooly hair?” …”his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace” A book: The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response.
I have not mentioned evidence that Jesus was black because there is no evidence he was black. We do not know from scripture or any other ancient source the color of his hair, of his eyes or of his skin. To be honest, it is a bit offensive in my opinion to make an issue out of his skin color. Does it matter? No, it does not. Most likely, the hair, skin and eye color of Jesus was that of a Semitic person from the Eastern Mediterranean region two thousand years ago. Isaiah 53:2 seems to imply that there was nothing in particular about his physical appearance that made him stand out. Therefore, I conclude that, most likely, Jesus had dark hair, dark eyes and an olive-colored skin complexion common to current residents in Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan. He was neither white nor black but probably a somewhat light brown. But, again, does it really matter? If he had been a white-skinned person with light hair he surely would have stood out, as you imply, but, equally, if he had been a black-skinned person with nappy hair, etc., then he would have equally stood out. He was neither, and trying to make him black is perhaps as offensive as trying to make him white.
Perhaps I am way off on this, but I believe that to insist that Jesus was black is a kind of racism. It may be reverse racism, but racism in any flavor, especially coming from a Christian, is uncalled for.
You imply that if Westerners knew that Jesus was not blond with blue eyes and white skin, they would not worship him. This is utterly false. It is true that 100 years ago, some would have described him this way. Eight hundred years ago many did so, but even they probably would not have refused to worship him if they knew he had olive-colored skin and dark hair. Today, most believers are well aware that Jesus was not Caucasian. I know of literally not a single believer whose faith depends on Jesus being white. Again, I humbly submit that there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus had large lips, wooly hair or black skin. I am sorry, but your use of Isaiah 53:2 and Revelation 1:14-15 does not help your case in the least. If you continue to push this issue you will not help Christianity but hurt it. I understand and appreciate your sensitivity to issues of race, but pushing a reverse racist agenda is not a good way to promote racial justice in this world.