Monday, May 31, 2021

BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY-A BLACK CHRISTIAN CULT


http://www.texasbikerradio.org/sitedata/letsrolltexassonsofliberty-com/EditorItem_38786_4_15769.jpg

What is Black Liberation Theology?




By Samuel Sey  / June 8, 2020

Topic  CultureJustice

Most evangelicals are unfamiliar with the origins and foundational beliefs of Black Liberation Theology. That is perhaps why many evangelicals today are becoming sympathetic towards its heretical doctrines.

Black Liberation Theology may be largely unknown to many evangelicals today, but it’s a popular theology inside Black churches in America. Black Liberation Theology developed as a mainstream idea within Black American churches several decades ago. However, most Black Canadians and most Black people around the world are not exposed to it. With the notable exception of South Africa – because of Apartheid history – Black Liberation Theology is a distinctly Black American framework.

Black Liberation Theology has infiltrated all types of Black American churches today, and is perceived as orthodox Christianity within all types of Black churches in America. Millions of Black Americans in Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Episcopalian, Presbyterian and other churches today are subjected to sermons from Black Liberation Theology perspectives every Sunday morning. Approximately 40% of Black American churches identify with Black Liberation Theology.[1] This includes thousands of churches from major Black American denominations like the Church of God in Christ and the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

In fact, most of the biggest proponents of Black Liberation Theology and its predecessor theologies were ordained ministers and theologians from the African Methodist Episcopal Church. This includes a founding member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Reverdy C. Ranson, major Reconstruction politician Henry McNeal Turner, and the founder of Black Liberation Theology, James Cone.

Black Liberation Theology exists inside Black churches within multi-ethnic denominations too. For instance, social justice activist Al Sharpton embraced Black Liberation Theology as a young member at a United Church of Christ congregation. And Jeremiah Wright was the pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois for almost 40 years. The church is the largest congregation within its denomination. It holds over 8,000 members. And for 20 years, one of its members was Barack Obama.

Black Liberation Theology gained significant attention in the 2008 American presidential election after clips of Jeremiah Wright’s sermons were released by media outlets. The clips featured Barack Obama’s pastor making conspiracy theories about the American government’s role in the September 11 attacks, the Pearl Harbour attack, the HIV crisis, and more. The widely circulated sermons made the world privy to what many adherents of Black Liberation Theology believe about the American government. In one of the clips, Jeremiah Wright said:

“When it came to treating her citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains, the government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton field, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing “God Bless America”. No, no, no, not God Bless America. God damn America  – that’s in the Bible  – for killing innocent people. God damn America, for treating our citizens as less than human.“[2]

Americans were shocked by Wright’s sermons. They never imagined that many people within Black churches echoed that level of resentment against America. At the time, they didn’t understand that a significant number of Black Americans didn’t want to sing ‘God Bless America’ or honour the American flag. They didn’t think Black Liberation Theology permeated inside Black churches. They didn’t know the next president of the United States at the time was baptized and discipled under that kind of theology.

Barack Obama and his family removed their membership from Trinity United Church of Christ after the clips were released to the media, and Jeremiah Wright retired from pastoring the church soon afterward. The controversy eventually died down. Barack Obama defeated John McCain in the 2008 election and became the 44th person and the 1st Black American to become President of the United States. He maintained his presidency 4 years later when he won the 2012 election over Mitt Romney. And the American public did not experience that kind of hostile rhetoric from Black church leaders again for years – until the Ferguson riots in 2014.

The riots in Ferguson, Missouri were the aftermath of a fatal police shooting of a Black teenager, Michael Brown, by a White police officer, Darren Wilson. A grand jury and the United States Department of Justice ruled in favour of Darren Wilson. They declared that forensic evidence and eyewitness testimonies supported Darren Wilson’s self-defense claim. But the rulings sparked outrage, riots, and demands for social justice. For many Americans, particularly Black Americans, Michael Brown’s fatal shooting was perceived as yet another instance of a racially-motivated murder of a Black teenager. Two years prior to Michael Brown’s shooting, a Black teenager in Florida, Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed after an altercation with a member of a community watch, George Zimmerman. A jury subsequently acquitted Zimmerman of second-degree murder and manslaughter in 2013.

Therefore, tensions from the Trayvon Martin case carried over to the Michael Brown shooting the following year in 2014. Activists, politicians, and media personalities alike suggested that Michael Brown was a victim of America’s systemic racism against Black Americans. Michael Brown’s fatal shooting and the Ferguson riots became arguably the biggest story that year. Time Magazine named the Ferguson protestors runners-up for the magazine’s Person of the Year in 2014.[3] The riots propelled Black Lives Matter into a powerful social justice group. They became the most powerful Black American social justice group since the Black Panthers in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Ferguson riots became the first of many social justice riots across America following fatal shootings of Black Americans by police officers. The riots pushed America’s supposed systemic racism against Black Americans into a major political story. The riots made race relations a major topic in the 2016 American presidential election. And consequently, social justice become the biggest topic in evangelical circles today.

STATEMENT ON SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE GOSPEL

Last September, John MacArthur, Voddie Baucham, and other evangelical leaders released The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel. The statement presented biblical objections to social justice positions on culture, sexuality, gender, ethnicity and race. Concerning ethnicity and racism, the document states:

“WE DENY that Christians should segregate themselves into racial groups or regard racial identity above, or even equal to, their identity in Christ. We deny that any divisions between people groups (from an unstated attitude of superiority to an overt spirit of resentment) have any legitimate place in the fellowship of the redeemed. We reject any teaching that encourages racial groups to view themselves as privileged oppressors or entitled victims of oppression. While we are to weep with those who weep, we deny that a person’s feelings of offense or oppression necessarily prove that someone else is guilty of sinful behaviors, oppression, or prejudice. And we emphatically deny that lectures on social issues (or activism aimed at reshaping the wider culture) are as vital to the life and health of the church as the preaching of the gospel and the exposition of Scripture. Historically, such things tend to become distractions that inevitably lead to departures from the gospel.“[4]

The Statement received over 10,000 signatures and became a valuable resource for Christians in the wake of growing support for social justice from prominent evangelicals. In fact, The Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel was an answer to the social justice movement within evangelical organizations like The Gospel Coalition and the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission.

Months prior to the release of the statement, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and The Gospel Coalition held a social justice conference named the MLK50 conference – in honour of the fiftieth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination. That event was followed by the Together for the Gospel conference days afterward, and like the MLK50 conference, it featured an emphasis on social justice.

The conferences suggested that America was systemically racist against Black Americans. Many of the evangelical leaders from the conferences claimed that many White Christians were guilty of ignoring justice for Black Americans. They didn’t list evidence to support their claims. They couldn’t prove that the current American government is systemically racist. They didn’t refer to any racist policies to validate their words. Nevertheless, they charged many White American Christians with apathy or support for racism, and they commanded them to repent.

One of the speakers at the Together for the Gospel conference, David Platt, said: “May it be said of us that we eagerly anticipated future salvation while acknowledging present sin. May it not be said of us that we indulged in worship while ignoring justice, and may it not be said of us that we carried on religion while we refused to repent.” [5]

The conferences elicited strong, polarizing reactions from evangelicals. Some Christians were delighted over the conferences’ support for social justice. Other Christians, however, were deeply disappointed over prominent evangelicals adopting social justice as a gospel issue. This culminated into the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel months later.

But in between these events, James Cone – the founder of Black Liberation Theology – died. Many Christians who support social justice offered eulogies on social media expressing their admiration for James Cone. The most candid admiration for James Cone’s theology, however, came from the president of The Witness: A Black Christian Collective, Jemar Tisby. He dedicated an entire article, without restraint, to commend James Cone’s theology. In the article, he said:

 “A father of black liberation theology, Cone helped pioneer a field that dealt with the racism at the core of much of American Christianity…. He shows that black people could understand Christ’s suffering by recalling their own sorrow related to the lynching tree. At the same time, the cross provided comfort because black people could know for certain that in His life and death, Christ identified with the oppressed.” [6]

Then in his book, The Color of Compromise, from earlier this year, Jemar Tisby wrote:

“James Cone penned The Cross and the Lynching Tree as a theological reflection on racial terrorism. ‘Both Jesus and blacks were strange fruit’, he wrote. ‘Theologically speaking, Jesus was the first lynchee,’ who foreshadowed all the lynched black bodies on American soil.’ Cone goes on to explain, ‘The cross helped me to deal with the brutal legacy of the lynching tree, and the lynching tree helped me understand the tragic meaning of the cross.’”[7]

Jemar Tisby is part of a long line of professing Christians today who have embraced a form of Black Liberation Theology in the wake of Black Lives Matter and the social justice movement. This development actually follows a historical trend. Many social justice leaders within evangelicalism today are much like James Cone and his theological predecessors who abandoned biblical theology to adopt worldly philosophies from liberal theologians and activists from their time as a means to fight injustice.

ABOLITION AND LIBERALISM

The basis for Black Liberation Theology can be traced back to liberal theology within the abolitionist movement. Many abolitionist leaders such as William Lloyd Garrison and Theodore Parker abandoned biblical theology because one of biggest obstacles for abolitionism at the time was that many Christians used the Bible to defend slavery. In his book, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, historian Mark Noll demonstrates that some of the most influential Christian leaders in the nineteenth century, including Richard Fuller, James Henley Thornwell, J.W. Tucker, and probably a majority of Christians throughout America justified their pro-slavery stance with Scripture. [8]

This prompted many abolitionists like Garrison to become increasingly antagonistic to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. Garrison wrote:

“There are two dogmas which the priesthood have attempted to enforce, respecting the Bible, from which has resulted great mischief. The first is – its plenary inspiration…the other dogma is – the Bible is the only rule of faith and practise; so that whatever it teaches or allows must be right, and whatever it forbids must be wrong, independent of all other considerations…. Hence, if slavery is or war is allowed in the book, it cannot be wrong.” [9]

Black abolitionists like Garrison’s close friend, Frederick Douglass, also adopted liberal theology. In his book, By These Hands, Black Liberation theologian Anthony B. Pinn explains that Frederick Douglass’ colleagues like unitarian preacher Theodore Parker, agnostic writer Robert Ingersoll, and his mentor, William Lloyd Garrison, convinced Douglass to reject biblical Christianity.[10]

Consequently, liberal theology became prominent within Black abolitionist circles. For instance, the Civil War-era Black abolitionist and women’s rights activist Sojourner Truth, rejected the deity of Christ. In her speech at the Ohio Women’s Convention in 1851, she said: “How came Jesus into the world? Through God who created Him and woman who bore Him.”[11]  By the beginning of the twentieth century, Black church leaders – particularly leaders within the African Methodist Episcopal Church, such as Henry Mcneal Turner and Reverdy C. Ransom advocated for a social gospel formed by liberal theology and Marxism.[12]

Their theology was much like Walter Rauschenbusch’s social gospel. In fact, Rauschenbusch’s book, Christianity and the Social Crisis, laid the foundation for liberation theology. Decades after the book’s release, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “Christianity and the Social Crisis…left an indelible imprint on my thinking by giving me a theological basis for the social concern which had already grown up in me.”[13]

Therefore, Martin Luther King Jr. and many of his peers, including Rosa Parks – a life-long member and deacon of the African Methodist Episcopal Church – embraced the social gospel. In a letter to his wife, Coretta Scott King, in 1952, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “Let us continue to hope, work, and pray that in the future we will live to see a warless world, a better distribution of wealth, and a brotherhood that transcends race or color. This is the gospel that I will preach to the world.”[14]

JAMES CONE

The fruits of Martin Luther King Jr.’s gospel blossomed into Black Liberation Theology almost two decades later. In 1969, James Cone – an ordained minister from the African Methodist Episcopal Church – released a book titled Black Theology and Black Power.

Just as many evangelicals today adopted social justice theology following Black Lives Matter’s emergence during the Ferguson riots, so the Black Power movement in the 1960s, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s social gospel shaped James Cone’ theology. Cone wrote:

“I did not want [Malcolm X] to disturb the theological certainties that I had learned in graduate school. But with the urban unrest in the cities and the rise of Black Power during the James Meredith March in Mississippi (June 1966) …I could no longer ignore Malcolm’s devastating criticisms of Christianity, particularly as they were being expressed in the articulate and passionate voices of Stokely Carmichael, Ron Karenga, the Black Panthers, and other young African-American activists. For me, the burning theological question was, how can I reconcile Christianity and Black Power, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s idea of nonviolence and Malcolm X’s ‘by any means necessary’ philosophy? The writing of Black Theology and Black Power was the beginning of my search for a resolution of that dilemma.”[15]

Thus, like Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and many of his theological predecessors, James Cone rejected biblical theology. Black Liberation Theology is built on the foundation of liberal theology and the social gospel. Naturally, Black Liberation Theology rejects the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. James Cone wrote, “if the basic truth of the gospel is that the Bible is the infallible word of God, then it is inevitable that more emphasis will be placed upon ‘true’ propositions about God than upon God as active in the liberation of the oppressed of the land.”[16]

Black Liberation Theology was initially a reactionary theology against White, orthodox Christians who were apathetic or sympathetic to anti-Black racism. It’s the ramifications of a long history of many White Christians using the Bible to justify racist, pro-slavery, and segregationist beliefs. Therefore, this reactionary theology is prompted by anger and anti-White racism. Black Liberation Theology leaders admit that their theology is built on hatred for White people, but they do not believe that their hatred for White people is racist. Cone writes:

“It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it…. But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism.”[17]

James Cone’s selective definition for racism can be explained by Black Liberation Theology’s relativist positions on sin. In fact, Black Liberation Theology’s poor concept of sin is why it cannot offer anything more than a social gospel. Black Liberation Theology leaders major on social issues because they minor on sin. Its entire theological system is made up of man-centered or Black-centered thinking that cannot liberate those whom it purports to liberate. It is conformed to the world. Its proponents are not being transformed by renewing their mind on Scripture. Therefore, they cannot discern the good and perfect will of God. (Rom. 12:2) Cone again:

“But there is no perfect guide for discerning God’s movement in the world, Contrary to what many conservatives say, the Bible is not a blueprint on this matter. It is a valuable symbol for point to God’s revelation in Jesus, but it is not self-interpreting. We are thus place in an existential situation of freedom in which the burden is on us to make decisions without a guaranteed ethical guide.”[18]

For that reason, Black Liberation Theology doesn’t offer a saviour for sin. It doesn’t offer a sole saviour for a multitude of sins. It exchanges the power of God for Black power. It substitutes the supremacy of Christ for Black supremacy. It is a theology designed to repay evil for evil. Black Liberation Theology is simply a kind of liberal, social gospel.

Thus, in the 1997 edition of Black Theology and Black Power, James Cone wrote:

“As in 1969, I still regard Jesus Christ today as the chief focus of my perspective on God but not to the exclusion of other religious perspectives. God’s reality is not bound by one manifestation of the divine in Jesus but can be found wherever people are being empowered to fight for freedom. Life-giving power for the poor and the oppressed is the primary criterion that we must use to judge the adequacy of our theology, not abstract concepts.”[19]

In Black Liberation Theology, Jesus isn’t the God and saviour of sinners, He isn’t the atoning sacrifice who redeems the world. No, according to Black Liberation Theology teachers like James Cone, Jesus is merely the god of the oppressed – who uniquely identifies with Black people to liberate them from oppressive White people or “white devils” and “antichrists.”[20]

And as Cone explains in a 1980 essay, this liberation is a religious revolution with major political implications:

“Why not think of a completely new society and begin to devise ways to realize it on earth? Perhaps what we need today is to return to that “good old-time religion” of our grandparents and combine with it a Marxist critique of society. Together black religion and Marxist philosophy may show us the way to build a completely new society. With that combination, we may be able to realize in the society the freedom of which we sing and pray for in the black church.”[21]

In other words, Black Liberation Theology is Marxist philosophy with heretical theology. It’s a theological framework strictly designed to accomplish a Marxist revolution for Black people, and evangelical leaders like Jemar Tisby have become sympathetic to it.

But Black Liberation Theology is one of the most destructive heresies in Black American churches today. It’s shaped the way many Black people think about God and government. It’s shaped the way many people in Black American churches perceive themselves and others. But we shouldn’t be shaped by a history of racism, we should be shaped and conformed into the image of Christ. The answer to racism isn’t Black Liberation Theology. No, the answer to racism is biblical theology that doesn’t repay evil for evil.

Black Liberation Theology is destroying many Black Americans. Instead of capitulating to its heresies by adopting a form of their social justice theology to win their approval, we need to challenge Black Liberation Theology with the true gospel of Jesus Christ, who lived, died, and was resurrected for White, Black, and all sinners.


Friday, May 28, 2021

THE BIBLE IS BLACK HISTORY- AN ANTI-SEMITIC RACE MONGERING BOOK

http://www.texasbikerradio.org/sitedata/letsrolltexassonsofliberty-com/EditorItem_38786_4_15769.jpg

 The Underlying reason why this author Dr. Theron D. Williams wrote this book and why it fits the bill of antisemitism and race mongering through the lens of AFROCENTRIC BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY


"He notes, “I have been the Pastor of my church for more than 30 years. From day one I have been on a mission to remove the image of White Jesus from my church once and for all. Not because it is white but because it is a lie. The image… is a calculated plan designed to persuade people of color to submit to their assigned subordinate roles in the White Male Supremacy System by ascribing deity to a White man, thus bowing down in worship of him. When I first arrived as Pastor, the first thing I did was to go to the church late one night… and take down every picture of Jesus I saw. Next, I went to the church library and trashed every piece of literature I could find that bore that image… Despite my gallant crusade to keep him out, White Jesus keeps showing up at my church. Our church has built three worship centers … and White Jesus has visited all three of them.” (Pg. 64-65)

"He acknowledges, “Like the majority of my colleagues in the delegation [of ‘African-American Christian leaders’], most people in the Western world believe, without equivocation, that the modern Israelis are the descendants of the biblical Israelites. Nevertheless, I refuse to buy into the propaganda… I no longer refer to the land of the Bible as Israel. Before the biblical Jews occupied this land, it was called Canaan… Now that the true descendants of Israel are no longer the owners and occupants for me, at least, it can no longer be considered Israel. I would rather refer to is as Palestine.” (Pg. 91)

 He quotes the noncanonical Book of Enoch about the birth of Noah, and observes, “Enoch’s description of baby Noah typifies the characteristics of albinism… Only albinism can explain how Noah’s Black parents can give birth to a child whose ‘flesh was white as snow and hair was white as wool.’” (Pg. 45) 

The Book of Enoch is any of several pseudepigraphal (falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is unfounded) works that attribute themselves to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah; that is, Enoch son of Jared (Genesis 5:18)

 The pseudepigrapha are the books that attempt to imitate Scripture but that were written under false names. The term pseudepigrapha comes from the Greek pseudo, meaning “false,” and epigraphein, meaning “to inscribe,” thus, “to write falsely.” The pseudepigraphical books were written anywhere from 200 BC to AD 300. They are spurious works written by unknown authors who attempted to gain a readership by tacking on the name of a famous biblical character. Obviously, a book called the “Testament of Abraham” has a better chance of being read than the “Counterfeit Testament of an Unknown Author.”

While the pseudepigrapha may be of interest to students of history and ancient religious thought, they are not inspired by God and therefore not part of the canon of Scripture. Reasons to reject the pseudepigrapha are 1) they were written under false names. Any pretense or falsehood in a book naturally negates its claim of truthfulness. 2) They contain anachronisms and historical errors. For example, in the Apocalypse of Baruch, the fall of Jerusalem occurs “in the 25th year of Jeconiah, king of Judah.” The problem is that Jeconiah was 18 years old when he began to reign, and he only reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8). There is no way to reconcile the “25th year” statement with the biblical account. 3) They contain outright heresy. In the pseudepigraphal Acts of John, for example, Jesus is presented as a spirit or phantasm who left no footprints when He walked, who could not be touched, and who did not really die on the cross.

The apostle Paul had to deal with pseudepigrapha written in his own day. Addressing the Thessalonian church, Paul says not to be alarmed by a “letter supposed to have come from us” (2 Thessalonians 2:2). Obviously, someone had tried to mislead the believers with a forged letter imitating Paul’s style. Paul was forced to take precautions: “I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write” (2 Thessalonians 3:17; see also 1 Corinthians 16:21; Galatians 6:11; and Colossians 4:18).

There are many books that fall under the category of pseudepigrapha, including the Testament of Hezekiah, the Vision of Isaiah, the Books of Enoch, the Secrets of Enoch, the Book of Noah, the Apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch was Jeremiah’s scribe according to Jeremiah 36:4), the Rest of the Words of Baruch, the Psalter of Solomon, the Odes of Solomon, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Testament of Adam, the Testament of Abraham, the Testament of Job, the Apocalypse of Ezra, the Prayer of Joseph, Elijah the Prophet, Zechariah the Prophet, Zechariah: Father of John, the Itinerary of Paul, the Acts of Paul, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Itinerary of Peter, the Itinerary of Thomas, the Gospel According to Thomas, the History of James, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistles of Barnabas.

I found myself wondering if Dr. Williams liberal black theology had any correlation with CRITICAL RACE THEORY. And I was right. He encouraged black ministers to defect from the Southern Baptist Convention if the council refused to teach critical race theory in their churches. See the video below:

 Christian mother from NY State confronts

board of education for poisoning her child with

 critical race theory in school see video below:

Less inflammatory uses of critical race theory echo older claims that biblical faith is often presented as a “white man’s religion,” or that Christianity ought to follow a progressive theology, especially with respect to gender and sexuality. 

See link below for more details:
 What is the critical race theory, and how should a Christian view it? | GotQuestions.org


No, Christianity is not a white man’s religion. Christianity is not a black, brown, red, or yellow religion, either. The truth of the Christian faith is universally applicable to all people. “How true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right” (Acts 10:34–35).

These claims made by Dr. T. Williams in his book is nothing new. It all started back in 1969 by Professor James Cone and his radical book Black theology & Black Power. This book by Mr. Cone is a horrible misrepresentation of Biblical Christianity which encourages hate and racism in the church. Theologically it does not even come remotely close to what the original biblical authors wanted to say to their readers. This gave rise to the movement Black Liberation Theology a Christian Black cult 



The following video below was taken from the You Tube channel belonging to a Mr. Marvin Fant. Mr. Fant has promoted Fred Price's sermons on Race, Religion, and Racism extensively. Mr. Price's theological views were heavily influenced by Black Liberation Theology. Mr. Price's sermon below is such an elaborate fabrication that it's ludicrous. I have tried to engage Mr. Fant on numerous occasions to a debate. But he keeps being evasive. So I decided to expose Mr. Fant's heretical Black Liberation Theology views using my blog as a platform.

This book by Dr. Theron D. Williams is not a good book. I bought it hoping to learn more about this topic, but I found this book mostly filled with non-biblical references narrowly selected to bolster the author’s claims. The Bible passages referenced are poorly interpreted and most deciphered with an inconsistent hermeneutic, flip flopping between theologically liberal and conservative grids. Many passages seem to be fueled simply by hatred (see author’s quotes below). On every page I made notes such as “What?”, “That makes no sense”, “There is no supporting evidence for this”, and others. In summary the author states that only blacks today are the true descendants of Abraham and that any white first century Jews, or Ancient European Jews, modern white European Jews and white Jews living in Israel today are merely impostors – none being true ethnic or ancestral Jews descended from Abraham. This leads the author to make the shocking claim that only blacks are truly made in the image of God (pg. 35). This is a sad, erroneous book I do not recommend.

A few examples of the author’s flawed Biblical and non-Biblical “evidence” are discussed below along with several author quotations revealing his true core passion for writing this book.
• On Page 27 the author writes “The dominant complexion of the biblical characters was obvious to the writers and their audiences, so it was unnecessary to make skin color a significant part of the narrative.” In other words, the author admits the Bible does not state anywhere that the Hebrews/Israelites were dark skinned people. The truth is that though 40 writers over 1500 years wrote and compiled the Bible, no writer stated or even implied the Hebrews/Israelites were a dark-skinned race. It is unconvincing to his overall claims when the key supporting element of his argument is found nowhere in the text being evaluated.

• The author states on page 15 that Ham is universally considered black. This claim is based on the erroneous understanding that Ham’s name means “warm or hot”, which is then changed and interpreted as “black”. However, the name Ham is different from that adjective with different usages and vowel pointing. Such views for interpretation were found in a few places after the time of Christ but most prominently it was used by white Atlantic slave traders beginning in the 17th century who falsely claimed the black race carried the curse of Ham’s descendent Canaan - but not supported by any Biblical evidence. The fact that some of Ham’s descendants migrated to northern Africa also is no evidence Ham was black since neither Ham’s nor Canaan’s skin color are ever mentioned in the Bible.

• Throughout the book the author presents ancient painted images from the catacombs in Rome, Israel, and other places as evidence for a dark-skinned Jesus and dark-skinned Jews. While the images the author presents are inconclusive at best, many other images show light skinned Jews and Jesus with a lighter skin tone. Also, a simple Google search of ancient catacomb images show light skinned Jews, light skinned early Christians and lighter skinned Jesus images. None of these are conclusive and they prove nothing substantial. You will find images of Jesus as an oriental in Asia and images of a black Jesus in Africa. Since there were no photographs of Jesus and the gospel was spready by writings and word of mouth (with nothing ever mentioned of his skin color) people generally painted images of Jesus associated with their own culture’s features. There is no consistent early representation of Jesus or the early Hebrews/Israelites as black.

• The author mentions Exodus 14, Numbers 12 and 2 Kings 5 as descriptions of leprosy as “white as snow” and concludes that this is proof the victims of the disease were black since that is the only type of skin to show the white color change and demonstrate leprosy. The exact nature of the Biblical identification for leprosy is debated today but it was probably like Hansen’s’ disease or similar. Pictures of this disease and the whitening of the skin in light and dark-skinned people is clearly visible. There is no reason to think it would only be visible on dark or black skin.

• The author lists Lamentations 4:7-9 as one of the rare places where skin color is mentioned in the Bible. This passage gives a before and after picture of Jerusalem’s inhabitants before the Babylonia destruction of Jerusalem and then after. The Bible contrasts the inhabitant’s appearance before the attack as “purer than snow” (possibly related to their devotion to God, or delicateness) and who were “whiter than milk” (possibly indicating very light skin color, probably from being indoors so much) and whose bodies were “ruddy” as corals and “polished like lapis lazuli” - meaning a red (ruddy) skin appearance that was hard and tough like a polished gem, in good shape and strong. The Bible then describes how they appeared after the destruction saying they had become “blacker than soot.” This book’s author interprets the skin color change mentioned here as turning from black to darker black because he states that only the skin of black people turns darker with starvation. However, whether true or not, such an interpretation does not deal with the previous contrasting skin appearance as “whiter than milk” and “ruddy” and the message of appearance change of the people before and after the Babylonian destruction. A far more accurate and reasonable interpretation of this Lamentations passage is that the skin color change would likely have come from the dirt, grime, and ashes (“dark as soot”) that were in the air following the burning of the city and lack of water for cleaning. The once healthy, ruddy skin of the Jews turned dark after weeks in the dirty, burning city with no water - a truly pathetic and sad sight. This passage implies the 7th century BC Hebrews/Israelites/Jews were lighter skinned, or at least red and ruddy in complexion, but certainly not black.

• The author claims that Josephus wrote that Jesus was a short black man. This mythology comes from the “Slavonic Josephus,” a 15th century document, first surfacing in the early 20th century, and translated by Robert Eisler in 1931 which contains numerous sensationalist claims that do not appear in any other of Josephus’ manuscripts of the particular books and are not considered credible by scholars. The Eisler translation of this passage was mostly a compilation of ideas and insertions by Eisler as to what the Josephus text might have said in areas where the text was missing. Such a description of Jesus is attested nowhere else in Josephus’ manuscripts and the book’s author can only surmise a white-man conspiracy that redacted this entry from all the other authentic Josephus manuscripts.

• On page 44 the author mentions Abraham arriving in the Promised Land and starting a family and commingling with the Canaanites (who the author believes were black). But he ignores that Abraham’s wife came with him from the north, the land of the Chaldees in the Tigris Euphrates Valley. Though Abraham had other wives and concubines Sarah bore Isaac, Isaac then took a wife from his father’s home in Ur, who bore to Isaac Jacob, and Jacob also took wives and concubines from Ur. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob all had wives from their homeland and not Canaan. Later generations in Egypt probably took wives from the local populations, but their shepherding trade (Gen 46:34) and slave state (Ex 1:8-10) would not have been attractive to the Egyptians. The fact that the Israelites could be victims of racism in Egypt and so easily identified and set apart gives evidence they were not black skinned and therefore did not blend in easily among the Egyptians.

• On page 80 the author states that Matthew 28:19, the Great Commission of Christ to His disciples before leaving earth, should be translated “the entire nation” instead of the translation seen in every Bible translation today of “all the nations”. The author uses this to argue that Jesus’ words in Matthew reflect a limited outreach only to the first century Jews. But the Greek ta ethne “the nations” is plural. It is a plural article with a plural noun. There are no Greek manuscripts or any textual variations with a singular article or noun. It is a ridiculous translation and exegesis of this passage by the author. His misuse of the Biblical text shows a fundamental disrespect and lack of understanding of the most basic Biblical messages.

• Throughout the book the author tries to define the terms Hebrews, Israelites and Jews in extremely limited ways not discussed, or even considered in the Bible. He acknowledges that “Hebrew” means someone from the tribe of Abraham (common ancestry), but states that “Israelite” only means a common ethnicity (merely belonging to the same social group), and “Jew” only means sharing the same religion. To support this view he cites several Biblical examples when someone outside the lineage of Israel joins the Israelite or Jewish community through marriage or conversion and states that such intermarriages would have been so prevalent that Israelites and Jews could no longer claim to be descended from Abraham, since their ancestry would have been watered down in later years. This is a crucial argument to the author’s overall thesis of “black Hebrews/Israelites” by later claiming that only original (supposed) black Hebrews and black Israelites were true descendants of Abraham/Israel and any white Jews were not true ancestors because their skin color showed they came along later. Not only does this claim ignore the fact Hebrews and Israelites are never described as black, but this claim never addresses and completely ignores the numerous Biblical passages that give extremely detailed ancestral records of the Israelites/Jews. These include tracking those who journeyed to Egypt with Israel (Gen 46:8-27), left Egypt (Num 1:1-15), journeyed in the desert (Num 26:1-65, “sons of Israel” listed by families), arrived in the Promised Land and received tribal ancestry allotments (Joshua 15-19), Levitical temple workers, and the Jews who returned from captivity (Neh 7:4-73). In Neh 9:2; 13:3; 13:23-31 the Israelites (Jews) committed to separating themselves from all foreigners and had to be reprimanded because they married wives who were not Jewish. Also, the lineage (not social ethnicity) of the final King of Israel (Matt 1:1-17) is listed. Every Biblical indication is that the majority of the Jews who remained after Nehemiah and stayed in the land until the time of Christ were ancestrally related to Israel and Abraham and were not merely sharers of a common religion. It is completely false to state that being an Israelite in the first century was merely a shared ethnicity or religion. It was first and foremost direct ancestry. Also, the term Hebrew is still found in the New Testament in several different passages including where the apostle Paul, in the first century, calls himself a Hebrew and an Israelite in the same verse, (Phil 3:5), even identifying he could claim he was of the tribe of Benjamin showing he knew his ancestry and it was based on his lineage. In Rom 9:3-4 Paul talks about the Israelites in the first century as “my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh” which denotes ancestry. Also, John the Baptist made an issue of the Jews living in the first century who put their trust in the fact that they were descended from Abraham (Luke 3:8) – never denying it but telling the first century Jews not to make that ancestral truth the basis for their justification before God. Biblical evidence showed that the majority of the first century Jews in Israel knew their lineage. The author has no evidence these ancestral Old Testament or New Testament Jews were black and has no right to condemn white Jews as impostors and those unrelated to Abraham. There is no reason to think many of these first and second century Jews who fled Israel would not have also migrated west to the Roman Empire in Europe, enjoying a favorable status in many parts of the Roman empire.

• The author also mentions the image of Christ in Revelation 1:14-15 as clearly being a black man. But this text describes Christ’s head (kephale auotou) and hair (trikes) both being white (leukos) as wool and snow. It describes his feet as like bronze (copper) or like bronze in a furnace which glows white when heated. The fact that he is described as having a white head (the face is obviously included as part of a person’s head) and white hair should preclude this as a description of a black man. But the intent of this Revelation passage is not to identify the skin color or race of the resurrected Lord but to show His presence with a glowing white look - showing His power and purity (unrelated to a physical race on earth). This white headed, white haired glowing presence is not an image of a black man, white man, or any other nationality. It is the powerful presence of the risen Lord.

• The book’s author also makes the common claims on the blessings and cursings passage in Deuteronomy 28-30 as applying to the modern black struggle. But with such a theologically liberal hermeneutic this passage could apply to any people group suffering any injustice or consequences of their sins, over the past 3500, in any part of the world. Properly interpreted however, these passages simply apply to the Old Testament Israelites in their struggle to be faithful to God, and not the 21st century application this author attempts to make.

Finally, the author’s core goals and passion for writing this book are best expressed in his own words in the later chapters:
(pg. 108) “Painting the biblical Hebrews White from Black was necessary for the founding and maintaining of the White Male Supremacy System.”
(pg. 108) “Likewise, in the Euro Christian tradition, the Bible is the Holy Book that is purposely twisted to accommodate the American caste system that’s based on race.”
(pg. 109) “Of the great world religions, the Judeo-Christian tradition was the most practical to use as the groundwork upon which to build the White Male Supremacy System.”
(pg. 112) “The notion of white superiority influences every sphere of American life. Whether it is science, religion, education, economics, sports, politics, entertainment, labor, law, etc., it is twisted, stretched, redacted, or altered to support this narrative, no matter how ludicrous.”
(pg. 112) “The White Male Supremacy System’s doctrine also formed the hermeneutical framework that gave rise to a biblical theology that undergirds its premise.”
(pg. 117) “Many [people of color] at least on a subconscious level, have accepted their subordinate roles in the White Supremacy System as evidenced by their insistence on worshipping a White male impostor posing as Jesus.”

In summary, this book presents an unproven Afrocentric mythological false narrative of ancient Hebrews and Israelites being a black race, a fact claimed to have been completely covered up by white male supremacists but exposed and uncovered now in the last hundred years. However, this historical revisionism is fundamentally a hateful assault against white European Jews, white Jews living now in Israel and a general condemnation against white males everywhere. I do not recommend this book.


Titus 1:14

It is written:

"Do not give heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.”

Book reviewer RLM January 19, 2021 on Amazon 
 
WHAT DID JESUS REALLY LOOK LIKE?
 
 
Jewish woman below saw Jesus face
to face and gave a description of
what he looks like. 
And he's definitely  not a black man !

PERHAPS THIS INTERPRETATION
 OF A BLACK JESUS PRESENTED 
IN THIS VIDEO BELOW, WHO 
PLAYS THE RACE CARD WOULD BE
 MORE COMPATIBLE TO MR. WILLIAMS
  RACIST, ANTI-SEMITIC THEOLOGICAL 
VIEWS 😝


Recommend the following website:  
 

  • Israel is located at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea in Western Asia not the continent of Africa. It is bounded to the north by Lebanon , the northeast by Syria , the east by Jordan and the West Bank , and to the southwest by Egypt .