Skip to content

OK, if you say so

A Researcher and an Author of the book the “Revelation, Movement of Akan People from Canaan to Ghana”, Martin Kwasi Abrokwah also known as Akanba has revealed that Jesus Christ was a full blooded Ghanaian.

According to him, his years of study shows that the Messiah was actually an Akyem by tribe, from the East Akyem District of Eastern Region of Ghana.

“Jesus Christ was originally an Akan, to be specific an Akyem. He was from Asiakwa, Asiakwa is Bethlehem, Kyebi (Kibi) is Beersheba, Kumasi is the same as Samaria. If we say Jesus is from the tribe of Judah, that tribe is the Akyem in Ghana. The name Akyem is the short form of Jojakyem, the descendants of Jojakyem took the name Akyem as we know it in Ghana. Jojakyem was one time the king of Judah. From my etymological and anthropological research, Jesus Christ was a pure Akyem.” the Anthropologist told sit-in host Akwasi Nsiah on Anopa Kasapa on Kasapa FM.

Doesn’t really matter though as we know damn well that JC’s Pops was an Englishman.

18 thoughts on “OK, if you say so”

  1. Seems as likely as the more common version of the myth. And hardly unique. “Did these feet…?” always seems to deserve the answer “No”

  2. This back invention of ethnicity is interesting especially as we are now increasingly able to establish some facts both from linguistic and genetic evidence.
    Something that has been cleared up, for example is “Vital question ” what colour were the ancient Greeks.
    To the Nazis the Indo European Language located a true European people who originated from the Caucasus ( hence Caucasian) and this Aryan people conquered India and Europe, enslaving the lower types.
    There is , as far as I can tell overwhelming evidence of an Indo European People, and no way whatsoever to understand European languages without an Indo European origin so some truth. ( all of it much debated)
    These pure people were responsible for the glories of Athens and so on before they interbred and thereby caused the fall of the Roman Empire( bollocks natch)

    Anyhoo genetic archaeology has established that the Greeks of Athens were pretty much the Greeks of today. They speak the same language and have a documented history much of which was within the Ottoman Empire I think
    The same tests suggest that the Coptic Christians of Egypt are indeed the ancient Egyptians and that the vast majority of Jews in the West are descended from medieval converts who lived somewhere in Eastern Europe and spread around Europe form that time , with no blood connection to the Levant
    All of this is furiously contested , as is the supposed Aryan invasion “theory” of the sub continent but its no surprise . The creation of an imagined community has very often been quite arbitrary late and based on very little.

    Scotland ….invented for the most part in the 19th century ,. Lithuania was Poland , Palestine was a vague Roman geographical term , as was Africa

  3. Facepainter–your combination of deliberate deceit, scummery and mental case babble is already giving treachery, treason and lies a very bad name. There is no need to show that you are just as corrupt and dishonest in every field of human endeavour.

    The word is spelt H-I-S-T-O-R-Y not T-R-A-V-E-S-T-Y.

  4. Newmania- yes quite interesting stuff. Don’t really expect origin myths of pretty much any grouping to align with all newly discovered facts. Because a myth has a purpose and the facts are subservient to it, or if you prefer maleable. I had a Greek lodger a while ago. She insisted the phenotype of ancient and modern Greeks was different at the same time as claiming the ancients as forebears, She insisted most Greeks blame the Turks for the genetic drift (not in tech sense of mutations). It may or may not be true but it has woven its way into the modern greek psyche for sure. It’s expressed as a desire to resist further Turkic encroachment. Peel back the colourful story telling and embellishments and you have a smallish country next to a bigger one, that was a former colonial power. Its to be expected the myth/history is shaped into service of the current state.

  5. Translation: I’ve figured out that you’re more likely to give your money to God if he’s one of your own. Obviously, you have to give it to me first, and I’ll make sure it goes to the most just of causes.

    The logic works for other religions e.g. the NHS. We invented it, so we’ll vote the Team that promises it more money.

  6. bloke in spain said:
    “‘Did these feet…?’ always seems to deserve the answer ‘No'”

    Accepted by a couple of the 15th century Church Councils, allegedly (the English bishops used it successfully to claim precedence over the Frogs); unfortunately I think it was the Councils of Pisa and Siena, which were subsequently declared invalid.

  7. ‘The same tests suggest that … the vast majority of Jews in the West are descended from medieval converts who lived somewhere in Eastern Europe and spread around Europe form that time, with no blood connection to the Levant’

    Balls. The tests suggest that Ashkenazis are about 50% descended from middle easterners, 50% European – probably Italian or Provencal. The European strain is female-dominated. Whether the conclusion that the males came from “the Middle East” disguises some subtlety I don’t know.

    ‘as is the supposed Aryan invasion “theory” of the sub continent’: the Aryan invasion theory looks very likely to be true, though they stemmed not from the Caucuses but from the Steppes of Russia and the Ukraine.

    ‘Scotland ….invented for the most part in the 19th century’: the Scotland/England border is the oldest in Europe.

    ‘Palestine was a vague Roman geographical term’: it wasn’t particularly vague, and wasn’t at all vague once it was adopted as the name of a Roman province.

    Nor was ‘Africa” vague: it was the province consisting essentially of Tunisia and a chunk of Libya.

    You should probably return to studying Noddy and Big-Ears.

  8. Harsh Dearieme – I may be on the date on the Jewish origin thing ..hem hem… but otherwise you are nit picking.
    The Aryan invasion theory is one thing but the In do European language Group is as close to a fact as you can get and the Indian bit of it is not disputed.
    This incidentally was why the Nazis like the Swastika , a symbol that was common throughout the whole Indo European territory

    The England Scotland border – This border pre date the arrival of the Scots by many many centuries so it can hardly be said to be a Scottish border
    As to the vagueness or otherwise of Roman Geographical terms the point is they were geographical and do not , for example refer to an ancient land of Palestine inhabited by Palestinians , my overall point is that ethnic Nations are often invented at quite a late date

  9. EU slurping cockrot Facepaint. Can’t you take their dick out of your gob long enough to achieve even a 5% sanity level ? We will just have to ignore the eternal zero fact level you exist on.

    The Scots border–before accurate maps–was a bit vague? The Scots/Irish thing goes back to Roman times. But Scots have been a recognised nation for a thousand years. And will remain so if they keep out of your scum EU pals clutches.

    Swastika was a universal symbol –still used by Buddhists–Long before National SOCIALISM stole it.

    Switch from painting your face to using Plaster of Paris . That way your lack of intelligence can at least be explained by 100% O2 depravation.

  10. Further to dearieme’s comments, I understand that Palestine was originally the province of Judea, but the Roman Governor, Hadrian (he of he Wall), wanted to punish the Jews because they had the temerity to protest against Roman rule. Being told that the traditional enemies of the Jewish people were the Phillistines, he renamed the province Phillistinia which, over the years, became Palestine.
    During a tour of Morocco some years ago, a local teacher told me that when the Romans invaded north Africa, the occupants of that part of the continent were called the ‘Efrics’, from which you get the word Efricans, and then Africans. Whether that is true, or he was winding up a gullible tourist, the story was quite interesting, and plausible.

  11. “This border pre date the arrival of the Scots by many many centuries”: the current border was settled (except for tiny bits at each end) in 1245 and 1246. Knights of both countries rode the bounds and supervised the agreement. The English knights said that the border they had agreed to went back to the time before King John (of England).

    In the east the Scots had pushed south to the Tweed in 1018 or earlier. In the west William Rufus had pushed them north out of Cumbria in 1092. So presumably the “time before King John” referred to the end of the 11th century.

    The notion that Scotland had not been ruled by Scots (or Scots/Pictish) kings and aristocracy, and that they took “many, many centuries” to pitch up, seems a bit Enid Blyton to me. What on earth did you have in mind?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *