Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Jesus Was Not Black

page: 18
1
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
i think jesus was an anthropomorphism of our sun and the amanita muscaria.

www.pharmacratic-inquisition.com




posted on Oct, 21 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
First, I would summarize Darwin, who said that as time goes on new informations will come to light, and the theory will change, and he was happy with that. So, while it may be 'beyond dispute', and 'real for a fact' as you claim, it is not infallible, and almost certainly we will find parts of it that we thought were right, were wrong. The whole issue of OOParts, which count into the thousands, and come from every corner of the earth, and from strata dating back up to 100's of millions of years...? These do not disprove evolution. But, as for latitude and skin colour... the map doesn't support it. Go around the world at 30 degrees latitude north and south and you will see cultures of every shade. But there are countless of these seemingly contrary statistics. Sweden is the same latitude as Alaska, Central America is the same Lat. as Africa, and the people are quite different skin tone as well as other things. What is the evolutionary theory for red hair? Why do the other areas of the world sharing the latitudes Africa covers have no black?


Well we know darwin's basic idea was right, but other parts of his original theory have since been corrected...and of course we will always be learning more about it as time goes on. I agree many of the details need to be worked out, but the basic idea of evolution, at a biological level, has been proven at this point, beyond dispute. As far as skin color goes, I really don't know, and scientists aren't sure either, but it does have to do with where your ancestors come from and the sun in those areas.

There are different "colored" cultures at any place in the world...but, it of course depends on who these people are, and where their ancestors came from. People in Africa are black because they have been there in the saharan heat and sun for thousands of years...hominids originated in Africa millions of years ago. The people who never left are still black as night, and the ones who mixed with arabs, asians, europeans, etc will be lighter of course...though there are some people in Africa who have been there for thousands years who are a light brown color (the san/"bushmen" in south africa), but this could be explained by that area of Africa being farther south, and more wooded perhaps.

If you go around the world and see people of different colors, it's not really that perplexing as to why they are that way...humans left Africa around 40,000 years ago and then spread throughout most of the old world. The time we've had to diffuse throughout the rest of the world and different cultures, mix together, was limited until the last couple thousand years, mostly the last few hundred years, or even last century with modern travel. It is easy to see how we are all "mixed" if you go around the world today, but if you went travelling even 1000 years ago, I bet most of the different groups of people would look quite similar. And it would take many years for this relocating and mixing to change the skin color of a certain population, which wouldn't be evident as of yet. And if you believe that homo sapiens sapiens evolved in Eurasia as well as Africa, the homo erectus has been throughout all of the old world for nearly 2 million years, which would be quite enough time for the effects of the new environments to have quite an impact on evolution...although it is generally only accepted that we evolved only in Africa, that's still 40,000 years ago...~35,000 of it almost entirely spent in isolated groupings, according to most scientists.

Anyway...what's the topic again? Jesus being black...I've already answered that so I guess we can talk evolution vs. creationism somewhere else...but I happen to believe in both, so I can't really take just one side on the issue.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShoktekIf you go around the world and see people of different colors, it's not really that perplexing as to why they are that way...humans left Africa around 40,000 years ago and then spread throughout most of the old world. It is easy to see how we are all "mixed" if you go around the world today, but if you went travelling even 1000 years ago, I bet most of the different groups of people would look quite similar. ...although it is generally only accepted that we evolved only in Africa, that's still 40,000 years ago...~35,000 of it almost entirely spent in isolated groupings, according to most scientists.

Anyway...what's the topic again? Jesus being black...I've already answered that so I guess we can talk evolution vs. creationism somewhere else...but I happen to believe in both, so I can't really take just one side on the issue.

We may agree to disagree, shoktek. First, the latest figure I have seen proposed for the first homo sapiens sapiens is 260 000 years ago. This is according to mainstream science, and was published within the last two years. I am not perplexed, but I do find the skin color/sunlight theory based on little evidence. As for your final point, we do share some common ground, I tend to believe both as well. It is the details that have yet to be sorted out, imo.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
We may agree to disagree, shoktek. First, the latest figure I have seen proposed for the first homo sapiens sapiens is 260 000 years ago. This is according to mainstream science, and was published within the last two years. I am not perplexed, but I do find the skin color/sunlight theory based on little evidence. As for your final point, we do share some common ground, I tend to believe both as well. It is the details that have yet to be sorted out, imo.


Yea, homo sapiens came around 250,000 years bp, but the modern homo sapiens sapiens didn't happen until 150,000bp...the 40,000 figure was about when they had colonized Eurasia...that's 40,000 years of being "out of Africa" which is the time they would have to start adapting to their new environments...sorry I didn't make that very clear.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   


Jesus Was Not Black


What difference does it make? Black, white, red, yellow, brown, grey, green, blue,etc.....does it matter?



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Jesus was not white...
IF you have a picture of a white jesus or worship in a church with a white jesus you are full of $#%@ and why is this being debated when his description is in the bible LOL. Interesting that while many individuals rebut the idea of a black jesus as blasphemy - Jesus depicted as a white man has not met with the same resistance. I smell hypocrisy...



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elijio
Jesus was not white...
IF you have a picture of a white jesus or worship in a church with a white jesus you are full of $#%@ and why is this being debated when his description is in the bible LOL. Interesting that while many individuals rebut the idea of a black jesus as blasphemy - Jesus depicted as a white man has not met with the same resistance. I smell hypocrisy...




wow ... read the thread and you will realize that i am saying he is neither black nor white. i am saying he was hebrew or arabic ... as he is the hebrew messiah...... that fact my friend is in the bible.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
He may not have been black, but I bet he sure was brown.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
People in Africa are black because they have been there in the saharan heat and sun for thousands of years...hominids originated in Africa millions of years ago. The people who never left are still black as night, and the ones who mixed with arabs, asians, europeans, etc will be lighter of course


I love the circular logic.


  • Africans have black colored skin.
  • All people originated in Africa.
  • Therefore, all people are black
  • Except for people people that mixed with Europeans...who came from Africa(everyone came from Africa)
  • Africans have black colored skin


How is it that the Bible locates Eden at some point near the Tigris and Euphrates river (Genesis 2:10-14)? Of course we know where these rivers are located (No doubt you have an argument for this) so Africa is out of the question. The Bible also states that God placed Adam and Eve in Eden. You can't use the "All people come from Africa" theory as supporting your claim that Jesus was black unless you're one who likes to pick and choose which portion of the Bible you wish to believe. The version of Chrisitanity being discussed here seems to be heavily watered down with Darwanism which really is another religion all-together.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by plaguewow ... read the thread and you will realize that i am saying he is neither black nor white. i am saying he was hebrew or arabic ... as he is the hebrew messiah


I agree completely. What you're not seeing is that there is a certain group of MalcomX type individuals who want us to believe that the Jews were all black and that the people currently living in Israel are not the real Jews. That's what the whole point is for those that argue that Jesus was black. This is their goal and agenda. Ask them to admit that the current group of Jews are the real Jews. They can't. They focus on specific verses such as the Jews being slaves in Egypt, and the Revelation 1 verse that says Jesus' hair was "white as wool". (Note: The color was being described here, not the texture) That's all they have and they'll pitch a huge fit if you point out that they're ignoring thousands of years of history with this little story.

I honestly believe that this story is a tool of the Devil to make you doubt the whole story of the Bible or at least to make you blind to current events. If the real Jews are not in Israel, we don't need to watch for the re-appearing of Christ. Yet, most evidence suggests that the real Jews are actually in Israel today. Tell me why millions of Jews in Europe would claim their lineage to Israel even when it meant they were sent to the gas chambers by the train-full. What was their agenda? They didn't have any land of their own at the time, and no one was promising them any land. That didn't happen until after WW II. Their only reason for this claim (That killed many of them) is that they knew who they were and were proud of their lineage. Even while scattered all over Europe, they were proud of their Jewish roots. While Jews were being killed in Europe, most in Africa didn't even know what a Jew was.

*sigh* Recognize the agenda of those who want a black Jesus and you'll see right through the deception.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

  • Africans have black colored skin.
  • All people originated in Africa.
  • Therefore, all people are black
  • Except for people people that mixed with Europeans...who came from Africa(everyone came from Africa)
  • Africans have black colored skin


How is it that the Bible locates Eden at some point near the Tigris and Euphrates river (Genesis 2:10-14)? Of course we know where these rivers are located (No doubt you have an argument for this) so Africa is out of the question. The Bible also states that God placed Adam and Eve in Eden. You can't use the "All people come from Africa" theory as supporting your claim that Jesus was black unless you're one who likes to pick and choose which portion of the Bible you wish to believe. The version of Chrisitanity being discussed here seems to be heavily watered down with Darwanism which really is another religion all-together.


From what we know through archeology and the fossil record, yes, all people originated in Africa at some point. All Africans are not "black"...there are varying skin colors, although certainly all would be called "black" here in the united states. The San people in southern africa, who are the oldest group of people in the world we know of (how long they have been living there together), have light brown skin. The people who left Africa had thousands of years to evolve in their new climates, and the theory goes that the dark skin blocked out too much sunlight in these environments compared to when they were in africa, causing a deficiency in vitamins, which somehow gave lighter skinned people a reproductive advantage.

And now you're basing your proof of where people came from, based on what's written in the old testament...
It's great that the bible serves as your book of "fact", while you ignore the proven science. The "out of Africa" theory is generally accepted by almost any scientist in the world at this point, and I don't know how you're confusing it with whether or not Jesus was black. Jesus came along hundreds of thousands of years later buddy, get your facts straight. Take into account evolution, mixing of those people of different skin colors, etc. I never tried to say Jesus was "black" in the first place, in fact I said he was not. His skin most likely would have been a brown color like a person in modern day palestine, and he most likely would not have had direct african ("black") ancestry...so what are you trying to argue again? Oh yea, go find some more "proof" in the old testament...myself and any modern scientist would love to hear your argument on those "facts", and yea, it has been many times before you.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
The "out of Africa" theory is generally accepted by almost any scientist in the world at this point,


So you say, but I don't see any reference or quotes from anthropologist in your words. I can just as easily refute your claim and back it up with science like so:



source
"A lot of us have been too eager to assume that a strict out-of-Africa model is correct because it's compatible with the genetic data, without considering that the data also fit with the multiregional theory," says anthropologist John H. Relethford of the State University of New York at Oneonta. "It's time to go back to the drawing board on this issue."


Surprise! There's not enough proof to completely sway either crowd. Both arguments can be successfully argued. Please stop making assertions like "accepted by almost any scientist" when in fact it is still being debated among scientist.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Surprise! There's not enough proof to completely sway either crowd. Both arguments can be successfully argued. Please stop making assertions like "accepted by almost any scientist" when in fact it is still being debated among scientist.


I will, because it is. You haven't read the texts, attended classes in the subject, talked to professors, etc. You found one reference to the "multi regional theory", which, of course, all anthropologists know about as well. This theory is still based on the idea that humankind originated in Africa! You can't cite one scientific source and deny that the information it is based on is true. "Out of Africa" refers to the idea that Homo Erectus had populated most of the old world, and that homo sapiens evolved independently in Africa before migrating out into the old world...the other "brands" might have mixed in, and died off, probably because they couldn't compete with the more efficient homo sapiens. The "multi regional theory" contends that homo sapiens evolved from homo erectus throughout all of the old world, just all at once basically. No matter which theory you want to believe, hominids originated in Africa, and it is a fact that the oldest homo sapiens sapiens are all found to be in Africa well before the ones that are in Asia. Sure, we might have not found some older ones yet, but the idea that this evolution to homo sapiens occured in Africa as well as Asia, in different locations, around the same time, is NOT accepted by most anthropologists. Simply because it is much more probable that it would have happened in one place, and that these people would have spread out, overtaking the others. Not very likely for it to occur throughout. Couple that with the oldest human remains being in Africa, and human kind for sure originating in Africa....yea, humankind originated in the African savannah, and modern humans, according to popular theory and fossils, originated in Africa as well. You can try to dig up something to disprove this if you like, but you obviously don't know about the subject.

Anyway, we are talking about Jesus in this thread, not about evolution. With that, I will repost my original response to this thread which is this:


Yea...Jesus wouldn't have been black, nor would he have been white with blue eyes. He would have probably looked close to what a modern day palestinian person looks like..."colored" but not "black". And it is also a historical fact (accepted by the majority of historians) that yes Jesus existed, of course what he actually did/didn't do or what happened to him can be left to speculation. If you are a real Christian though, I think if you had learned anything from Jesus' teachings you wouldn't care what color his skin was, rather his words spoken and actions performed...


Don't know why you are so offended by the notion that Jesus was some different skin color anyway...or that people came from Africa. "Race" is culturally defined, and has nothing to do with anything other than slight biological variations occuring in different environments...we're all the same.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Actually I've had a lengthy discussion with an anthropologists recently. How else do you think I knew to jump to the multi-regional debate so quickly? He told me he wasn't sold on either version and that a lot of discovery in this area was still being made. He actually seemed to believed that Darwin's theory would suggest that modern man developed in multiple areas at the same time. He believed that proving that man came from a single location was more in line with the writings of the Bible than the actual evidence that had been recovered in the field.

I'm not trying to change the subject. I guess I just misunderstood your words to imply that the African point of origion theory was a good indication that Jesus was black. I didn't believe that anthropologists were galvanized on either side enough to proclaim one side a winner so I didn't believe that this could be used as an argument or proof.



posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Well, I've taken history and anthro courses in high school, community college, and at the university, and the professors I've had (and textbooks) all teach the "out of africa" theory, but of course they talk about the other one as well, and note that it is not widely accepted. I don't really know if this theory has anything to do with the Eden type idea from the bible, but it is really just based on its higher probability than the other, as well as the fossil evidence. Also I'm not sure how it would make sense from an evolutionary standpoint to have it happening in different places at once, but of course it is possible...just not very likely.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
"What you're not seeing is that there is a certain group of MalcomX type individuals who want us to believe that the Jews were all black and that the people currently living in Israel are not the real Jews
I honestly believe that this story is a tool of the Devil to make you doubt the whole story of the Bible or at least to make you blind to current events.
Tell me why millions of Jews in Europe would claim their lineage to Israel even when it meant they were sent to the gas chambers by the train-full. What was their agenda? They didn't have any land of their own at the time, and no one was promising them any land.
While Jews were being killed in Europe, most in Africa didn't even know what a Jew was." dbates

First of all, I would be flattered if ever I was said to be a 'Malcolm X' type. He was a great man, who was murdered shortly after he admitted that he had changed his mind regarding his views on 'white' people. He had been the guest of a white man whom he admired, and it made him realize that there was such a thing as a 'good' white man. This was a major turning point in his life, and could have led to him accomplishing some great things, were he not killed. His biography is worth reading, and exposes a lot about a man that most people have misconceptions of.
Though he was clearly aggressive and confrontational in his pursuit of equal rights for black Americans, his goals and statements themselves are thoughtful, positive, and progressive for the most part.
'By whatever means necessary.......' reads a poster showing Mr. Little (Malcolm X) standing, looking out a window with a rifle in his hands. That poster is important to many blacks, and reviled by many whites, understandably. But not enough folks know what context his famous quote was uttered in. In the context they were said, I find his words inspiring, courageous, and paternalistic, and support his reasons for saying them.
As for 'tools of the Devil', I suggest that the history of organized religion supports the theory that Christianity, Islam, and others, may be tools of the Devil used to deceive many into doing evil. In Revelations it also says the devil will pretend to be a 'being of light', and will fool many....
The creation of Israel point. I am glad you asked, since this is something I do know a bit about. Why admit their faith? Most likely because they were devout followers of their faith, for one. And since countries like Canada turned Jews away when they tried to flee Germany at the time, like many nations that were clearly far from welcoming towards Jews, they had nowhere to go once they were ID'ed as Jews. Also, the build up that led to the mass killing of German Jews was slow, and not believed to be real when it did start. Otherwise, why would prominent Jewish Germans such as the Warburgs remain silent as it was being done? There are other such elite figures and families who, though they were German, and Jewish, were not persecuted by the Nazis.
In most cases, the Jews who were gassed had no idea that they would face such an atrocity when they were first sent to the ghettoes long before that. They thought they were merely being robbed, segregated, exploited, and oppressed.
What agenda could have prompted such a crime against humanity? First you need to know about the Balfour Declaration of 1917. That document expresses the UK's desire to set up a homeland for the Jews, but it took the holocaust to change public opposition to such a project. So, though there was no 'promise' of land, there certainly was an effort being made. Twenty years of diplomacy had not worked, but the holocaust generated the public sympathy needed for Israel to become a reality. Some people claim the real agenda was the western powers desire to set up an intelligence agency based in the middle east, namely the Mossad. Because of the holocaust, and Israel's creation, the west now has secret agents based in the middle east.
And regarding Africa, you are probably right that most of them knew nothing about Jews. But, there also existed at the time a group of African Jews dating back to the days of King Solomon. And although the west may have known more about it, is that a complimentary thing? I say not, since that implies they tacitly approved the genocide by remaining as quiet about it as they did.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Infra_red
I forget what scripture in the Bible says this but I do remember reading that " He had feet the color of bronze and hair like a lambs wool. " bronze being the shade of most natural Africans. It is also Important to point out that the original Hebrews were not light in color. Only through centuaries of interbreeding with other races(european) did their pigment begin to become what it is today.

www.angelfire.com...


One scripture that references hair like wool is;
Daniel 7:9) 9 “I kept on beholding until there were thrones placed and the Ancient of Days sat down. His clothing was white just like snow, and the hair of his head was like clean wool. His throne was flames of fire; its wheels were a burning fire.

The other is;
(Revelation 1:13-15) 13 and in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man, clothed with a garment that reached down to the feet, and girded at the breasts with a golden girdle. 14 Moreover, his head and his hair were white as white wool, as snow, and his eyes as a fiery flame; 15 and his feet were like fine copper when glowing in a furnace; and his voice was as the sound of many waters. . .

It is obvious from the context that these references are symbolic.
Neither of these refer to Jesus while he was here on earth for one thing.

I have talked to some African Americans who are adamant that Jesus was black because of these references. I have always been able to find common ground with them when I use this scripture:

(Acts 10:34-35) 34 At this Peter opened his mouth and said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, 35 but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.

So in the end it really doesn't matter. Its like arguing whether he had a unibrow or not. Who really cares?



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Jesus had blonde hair and blue eyes and was an aryan. He was white and he wasn't even Jewish. Furthermore his religion was more of a combination of what gnositics, essenians and coptics were teaching at the time.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Don't forget, Jesus was a carpenters son. There were no Home Depot's, no Lowes.
I bet he spent plenty of time out in the sun cutting wood. He Probably had a killer tan!


Seriously though;
God’s Word deliberately omits details of Jesus’ appearance Why? They would likely distract from that which means everlasting life—Bible knowledge. (John 17:3) Jesus himself—our very model—‘does not look upon,’ or regard as important, “men’s outward appearance.”

(Matthew 22:16) 16 So they dispatched to him their disciples, together with party followers of Herod, saying: “Teacher, we know you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and you do not care for anybody, for you do not look upon men’s outward appearance.

(Galatians 2:6) 6 But on the part of those who seemed to be something—whatever sort of men they formerly were makes no difference to me—God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—to me, in fact, those outstanding men imparted nothing new. . .



[edit on 31-10-2006 by Sparky63]

[edit on 31-10-2006 by Sparky63]

[edit on 31-10-2006 by Sparky63]



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
Don't forget, Jesus was a carpenters son. There were no Home Depot's, no Lowes.
I bet he spent plenty of time out in the sun cutting wood. He Probably had a killer tan!

That is the most popular view of his dad, though some would say Joseph is not his 'real' father. The begats in the NT, which show Joseph's lineage are hard to find a reason for unless they are there to show Jesus ancestry on his fathers side. Otherwise, why include all those names? I see no other reason, anyone? And as for Joseph being a carpenter, some claim that his description was misinterpreted, and he was actually far more. The 'master of the craft' theory claims that Joseph was a very skilled adept, more befitting someone said to be the parent of the king of his nation. The idea Jesus had a wicked tan sounds likely to me, too, since he spent a lot of time on the road. Why is it that white people love to darken their own skin as much as they are able by tanning it any way they can, yet have such a distaste for those people who are born with darker skin?





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join