Jesus Was Not Black

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by plague
because the bible does not belong to the church...it was hijacked by the church and used for there own purposes....

Yes it does plague. A Church created the Bible! The Church might not have fabricated all the individual stories in the Bible but they collected them and consolidated them into one book.

Actually, I think the Romans put the bible together to try and convert all of their subjects (Rome was a major empire) to a single belief system. It also helped control the people, since many worshipped various deities.

The people who put it together had full editing rights and were able to choose what to put in the bible (what stories) and of course, how to tell them. They translated much of it from old Hebrew as I said earlier, but even to this day we only know 75% of that.

An example is that the term "obey" as in obey the word of God, really means protect or guard. So protect the word of God is vastly different from obey the word of God.

Old school propaganda just like modern day newspapers it seems.

Originally posted by plague
because the bible does not belong to the church...it was hijacked by the church and used for there own purposes......so what you are saying is that you dont take it literally which means you would have to be smart enough to interpet it for yourself..yet you are doing this becuz the church tells you so......where is your logic in that.....maybe you should think for yourself....if you chose to interpet it in your own way then do so...but dont do it for the church do it for yourself.............

You are really getting desperate now plague just to win your point, but I am sorry to say that will not work.

As I pointed out earlier all one has to do is look at the story of Noah's Ark to know that one should not take the bible literally. Just how many men have you heard of that could live 500 Years? The answer is none, yet you insist I can not think for myself??? :shk:

actually at that point in time they used a different calender so he could be counting seasons which gives you at least a division of 4......thats like 125 of our years.....which is possible considering no pollution alot of exercise and a healthy diet....im not saying this is the truth but its a great explanation....

i feel no desperation in this matter... you can believe what you want ...you can take what ever you want from the bible peice by peice and believe this and disregard that for all i care .....i can see my point is lost on you.....and thats fine .....
but i want to change the pace now so i ask you this .........what do you believe?

Not even a great explanation....



More like a pipedream on your part. Look at the statistics as to how long people lived 100 years ago let alone 2000 plus.

www.infoplease.com...

Next time look up your figures first OK

Originally posted by plague
what do you believe?

I Think I have made it very clear from the start, I do not believe in taking the bible literally.

Originally posted by shots
Not even a great explanation....



More like a pipedream on your part. Look at the statistics as to how long people lived 100 years ago let alone 2000 plus.

www.infoplease.com...

Next time look up your figures first OK

may be you should relize you were on a us gov. website for the census of america...not biblical times middle east.....i do not get your point ....

next time you should look up your figures first.....

Originally posted by plague

may be you should relize you were on a us gov. website for the census of america...not biblical times middle east.....i do not get your point ....

next time you should look up your figures first.....

What difference does it make where the figures came from? that will not change the fact that life expectancy has been on the rise for the period stated! The fact is back just 150 years the average age was around 40 now it is roughly 70 because of modern medicine and I do believe that if you checked you find it has been on the rise in virtually every part of the world for the very same reason.

As for looking up my figures first I already did

wow this still does not sway my thoughts....and im not going to keep repeating my self.....but you have skated the issue the whole time so i ask you shot??

what ethnicity do you think jesus is?

and please dont answer with its the message not the man, or i dont take the bible literally, or the pope says we cant talk about jesus ethnicity, or send me some us statistics and try to say that this and that is on the rise because if i follow your theory then people in biblical time would prabably live to the ripeful age of 10 .......and if you dont want to answer that then why are you here????

[edit on 8-12-2005 by plague]

Jesus was white as was Sargon , Moses , etc. There is much evidence of this. This thread is kinda funny, like the blacks who claim to be the true jews...too funny.

So, if Jesus was black? SO WHAT????? The mere reason that eight pages of have been dedicated to refute whether He was white or black means that his race IS important to Christians.

There is NO historical proof, no other historical document that speaks of Jesus other that the books of the Bible and it is incredulous to say that someone who demonstrated so much political influence during his "documented" life, did not have one word written outside of the books of Bible. So, could Jesus have been the composite of prophecies of the time?

Also, lets say Jesus Christ did walk the earth as a man, he would have to be "bronze of skin, with woolly hair" . So, all the blond, straight haired, blue/green eyed people, GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
the Catholic Churches change to Evolution theory versus Creationism.

No. The Catholic Church says that it's okay to believe in Evolution
as long as you believe GOD was the author of it and that He used
it to create man. God is still the creator. The Catholic Church does
NOT have Evolution as it's official belief. It just says it doesn't
matter how you believe that God made people, as long as you
believe that it was GOD who did it.

[rant]I am upset that the faithful Catholics are still faithful (blind)
I would hope this would cause .... collapse of the Roman Catholic Church.

That puts you in line with the anti-Catholic bigots who don't
understand what the Catholic Church teaches, or why.

THE Church just told the faithful churchgoers that
... the story of Creationism isn't Truth

No it didn't. And since we are on it ... perhaps you'd like to
tell us WHICH story of Creationism is the truth. There are
two different verisons you know. Both are in scripture.
Both can't be 'truth'. Exactly which one is the real truth?

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by plague
because the bible does not belong to the church...it was hijacked by the church and used for there own purposes....

A Church created the Bible! ... they collected them and consolidated them into one book.

I think the Romans put the bible together to try and convert all of their subjects .....

I have posted this info years ago, but I'll repost
for those interested -

www.catholic.com...

This has lots of good info on the Council. It tells who
was there and what was going on at the time.
The Roman Catholic Church DID put the bible together.
Until the time that they did, they were a loose set
of books, letters, and stories. The Orthodox Church
lays claim to having done this as well.

According to 'A Biblical Defense of Catholicism' by Dave Armstrong -
Here is a quick biblical history

New Testament Period and Apostolic Fathers (30-160)
Summary - New Testament is not clearly distinguished from other
Christian writings.

Gospels: Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's 'Gospels' contain apocryphal material.
Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture.
Acts: Scarcely known or quoted.
Pauline Corpus: Generally accepted by 130, yet quotations are
rarely introduced as scriptural.
Phillippians, 1 Timothy - Rejected by Justin Maryr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon - Rejected by Polycarp, Justin Martyr
Hebrews - Not considered Canonical. Rejected by Polycarp, Justin Martyr
disputed by Clement of Rome.
James - Not considered canonical, not even quoted. Rejected by Polycarp
and Justin Martyr
1 Peter - Not considered canonical
2 Peter - Not considered canonical nor cited.
1,2,3 John - Not considered canonical and rejected by Justin Martyr
1 John - disputed by Polycarp
3 John - Rejected by Polycarp
Jude - Not considered canonical, rejected by Polycarp and Justine Martyr
Revelation - Not canonical, rejected by Polycarp.

Iranaeus to Origen (160-250)
Summary - Awareness of a Canon begins toward the end of the second
century. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria are the first to use the
phrase 'New Testament'
Gospels - Accepted
Acts - Gradually accepted
Pauline Corpus - Accepted with some exceptions -
2 Timothy - Rejected by Clement of Alexandria
Philemon - Rejected by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Hebrews - Not canonical before 4th century in the West. Disputed by
Origen. First accepted by Clement of Alexandria.
James - Not Canonical. Disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
2 Peter - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen. Rejected by Iranaeus,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria.
1 John - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Iranaeus. Rejected by
Origen.
2 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen. Rejected by Tertullian,
Clement of Alexandria.
3 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria.
Jude - Gradual Acceptance. Accepted by Clement of Alexandria.
Rejected by Origen
Revelation - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Clement of Alexandria,
Rejected by Barococcio Canon (206AD)
Epistle of Barnabas - Accepted by Clement of Alexandria, Origen
Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen,
Clement of Alexandria.
The Didache - Accepted by Clement of Alexandria, Origen
Apocolypse of Peter - Accepted by Clement of Alexandria
Acts of Paul - Accepted by Origen. Appears in Greek, Latin, Syria,
Armenian and Arabic translations.
Gospel of Hebrews - Accepted by Clement of Alexandria, Muratorian
Canon (190AD), Excludes Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter.
Includes Apocolypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon

ORIGEN TO NICAEA (250-325)
Summary - Epistles and Revelation are still being disputed
Gospels, Acts, Pauline, Corpus - Accepted
Hebrews - Accepted in the East, Rejected and disputed in the West
James - Rejected and disputed in the East, Rejected in the West.
1 Peter - Fairly well accepted
2 Peter - Still disputed
1 John - Fairly Well accepted
2,3 John, Jude - Still disputed
Revelation - Disputed, especially in the East. Rejected by Dionysius

COUNCIL OF NICAEA (325) - COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (397)
Summary - St. Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books
as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost
right up until 397, then the CANON IS AUTHORITATIVELY CLOSED.

Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus, 1 Peter, 1 John - Accepted
Council of Nicaea in 325.
Hebrews - eventually accepted in the West
James - Slow acceptance. Not quoted in the West until 350AD
2 Peter - Eventually accepted
2,3 John, Jude - Eventually Accepted
Revelation - Eventually accepted. Rejected by Cyril of Jerusalem,
John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen
Epistle of Barnabas - Rejected by Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century.
Shepherd of Hermas - Rejected by Codex Sinaiticus - late 4th century.
However, used as a textbook for catechumens according to Athanasius.
1 Clement, 2 Clement - Rejected by Codex Alexandrinus - Early 5th century.

thank you flyers fan.....alot of good info....
my point of the hijacking is this.......if i write an artical to a magazine or if i write a short stories in a book......does this mean that it is the publisher of the magazine or books story now....no it is still my story.....they just happend to put it together with other storys and sent it out in mass quanities...

Originally posted by princeea
Jesus was white as was Sargon , Moses , etc. There is much evidence of this. This thread is kinda funny, like the blacks who claim to be the true jews...too funny.

no just as i have stated before jesus is not white(european) or black(africa)
but hebrew(middle eatern........moses to was hebrew read the bible its in there........

Originally posted by queenty
So, if Jesus was black? SO WHAT????? The mere reason that eight pages of have been dedicated to refute whether He was white or black means that his race IS important to Christians.

There is NO historical proof, no other historical document that speaks of Jesus other that the books of the Bible and it is incredulous to say that someone who demonstrated so much political influence during his "documented" life, did not have one word written outside of the books of Bible. So, could Jesus have been the composite of prophecies of the time?

Also, lets say Jesus Christ did walk the earth as a man, he would have to be "bronze of skin, with woolly hair" . So, all the blond, straight haired, blue/green eyed people, GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

where these prophesies not found originally in a hebrew tex......im going to contradict myself now becaus in an earlier replie i said that hippies hair would be wooly........now im shure that it says like sheeps wool.....but if it had not im shure thats what they were refering to ....have you ever felt or seen sheeps wool....and i mean a sheep not a lamb........it does not feel or apear to be like a black persons hair...maybe alot more than a white persons hair but more that of a miidle eatern type hair which is were he came from..........if he exsisted then he was from the lineage of abraham...which either makes him hebrew or arab....not white , not black , not hispanic,chinese, alien green, red, blue , or translucient

Originally posted by princeea
Jesus was white as was Sargon , Moses , etc. There is much evidence of this. This thread is kinda funny, like the blacks who claim to be the true jews...too funny.

that there is some straight up racism.

the title of this thread may appear to be slightly bigoted, though i get the whole point of jesus looking less like this:





or this



and more like this:



the point, jesus wasn't white, jesus wasn't black, jesus was a dark skinned semitic man.

Originally posted by plague

Originally posted by princeea
Jesus was white as was Sargon , Moses , etc. There is much evidence of this. This thread is kinda funny, like the blacks who claim to be the true jews...too funny.

no just as i have stated before jesus is not white(european) or black(africa)
but hebrew(middle eatern........moses to was hebrew read the bible its in there........

Modern day Hebrews have almost no relation to the middle east. Iran and Iraq were aryan based, hence Iran = aryan. Most people who live in Germany today are Assyrian. Hammurabi was king of the black haired people. Sum-Aryans were white and so was Jesus who was from the tribe Ashur. Read a book called Jesus goes to hollywood by Bramley. I could care less what color he was, but the fact is he was white.

cavemanart.com...

66.102.7.104...:R-N8627g4RoJ:www.aina.org/aol/peter/timeline.htm+jesus+ashur&hl=en&client=safari

[edit on 12-12-2005 by princeea]

hrm.... The real important thing about Christ's humanity is simply that it was indeed there....

Thats what makes him "Son of God" the "Reedemer" the fact that he possed the devine nature and the human nature but was indeed as human as you and I were. If it was not so his pascal sacrifice for our sins on the cross would be null and void.

That is the only issue that should come up about Christs humanity. Wether he possesd the human nature or not. This you are free to argue and I will not stop. But according to CATHOLIC doctrine (many christain denominations just belive christ was a devine spirit of the trinity taking the shape of man) christ was indeed man. He was the perfection of man and thats why his sacrifice was so great, also because he possed devine nature with infinite abilities his sacrifice was indeed infinite. He was devine and human st the same time. his race is unimportant.

A black man still possess human nature a white man still posses human nature a assyrain posses human nature. We all have it and that was the importat issue with christs humanity.

Originally posted by princeea

Originally posted by plague

Originally posted by princeea
Jesus was white as was Sargon , Moses , etc. There is much evidence of this. This thread is kinda funny, like the blacks who claim to be the true jews...too funny.

no just as i have stated before jesus is not white(european) or black(africa)
but hebrew(middle eatern........moses to was hebrew read the bible its in there........

Modern day Hebrews have almost no relation to the middle east. Iran and Iraq were aryan based, hence Iran = aryan. Most people who live in Germany today are Assyrian. Hammurabi was king of the black haired people. Sum-Aryans were white and so was Jesus who was from the tribe Ashur. Read a book called Jesus goes to hollywood by Bramley. I could care less what color he was, but the fact is he was white.

cavemanart.com...

66.102.7.104...:R-N8627g4RoJ:www.aina.org/aol/peter/timeline.htm+jesus+ashur&hl=en&client=safari

[edit on 12-12-2005 by princeea]

jesus was adecendent of david who was made king of the hebrews/jewish.....they would have never willing excepted anyone but a true hebrew as there king ..thus if david was hebrew then that makes jesus hebrew.....the tribes are decendents of abraham who also was hebrew.........no modern day jews are not all hebrew...oh but wait who was talking about modern day jews?????? and do not iranians consider them selves arab?????i mean isnt much of the problem over there about israel not bieng arab and them being rewarded with arab land????