jesus was a black man!!!

Originally posted by Colonel
You know what I noticed? Me, DaTruth, and McGotti have brought scriptual, historical, and pictoral evidence to prove that he was black.

What do the naysayers bring.



RHETORIC.


YOu all simply can't handle the truth but the sooner you do the less chance you will go to Hell.

Dang your harsh Colonel. I don't think anyone is going to hell but I do believe that by closing there minds they are damping there spiritual development.

Originally posted by DaTruth

Originally posted by Colonel
You know what I noticed? Me, DaTruth, and McGotti have brought scriptual, historical, and pictoral evidence to prove that he was black.

What do the naysayers bring.



RHETORIC.


YOu all simply can't handle the truth but the sooner you do the less chance you will go to Hell.

Dang your harsh Colonel. I don't think anyone is going to hell but I do believe that by closing there minds they are damping there spiritual development.

I believe this is true in the fact that they are denying the Son of God if they don't fit their cookie-cutter package.

Alright, you know that I had to chime in sooner or later. Everyone seems to be so passionate about this topic, but does it really matter to you if jesus was black or white or yellow. Would he be any less important to you if he was black or gay or a woman. If so then you should really question the way that you feel about his deeds without the illusion of his physical form.

Now I understand that the fact that he is often described as a white with blond hair and blue eyes can be seen as a conspiricy, but in this day and age does anyone still believe that? No one that I know.

Everyone believes this fallacy and it is being promoted more by this movie so as to sweep the world.

Originally posted by dunkleskates

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by Ashlar
White AS wool , White AS wool and snow.

brass = a yellowish alloy of copper and zinc. so yes, there is copper but it is yellowish in color (golden color)

This fool again refuses to shut his damn mouth and listen to wisdom but is up in my face questioning me!

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Main Entry: brass
Pronunciation: 'bras
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English bras, from Old English br�s; akin to Middle Low German bras metal
1 : an alloy consisting essentially of copper and zinc in variable proportions

meriam-webster.com...

WHAT COLOR IS COPPER? GET A PENNY AND FIGURE IT OUT!

White AS wool , White AS wool and snow. JUST LIKE A BLACK MAN WHO IS OLD!!

ive been following this thread for some time but have not posted because i know it's pointless to argue anything with the mighty colonel, who is always correct, but i can no longer resist. colonel, why do you keep side stepping, and manipulating words? the original post read:

Originally posted by Colonel
Here is a description of Jesus:

Revelation 1
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.


Kinda looks like the pic that DaTruth put up earlier, eh?

so his head as well as his hair was white as wool, as white as snow, so unless his head also resembled wool, then it is a comparison of colors. also it says his feet were like unto fine brass, as if burned in a furnace. not only does this describe feet that were burnt from excessive walking in hot sands, but why would it mention only the color of his feet?

the biblical statement that the color of his feet is similar (or possibly even identical) to a black persons is enough evidence for you to believe jesus was black.

so why is the biblical statement that the color of his head was white not enough evidence for you to believe he was white?

edit: btw, i do not in any way believe that jesus was white, just offering proof(as if its needed) that you are close-minded, and care only about prooving yourself to be correct in all instances.


[Edited on 2-23-2004 by dunkleskates]

Its weird, when somebody asked a reasonable question , the con colonel doesnt answer...hmmmm

Look at this. These fools get all lawyerly on me....parsing words, asking what "is" is, skewing the color spectrum, looking at everything with a magnifying glass so as to deny Jesus' ethnicity WHEN THE PLAIN LANGUAGE PROVES THEM FALSE!

okay solution for everyone, Jesus was a black albino!!!!

Originally posted by worldwatcher
okay solution for everyone, Jesus was a black albino!!!!

lol I really don't care I just like to prove all these people wrong.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
okay solution for everyone, Jesus was a black albino!!!!

No for that is a LIE. The thing called albinosim is a disease called leprosy in the Bible---the "leprosy" that you think of is not that in the Bible. That is called "dropsy."

Originally posted by Colonel
Look at this. These fools get all lawyerly on me....parsing words, asking what "is" is, skewing the color spectrum, looking at everything with a magnifying glass so as to deny Jesus' ethnicity WHEN THE PLAIN LANGUAGE PROVES THEM FALSE!

"blessed are those who believe without seeing me", i believe race isnt a issue with jesus. simple all you have to do is believe on him. the only arguement i can see you giving is "when the anti-christ comes,and he's white,people will think he is jesus because he does mircales and he's white,jesus is black,black i tell u!" i can jesus is white like european blood, he is just simply jewish skined, and i think the people who believe on jesus will know who is the anti-christ etc

woah colonel, since when did albino's become lepers???

albino's do not suffer from any particular disfiguring diseases or sores, doesn't the bible describe lepers are being sick, horribly disfigured people with sores all over their bodies????

an albino is simply a person who lacks melanoma and natural pigment in their skin coloration. (no sores, no disfigurations to their body) only lack of color

Originally posted by worldwatcher
woah colonel, since when did albino's become lepers???

albino's do not suffer from any particular disfiguring diseases or sores, doesn't the bible describe lepers are being sick, horribly disfigured people with sores all over their bodies????

an albino is simply a person who lacks melanoma and natural pigment in their skin coloration. (no sores, no disfigurations to their body) only lack of color

Why do you insist on questioning me??

Exodus 4:6
Then the LORD said, "Put your hand inside your cloak." So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was leprous, like snow.



Leviticus 13:2
"When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, [ 13:2 Traditionally [ leprosy ] ; the Hebrew word was used for various diseases affecting the skin-not necessarily leprosy; also elsewhere in this chapter. ] he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons [ 13:2 Or [ descendants ] ] who is a priest.



2 Kings 5:27
Naaman's leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever." Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and he was leprous, as white as snow.

Originally posted by StJames

Originally posted by Colonel
the only arguement i can see you giving is "when the anti-christ comes,and he's white,people will think he is jesus because he does mircales and he's white,jesus is black,black i tell u!"

This IS the main point.

I insist on questioning you because I find it logical to pose questions when I come across something that doesn't make sense or require additional information.

I understand that the leprosy used in the bible could mean any type of skin condition, but the descriptions of sores, patches, etc, does not equate to Albinoism, it is more likely used to cover diseases such as measles, smallpox and chicken pox.

now if you read the entire passage, your description of leprosy and albinoism is not the same. An albino does not usually have spots of whiteness on their skin, the majority of albinos lack pigment in all parts of the skin.
Please read the full passage. It does not describe abinoism:
Leviticus 13
Regulations About Infectious Skin Diseases

1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, [1] he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons [2] who is a priest. 3 The priest is to examine the sore on his skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, [3] it is an infectious skin disease. When the priest examines him, he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. 4 If the spot on his skin is white but does not appear to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest is to put the infected person in isolation for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him, and if he sees that the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin, he is to keep him in isolation another seven days. 6 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him again, and if the sore has faded and has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a rash. The man must wash his clothes, and he will be clean. 7 But if the rash does spread in his skin after he has shown himself to the priest to be pronounced clean, he must appear before the priest again. 8 The priest is to examine him, and if the rash has spread in the skin, he shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious disease.
9 "When anyone has an infectious skin disease, he must be brought to the priest. 10 The priest is to examine him, and if there is a white swelling in the skin that has turned the hair white and if there is raw flesh in the swelling, 11 it is a chronic skin disease and the priest shall pronounce him unclean. He is not to put him in isolation, because he is already unclean.
12 "If the disease breaks out all over his skin and, so far as the priest can see, it covers all the skin of the infected person from head to foot, 13 the priest is to examine him, and if the disease has covered his whole body, he shall pronounce that person clean. Since it has all turned white, he is clean. 14 But whenever raw flesh appears on him, he will be unclean. 15 When the priest sees the raw flesh, he shall pronounce him unclean. The raw flesh is unclean; he has an infectious disease. 16 Should the raw flesh change and turn white, he must go to the priest. 17 The priest is to examine him, and if the sores have turned white, the priest shall pronounce the infected person clean; then he will be clean.
18 "When someone has a boil on his skin and it heals, 19 and in the place where the boil was, a white swelling or reddish-white spot appears, he must present himself to the priest. 20 The priest is to examine it, and if it appears to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is an infectious skin disease that has broken out where the boil was. 21 But if, when the priest examines it, there is no white hair in it and it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to put him in isolation for seven days. 22 If it is spreading in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is infectious. 23 But if the spot is unchanged and has not spread, it is only a scar from the boil, and the priest shall pronounce him clean.
24 "When someone has a burn on his skin and a reddish-white or white spot appears in the raw flesh of the burn, 25 the priest is to examine the spot, and if the hair in it has turned white, and it appears to be more than skin deep, it is an infectious disease that has broken out in the burn. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious skin disease. 26 But if the priest examines it and there is no white hair in the spot and if it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to put him in isolation for seven days. 27 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him, and if it is spreading in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious skin disease. 28 If, however, the spot is unchanged and has not spread in the skin but has faded, it is a swelling from the burn, and the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a scar from the burn.
29 "If a man or woman has a sore on the head or on the chin, 30 the priest is to examine the sore, and if it appears to be more than skin deep and the hair in it is yellow and thin, the priest shall pronounce that person unclean; it is an itch, an infectious disease of the head or chin. 31 But if, when the priest examines this kind of sore, it does not seem to be more than skin deep and there is no black hair in it, then the priest is to put the infected person in isolation for seven days. 32 On the seventh day the priest is to examine the sore, and if the itch has not spread and there is no yellow hair in it and it does not appear to be more than skin deep, 33 he must be shaved except for the diseased area, and the priest is to keep him in isolation another seven days. 34 On the seventh day the priest is to examine the itch, and if it has not spread in the skin and appears to be no more than skin deep, the priest shall pronounce him clean. He must wash his clothes, and he will be clean. 35 But if the itch does spread in the skin after he is pronounced clean, 36 the priest is to examine him, and if the itch has spread in the skin, the priest does not need to look for yellow hair; the person is unclean. 37 If, however, in his judgment it is unchanged and black hair has grown in it, the itch is healed. He is clean, and the priest shall pronounce him clean.
38 "When a man or woman has white spots on the skin, 39 the priest is to examine them, and if the spots are dull white, it is a harmless rash that has broken out on the skin; that person is clean.
40 "When a man has lost his hair and is bald, he is clean. 41 If he has lost his hair from the front of his scalp and has a bald forehead, he is clean. 42 But if he has a reddish-white sore on his bald head or forehead, it is an infectious disease breaking out on his head or forehead. 43 The priest is to examine him, and if the swollen sore on his head or forehead is reddish-white like an infectious skin disease, 44 the man is diseased and is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean because of the sore on his head.
45 "The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, [4] cover the lower part of his face and cry out, 'Unclean! Unclean!' 46 As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp.

These are not conditions of Albinoism.

But, what if the man called Jesus did not exist?

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
But, what if the man called Jesus did not exist?

Check the thread 6 doors down and to your left.

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by worldwatcher
woah colonel, since when did albino's become lepers???

albino's do not suffer from any particular disfiguring diseases or sores, doesn't the bible describe lepers are being sick, horribly disfigured people with sores all over their bodies????

an albino is simply a person who lacks melanoma and natural pigment in their skin coloration. (no sores, no disfigurations to their body) only lack of color

Why do you insist on questioning me??

Exodus 4:6
Then the LORD said, "Put your hand inside your cloak." So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was leprous, like snow.



Leviticus 13:2
"When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, [ 13:2 Traditionally [ leprosy ] ; the Hebrew word was used for various diseases affecting the skin-not necessarily leprosy; also elsewhere in this chapter. ] he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons [ 13:2 Or [ descendants ] ] who is a priest.



2 Kings 5:27
Naaman's leprosy will cling to you and to your descendants forever." Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and he was leprous, as white as snow.

is it a coincidense that this last line from the bible uses the same metaphor to decribe the skin of a leprous person as to describe jesus's head and hair?

i still have not recieved an answer from you, colonel, and i would assume you should have no problem proving me wrong as you know you are right.

you say you have scriptual, historical, and pictural evidence that jesus is black.first of all, how could you possibly have any pictoral evidence of jesus? i would love to see this evidence. your "historical evidence" from what i can see is biblical, so the only proof you have provided is biblical scripture, which for one thing is largely metaphoric, and for another could very well have been made up. but for the sake of the argument, i will (just as you have) assume that this description of jesus is not metaphorical, and is in fact a detailed decription of jesus christ's appearance.

Revelation 1
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

so not only did jesus have a white and wool-like head and hair and feet "like unto fine brass", but his voice sounded like many waters (i think this means like rushing waters???), he had seven stars in his right hand(not sure what kind of stars these are, maybe you can explain it to me?), and he had a sharp two edged sword sticking out of his mouth.

a sword out of his mouth? i can only concieve of this as being metaphorical. please correct me if i am wrong.

Jesus may have had African Blood in his veins but his appearance was of that of any person of the time.

Albert Cleage, said Jesus was black since Mary was a member of the tribe of Judah, which Cleage explained as a mixture of ethnicities such as Chaldean, Egyptian and Ethiopian. Cleage's conclusions about Jesus' bloodline, based on his understanding of the ethnic background for the tribe of Judah, aren't widely accepted by scholars today.

I have three black ancestors that are fairly recent in my family tree and guess what? I am white as a ghost. Jesus could still have African Blood and still be another color other than black.

Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, truly has as a part of his ancestry all the various races of humankind. Luke 3:23-38 traces Jesus' genealogy back to Adam. That makes us all his blood sisters and brothers, doesn't it? So if you beleive in the bible we all came from the same place anyways so what does it matter?

Originally posted by Jonna

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
But, what if the man called Jesus did not exist?

Check the thread 6 doors down and to your left.

Jesus and Christ are not the same person. Jesus was not the name of the christ.

Originally posted by StJames

so his head as well as his hair was white as wool, as white as snow, so unless his head also resembled wool, then it is a comparison of colors. also it says his feet were like unto fine brass, as if burned in a furnace. not only does this describe feet that were burnt from excessive walking in hot sands, but why would it mention only the color of his feet?

the biblical statement that the color of his feet is similar (or possibly even identical) to a black persons is enough evidence for you to believe jesus was black.

so why is the biblical statement that the color of his head was white not enough evidence for you to believe he was white?

edit: btw, i do not in any way believe that jesus was white, just offering proof(as if its needed) that you are close-minded, and care only about prooving yourself to be correct in all instances.




Its weird, when somebody asked a reasonable question , the con colonel doesnt answer...hmmmm

I already answered this question.


so why is the biblical statement that the color of his head was white not enough evidence for you to believe he was white?

14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow;

Hers my interpitation of this line..tell me if you thinks its plausible.

why would he need to use two words to describe how white his hair was...iI feel that "white as snow" does more than enough to give the idea of how white his hair was.
I feel that the use of the phrase "white LIKE wool" is just pertaining to it being "white,and like wool"

kind of like this..."his hair was like wool,white as snow"
just phrased as white,like wool,white as snow"

I know I changed the words around and im not saying that is what it means but I think it is more plausible then using two words to describe simply his hair color.If using the phrase"white LIKE wool" only pertains to color and not texture...then why is it followed by "white AS snow"