Why is everyone here denying that Adam and Eve were Vietnamese??? Why such bigotry??!?1!? Why so much hurt when it is pointed out that the so called Apple was a coconut?
Maybe because vietnam is the other side of the world has something to do with the credibilty of that, much like the silly notion that the biblical jews were pale faced whites smh but dont let that stop the entire brainwashed white nations believing such. Guess they think it counters the horrific enterprise of colonialism they wholly endorsed.
This is God stuff. God is all powerful Just because the recordings of the bible happened half a world away doesn't mean Adam and Eve were not Korean. Why are you denying they were Korean? *gasp* Such racism.
iknow for A FACT that white folk do not accept a black messiah. the question really is "what makes you think they do?"
I know in the church I grew up in it was brought up more than once and the consensus was that it didn't matter one way or the other. I don't figure you would consider that "worshiping a black messiah" though.
No iwouldnt consider that an example. Thus is the issue here though, if it wouldnt bother them one way or the other then why the popular resistance? Ipersonally dont buy the "it doesnt matter" excuse. Ithink it matters to them a hell of a lot but they wont admit it..why would the enemy show their weakness which is in fact idol worship? They know its wrong but they still do it like the alcoholic who drinks cider in the morning
What are you talking about? I doubt Jesus was black because of the region he was from and his parentage. Does that mean I'm in some way bigoted against the idea that Jesus was black?
im talking about your plain refusal to accept a black messiah as is evidenced by your very response im now quoting lol. The region he was from is on the AFRICAN CONTINENT. that factoid aside is it even a signficant factor where the location is given that so called blacks are found all over the globe in every corner and not by colonization might iadd nooo not by colonization are they in every corner, unlike certain usurpers we know who find themselves in every corner by means of colonization and genocide. You seem to be of the belief the messiah was working on behalf of the colonizer, which explains why you see him as white like the romans. This is the very myth im trying to tackle with this topic.
Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the surrounding areas are in Asia, not Africa. Even then not all "Africans" are what we would normally call "black". Especially from northern Africa.
Israel is on the african continent. Dont let white supremacy tell you otherwise. Also then, asia was not all "brown" but many were black. In fact the first cities in asia were built by what we today call "black" folk. The greatest ever roman historian of the times wrote that the jews were black. Again, dont let white supremacy fool you.
Idont have to prove anything, it is the will of the Almighty youll have to ask him why he put Israel on africas plate. In fact Israel will never be in europe or asia EVER, its actually getting further and further away from asia and europe, thats what the great rift shows us in the scientific community.
This point should NOT BE a central one, in your thread but, since you are making it one, you are absolutely wrong in your conclusion. Yes, black olives (fully ripened) are black. "Green olives," as are "pickled," & put in the alcoholic drink called a, "martini," are the origin of the term, "olive-skinned." To point out that olives, further ripened, become black, is absolutely meaningless to the definition of the olive-skinned description. I am open to the possibility you propose; skin color is not a point I have investigated, vis a vis Jesus. It is only my assumption that his skin tone would have matched those of that general region today (not necessarily Israel, since it was resettled with European Jews, in its modern form). So, for example, Lebanese, Syrian, Jordanian people are neither black nor, "white." If you have a case to make that the historical Jesus was actually black, I am willing to consider it, but if the black olive argument is the best you've got, yours is an argument w/o merit, IMP. P.S.-- You may also be aware that the argument has been put forth that there never was ONE historical Jesus, but that he is a montage, composed with pieces of a number of different individuals. Though I don't ascribe to that belief, nor have I really delved into its proofs. I do accept that there are no extant records, other than the Bible's New Testament, to independently verify Jesus' identity. But if it turned out that there were a number of historical figures that were models for the literary fusion of Emmanuel/Jesus, that would at least raise your odds that at least one of them was black.
@Esau The, "IMP," in my post, above, was a typo, of my intended, "IMO." You probably realized that, but I hadn't quoted you, to send you an alert for that reply, anyway, so I'm posting this to serve in that double-capacity.
So youre of the opinion that population demographics dont change but are static. Hmm, fascinating stuff.
You like to make assumptions about others, I see. I am not of the opinion that ethnic demographics don't change, since these changes have been documented to have occurred. For instance, the Indo-European waves of migration from the Steppes of Central Asia to conquer areas throughout Europe & even in India, if I'm not mistaken. Or the Germanic Angle, Saxon, & Jute tribes which invaded & overran Britain. There are many such examples; the European invaders of North America, to give one more, obvious example. But 1) this is not the same as assuming that no populations, anywhere on the planet, have remained ethnically stable, long term, which would be just as blatantly incorrect (as in the case of the Chinese, the Japanese, many groups in Africa-- as the Yoruba people or the Dogan tribe-- and the Australian aborigines, off the top of my head) and 2) even granting that a population has changed (which I don't think is the case in the Mideast region we're discussing, for the time periods in question) does not automatically prove your point; that is, in fact, an idiotic argument. In that case, since we're saying that people in the Mideast today are no more likely to have had a similar ethnicity, 2000 years ago, according to you, as they are likely to have been black Africans, by the same, defective, token, one could say that it may have been Lilly-white people who inhabited the region at the time of Jesus. So that proves that Jesus looked like our white pictures of him, at least as well as your flaccid retort to me proves, therefore, he must have been black. I am getting the impression that you do not know how to, or care to, engage in a civilized discussion, much less debate. I told you that I was open to the possibility you suggest but that, to accept it I would, of course need some evidence. And your reply is-- after not even quoting the post to which you are replying, unless you somehow are drawing my views on ethnic migrations from my post about a typo-- to mischaracterize my perspective to make it seem flawed (which still would not be evidence of your contention)? If your intention is to drive away any who do not come to your thread, already sharing your opinion, you are very much on the right track, though I think your choosing of a debate forum for your purposes is a highly-questionable decision. Additionally, while I, personally, realize that all races have their share of as***les, any minority member of a society, I would think, should understand that the image they present to the society's majority is likely to have an over-sized impact, on the perception of that minority group, held by those with whom one interacts, who might likely have a somewhat limited number of one-on-one interactions from which to form their opinions of said minority. Naturally, there are those who couldn't care less how their own behavior might reflect on their race or ethnicity. That you would take the trouble to try to put forth this concept of Jesus having been black, however, might suggest that you are someone for whom society's image of his race has importance. I will bring to your attention, therefore, as an intended service, the fact that the way you are handling non-agreeing positions, is not doing any credit to your (assumed) race.
I don't worship statues or paintings. I worship character and spirit. And I have never considered Gods color when he lived or now. God is God...what else is there to know? Similarly I don't think about your color. I respond to you, your words, and what your words cause me to consider. My words as well are not any color. BTW, olives begin green and as they ripen they become darker. Commercially they are picked green and turned black with chemicals or in a bath of some sort. Furthermore, olive skinned means a tannish color range with green, yellow or golden undertones. It does not mean black. That said, Jesus may have been in the darker range, even black I suppose. Who knows. Is it even important? Personally I'm grateful for the European influence in Christianity because without it, there would be no mass translations into the various languages of the world, no printing press or mass production of scriptures, which would have left most of mankind essentially in the dark on the matter, slaves to a variety of superstitions and local traditions. Is it important to you that Jesus be black. And what would you think were he not? Have his doctrines no worth?
