was merely trying to get to the thrust of your counter argument which appears to be the common position of "the jews would have looked like they did 2,000 years ago" which would suggest that youre implying that the most colonized and fought over piece of land on earth somehow is also one a a VERY few elite group of regions to have maintained its ethnic demographic EVEN THOUGH THE VERY PPLS HISTORY BOOK TELLS US THEY WERE ALL EXILED as well as agreed upon theological accounts that suggest a mass genocide took place there also. is this so? oh and my determintion about the biblical israelites ethnic makeup comes from historic accounts of the time, not some wicked whiteashing of history during the last 500 years that you seem to pin your hopes on.
very well and your position is thouroughly commended, however, the skin colour of the biblical israelites is of very real importance to western society in general. they keep up the masquerade because they know if the REAL JEWS find out their true identity then it could very well lead to the total collapse of western civilzation even quicker than it already is descending into chaos.
just did provide proof, didnt you see it... The almighty put ISRAEL on AFRICAS PLATE, not europes or asias. its a GEOLOGICAL FACT that israel is on the african continent so you can take your white nationalist geopolitical ramblings to someone who credits white supremecist rhetoric because idont.
How can someone of your ilk accuse me of "white nationalist" or "white supremacist rhetoric" If you know how to read, read the FIRST LINE. Case closed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
im not accusing you of being a white nationalist, im accusing the media and institutions that push white nationalist fallacies, like the name "middle east" for example. nothing but eurocentric propaganda. Israel is on the african continent, THAT IS A GEOLOGICAL FACT THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE OVER THE NEXT MILLION YEARS. im not interested in the eurocentric sources youre pointing me towards.
Again, I don't know where you get your ideas about my motivations, but they are certainly not from the text (unless you mistook as sincere, my parodying of your implied argument of: if ethnic demographics change over time, anywhere in the world, therefore this proves Jesus was black). Nonsense! (I don't think he was lilly-white, either). The fact is, I have no HOPES to pin on any version of history. I am someone who is interested in Truth, but what that truth is, regarding Jesus's skin color, is of no relevance or consequence to me. To start off by dispensing with some of your contentions: it is odd that you base your claims on historical texts, but do not quote them (at least in the early part of your thread). Also, I am not aware of a full genocide of the Jews. They were exiled, at one point, but later returned, if we are to trust biblical texts. And regardless, since your thread only concerns general skin tone, there is no reason to differentiate between Hebrews and the surrounding peoples-- Philistines, Canaanites, etc.-- who would fill in any areas vacated by Hebrews. But in this is some potential evidence for your hoped-for conclusion, when one imagines the common skin tone of Palestinians. Still, this is brown, not black. So, using what is known of history, do you have a case? Not based on the predominant Hebrew population, at that time, I don't believe. That part of the world, despite all its great wars, both inter-regional conquests as well as foreign invasions-- as from Macedonia, Rome, Mongolia, the Ottoman Turks, up through the English-- has stayed rather stable as to general ethnicity, probably due, in good part, to its climate & topography. The Ancient Egyptians are the forebears of modern Egyptians; the ancient Persians are the ancestors of present-day Iranians; Sumerians, Babylonians, and Ninevah's Assyrians still form the composite of the people of Iraq, and so forth. Even with displacements & intermixing, they were all of the same cast, so far as your question of skin color goes, with the exception that the North African Egyptians are a darker brown color. And the Hebrews supposedly spent time in Egypt. Regardless, it is not at all inconceivable that there was congress of the Egyptians & perhaps Ethiopians, for example, with the Hebrew nation. So there is a real possibility of mixed-race Hebrews, with darker brown skin than the majority of Middle Easterners. I have been led to believe there is even a quote to support this theory, in the Book of John, I think, which describes Jesus as having hair like wool. You might be interested in finding that, to have something of substance to support your argument. That quote includes something about his skin color, as well; if I recall correctly, it is compared to bronze. Concluding, then: while there would nothing too farfetched about the idea that Jesus had some North African (as Egyptian) heritage, making him a darker brown than the majority of the population, this could in no way be confused with the BLACK color of all Africans further South of the Mediterranean peoples of North Africa. In other words, that Jesus was N. African brown, is believable. That he was Nigerian or Congolese black, is not, on its face, & so would require very strong proof, which does not exist, as far as I am aware. Therefore, as this seems important to you, I hope the thought of Jesus having nappy hair & brown skin is enough to satisfy you.
There was a genocide of the jews during the roman israelite wars; These texts, combined with the relics of those who hid in caves along the western side of the Dead Sea, tells us a great deal. What is clear from the evidence of both skeletal remains and artefacts is that the Roman assault on the Jewish population of the Dead Sea was so severe and comprehensive that no one came to retrieve precious legal documents, or bury the dead. Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction - oxford university. if you refuse to differentiate between the ethnicities then consider this, the canaanites were descendants of Ham. Hams sons were Egypt, Ethiopia and Canaan according to Gen 10. Also according to Gen 10, Nimrod, a son of kush and grandson of ham was the builder of the first cities in Sumer (mesopotamia). So your insistence that the ethnicities of this region never changed is not only foolish but factually incorrect, as if it needed to be stated. Your contention that if the Israelites were black then they werent "Nigerian black" whatever the hell that means, disregards the true nature of nigerian society and shows a total disregard for west africas diverse population, the most diverse ppl in the world when it comes to ethnic make up. youre just engaging in stereo typical colourisms. Nigerian ppl range from the most lily white "black" ppl you can imagine to the most dark black. its just semantics, nobody cares how "black" the israelites were, just that they were black of all shades and if you want to imagine the israelites looking like this... ...then thats fine. you seem to take great umbrage that the israelites were similar in appearance to west africans. thats very curious given the relationship between west africa and the Judeans in antiquity.
you can stick with your outdated eurocentric opinions, ill go with contemporary scientific facts thanks.
You are not interested in simple, geograhpical facts that school kids learn before their teens. Believe whatever crap you choose. Just dont expect us to.
The expression Middle East is an old British label based on a British Western perception of the East divided into middle or near and far, which are two relative concepts having Britain as a referring point. The expression is a projection from outside, not emerging from inside, conceiving the other in relation to the self as it was always the case in classical orientalism, the periphery in relation to the center, which is already a power relationship expressed in cognition.- Hassan Hanafi, Cairo.
Well damn, we need you to replace all the cartographers on earth, evidently they are all wrong and you alone are right....damn, not everyday I meet such a special person....
