Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

hey!_Zeus · Mar 2, 2006, 11:53 PM

Jezuz freaks, make me ill.

He may have been a cool dude but a god he wasn't.

Doofy · Mar 3, 2006, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Mentioning Iraq is a thread derailment, Doofy. Just ask Zimphy, err Kevin. Prepare to be chastised for going off-topic.

No. It's a valid demonstration of how "cold hard proof" doesn't need to be in existence for people to form an educated (or non-educated) opinion/evaluation of something.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Now, back to the point raised. A claim was made that Jesus thought homosexuality was wrong. But, if we go with what Jesus actually says, and assume that what he says is a reflection of what he thinks, then we are stuck again in a logical inconsistency because Jesus never mentions homosexuality. So, we are back to needing the OT for an explicit reference to homosexuality as being wrong. But, you've already said the OT doesn't apply to gentiles. So, how would you explain this discrepancy.

Jesus never mentions that you shouldn't torture kittens for fun either. For that matter, neither does the OT. Does that mean that it's OK to do so or does the conscience of most people prevent them from engaging in this activity?

That's where the law's at these days - it's in your conscience, it's inside all of us, the knowledge of right and wrong.

So I guess it goes to what the individual does. For example, there's a recent post on here somewhere going on about a gay guy who likes to seduce straight guys. Is this guy doing it because he actually really likes the act of doing so or is he doing it because his conscience tells him he shouldn't so by doing so he gets a thrill out of doing "wrong"?
Will God punish those who're gay but act normal or will he punish those who go out of their way to try and corrupt everything else around them? I suspect the latter.

I'm not particularly bothered what gays get up to. Whether they're in the right or wrong is between them and God. As long as they don't start molesting each other in front of me or trying to promote their ways to my kids, I really don't care.

Doofy · Mar 3, 2006, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

Jezuz freaks, make me ill.

So, cancer, scurvy, diabetes, what? Be specific.

dcmacdaddy · Mar 3, 2006, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Jesus never mentions that you shouldn't torture kittens for fun either. For that matter, neither does the OT. Does that mean that it's OK to do so or does the conscience of most people prevent them from engaging in this activity?

That's where the law's at these days - it's in your conscience, it's inside all of us, the knowledge of right and wrong.

So I guess it goes to what the individual does. For example, there's a recent post on here somewhere going on about a gay guy who likes to seduce straight guys. Is this guy doing it because he actually really likes the act of doing so or is he doing it because his conscience tells him he shouldn't so by doing so he gets a thrill out of doing "wrong"?
Will God punish those who're gay but act normal or will he punish those who go out of their way to try and corrupt everything else around them? I suspect the latter.

I'm not particularly bothered what gays get up to. Whether they're in the right or wrong is between them and God. As long as they don't start molesting each other in front of me or trying to promote their ways to my kids, I really don't care.

But all your talk of "your conscience" goes against what Maury was saying about the Bible being an absolute authority on these issues. You have been using your line of reasoning to support a stance Maury took regarding homosexuality. Yet the line of reasoning you are using would be rejected by Maury himself as it is not based on the Word of God from the Bible. Do you see no contradiction there? Maury would see your stance as equally faulty to my stance or someone else's who doesn't use the Bible to form their views on homosexuality.

Doofy · Mar 3, 2006, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

But all your talk of "your conscience" goes against what Maury was saying about the Bible being an absolute authority on these issues. You have been using your line of reasoning to support a stance Maury took regarding homosexuality. Yet the line of reasoning you are using would be rejected by Maury himself as it is not based on the Word of God from the Bible. Do you see no contradiction there? Maury would see your stance as equally faulty to my stance or someone else's who doesn't use the Bible to form their views on homosexuality.

I'm not Maury - I can't answer that.

If Maury's conscience leads him to believe differently than I do then that's his deal. As long as he's doing what he feels is right and accepts Jesus then he's sorted.

There's a passage about this very thing in the NT - what one Christian feels is right may not feel right for another. Neither is wrong as long as they're acting how they feel guided to act.

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 3, 2006, 01:42 AM

Just as a PS, I wanted an answer for the people who asked. I knew this was the answer. My dad's a preacher at a fundamental literal Christian "church." I went to meetings three times a week until I was 18, and can quote you all 36 verses of John 3 off by heart.

greg

Taliesin · Mar 3, 2006, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Now, back to the point raised. A claim was made that Jesus thought homosexuality was wrong. But, if we go with what Jesus actually says, and assume that what he says is a reflection of what he thinks, then we are stuck again in a logical inconsistency because Jesus never mentions homosexuality. So, we are back to needing the OT for an explicit reference to homosexuality as being wrong. But, you've already said the OT doesn't apply to gentiles. So, how would you explain this discrepancy.

Actually there is no inconsistency at all. Jesus didn't mention it because he was preaching to jews that already followed that divine rule of not engaging in sinful sexuality. Every sexual intercourse outside of marriage was forbidden, and marriage was only allowed between a man and a woman:

Matthew 19:

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Jesus was sent to the jews, in order to collect back the lost sheep to God's path, ie. in order to bring them insight as to in what ways they deviated and how to reverse it.

Taliesin

Doofy · Mar 3, 2006, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Every sexual intercourse outside of marriage was forbidden

I don't agree with this assertion. If sex outside marriage was outlawed, why is there a specific need to mention "when the woman is betrothed" in the passages about rape and adultery above?

Please quote chapter and verse and I'll stand corrected.

Taliesin · Mar 3, 2006, 07:49 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I don't agree with this assertion. If sex outside marriage was outlawed, why is there a specific need to mention "when the woman is betrothed" in the passages about rape and adultery above?

Please quote chapter and verse and I'll stand corrected.

Deuternomy 22:

Marriage Violations
13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [b] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Taliesin

Kevin · Mar 3, 2006, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Moderator

Ha! This is your answer??

That's your cold hard evidence?

Did you not read the page? That isn't the only thing that was said.

BTW Jesus also didn't say pedophilia was wrong. Do you think he thinks it is?

Jesus said he came to fulfill a promise. Not replace God's moral laws.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Mentioning Iraq is a thread derailment, Doofy. Just ask Zimphy, err Kevin. Prepare to be chastised for going off-topic.

No, because he wasn't attempting to argue about IRaq. He was giving an example.

We went over this before.

Doofy · Mar 3, 2006, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Deuternomy 22:

That's a stretch.

RAILhead · Mar 3, 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Can one accept God if only exposed to him through his Creation and not through his Word?

I've already covered that.

RAILhead · Mar 3, 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by itai195

The Bible also says that if a rape victim doesn't cry out for help she should be stoned to death.

When you grow up and learn to put things context, we can talk about this.

Dakar · Mar 3, 2006, 10:30 AM

Does these mean Jesus could dunk?

"Jesus from the baseline... 360 windmill jam! I bet Pontious Pilate didn't see that coming!"

RAILhead · Mar 3, 2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

But that was exactly Maury's point. He is stating that it is NOT up to the individual "to make a judgement call using his own common sense and conscience". He was advocating using the Word of God, in the Bible, as one's guide for making judgments. Yet, part of the Bible state homosexuality is wrong and other parts of the Bible state to stone to death a rape victim if she doesn't cry out.

So, does any part of the OT apply to Christians and if not, why is it in the Christian Bible? Or, more accurately, why do YOU think it is in the Christian Bible if it applies only to the Jews?

(I've read some of the writings of the Church Fathers--particularly Augustine and Aquinas--on what they think about the significance of the OT in the Christian Bible but I would like to hear someone else's take on its significance, especially someone who discounts it as not applying to gentiles.)

I never made that my point -- you totally and completely missed it.

The Bible is God's book for His children, filled with stories, events and rules. As we grow in our personal relationship with Him by learning His Word, studying it, we begin to have our lives and minds and thoughts transformed by It. This transformation of our thoughts, if they are Christ-centered, is what dictates how we live our lives.

As someone said earlier, only an idiot would say that "since the Bible doesn't say you can kill kitten for fun, that must mean it's okay." Or "since the Bible doesn't say you can't cut your neighbor's son's fingers off, it must be okay."

Some you people are so purposefully obtuse it's laughable. You ask for concise and logical explanations, but you fail to actually think about what you're saying. TO put it simply, the Bible tells us that God created Man and then created for him, Woman. God ordained their relationship to represent God and the Church, Man and Woman are the examples of God's opinion and relationship to His church. God "created" marriage in which a man will leave his family and cling to his wife. Yaddah yaddah yaddah. Extrapolate further -- come on, you can do it! -- and you'll eventually come to the conclusion, along with loads of other Scripture verses, that Man was meant to be with Woman, and that Man was not meant to be with Man, nor Woman with Woman. Done deal. That's without even referencing the verses specifically referring to homosexuality.

Y3a · Mar 3, 2006, 10:58 AM

All this blather explains why Jesus is or isn't black?

Wiskedjak · Mar 3, 2006, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I've already covered that.

So ... no?

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Mar 3, 2006, 11:50 AM

<Phil Hendrie>
He was profiled and tailed by the Romans, and called everybody "Brother."

OF COURSE he was black!

</Phil Hendrie>

Moderator · Mar 3, 2006, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

BTW Jesus also didn't say pedophilia was wrong. Do you think he thinks it is?

What a stupid stupid argument...

ebuddy · Mar 3, 2006, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Moderator

What a stupid stupid argument...

...and such a substantive response.

Monique · Mar 3, 2006, 03:43 PM

Most of Romans has nothing to do with Jesus or God; it was a letter written by Paul to the Romans. And if Paul and Jesus are the same person, then it comes from God (according to the Christian faith). But, there is nowhere in the Bible that says clearly that Jesus spits on homosexuals.

hey!_Zeus · Mar 3, 2006, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by RAILhead

When you grow up

You lose!

RAILhead · Mar 3, 2006, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

Most of Romans has nothing to do with Jesus or God; it was a letter written by Paul to the Romans. And if Paul and Jesus are the same person, then it comes from God (according to the Christian faith). But, there is nowhere in the Bible that says clearly that Jesus spits on homosexuals.

Uhh...Paul and Jesus aren't the same person, Monique.

Quebec libre!

ebuddy · Mar 3, 2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Monique

Moniqueisms

Kevin · Mar 3, 2006, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Moderator

What a stupid stupid argument...

No that wasn't a stupid argument, What IS a stupid argument is those saying that Jesus wasn't against homosexuality because he never specifically said so.

Jesus didn't specifically say he was against lots of things.

What he DID say was he wasn't their to replace the moral laws of God and those before him.

hey!_Zeus · Mar 4, 2006, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

No that wasn't a stupid argument, What IS a stupid argument is those saying that Jesus wasn't against homosexuality because he never specifically said so.

Jesus didn't specifically say he was against lots of things.

What he DID say was he wasn't their to replace the moral laws of God and those before him.

Jesus never said anything. People say he said things by writing about what he supposedly said 50 to 80 years after this guy died. Oh and they didn't have videos or tape recorders then.

Get it right or your posts don't hold sh!t.

Dig Thumper!?

Kevin · Mar 4, 2006, 02:27 AM

Well you are more than likely to believe what you want to believe. I will not stop you.

I believe I did get it right. You disagree. We can't prove each other wrong.

GOOD NEWS! One day we will both know the truth.

Moderator · Mar 4, 2006, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well you are more than likely to believe what you want to believe. I will not stop you.

I believe I did get it right. You disagree. We can't prove each other wrong.

GOOD NEWS! One day we will both know the truth.

With regards to the gay issue..I already do. That you need to create this convuluted justification of your stance says it all. You can't point to the OT because there is A LOT of stuff in the OT that is archaic and barbaric...and that clearly Jesus was not a big fan of...your argument is empty.

You're trying your best to justify hate...2 people who genuinely love each other are just that..whether both have cocks or tits or not is as irrelevant as saying 2 Blondes together is wrong ...there is no wrongness whatsoever outside of what it says in the Bible.

But saying something's wrong "because the bible says so" is some circular exercise is..ehem.."fuzzy thinking" as you like to say.

Tell me why its wrong, without pointing to the Old Test and maybe I could listen to you.

Kevin · Mar 4, 2006, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by Moderator

With regards to the gay issue..I already do. That you need to create this convuluted justification of your stance says it all.

How dishonest. I didn't "Create" anything.

You can't point to the OT because there is A LOT of stuff in the OT that is archaic and barbaric...and that clearly Jesus was not a big fan of...your argument is empty.

Your lack of knowledge about what Jesus has said does not surprise me. Nor does your lack of knowledge of what the Bible says in general. That a lone isn't bad I guess.. but when you attack others that do, it makes you look a bit foolish.

You simply will not take anything anyone says on the matter that doesn't go along with your thinking.

You're trying your best to justify hate...

More dishonesty. Hate has nothing to do with it. I am against adultery too, but I don't hate heterosexuals.

It's a very dishonest and slimy thing to project hate, where it simply does not exist.

2 people who genuinely love each other are just that..whether both have cocks or tits or not is as irrelevant as saying 2 Blondes together is wrong ...there is no wrongness whatsoever outside of what it says in the Bible.

Yes, I know that is your opinion. You hold that opinion. That does not bother me. But it is certainly not factual.

But saying something's wrong "because the bible says so" is some circular exercise is..ehem.."fuzzy thinking" as you like to say.

Secularly it is fuzzy thinking yes. You'll get no argument from me.

Tell me why its wrong, without pointing to the Old Test and maybe I could listen to you.

I could care less if you "listen to me" you either accept the facts, or you do not. You a lone make that decision.

Kevin · Mar 4, 2006, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

Jezuz freaks, make me ill.

If someone were to say "Fags make me ill" or "Niggers make me ill"

What would you think of them?

Yeah, doesn't make you look too good does it.

Jawbone54 · Mar 5, 2006, 12:36 PM

Since my first week here was nothing more than debating homosexuality as a sin, I'm staying out of this one, except for one quick comment...

Validating liberaly hypocrisy is as simple as pointing out their general attitudes towards Christians.

Moderator · Mar 6, 2006, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Fags make me ill
Niggers make me ill

Kevin. please. Lets keep this civil. Your own feelings about gays or blacks are your business but there's no need to spread that stuff around here.

Jawbone54 · 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by Moderator

Kevin. please. Lets keep this civil. Your own feelings about gays or blacks are your business but there's no need to spread that stuff around here.

He's not a racist, Mod. He was just making a good point. Don't try to turn it into something that it quite obviously isn't.

deltacav19 · Mar 16, 2006, 11:04 AM

i do believe jesus was hebrew. which would not make him black right.
or at leats thats wut i grew up understanding.

deltacav19 · Mar 16, 2006, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

Jesus never said anything. People say he said things by writing about what he supposedly said 50 to 80 years after this guy died. Oh and they didn't have videos or tape recorders then.

Get it right or your posts don't hold sh!t.

Dig Thumper!?

didn't he also have a realation ship with Mary Magdline the one who sit to HIS right at the last supper. and if u think im wrong look at the picture of the last supper. also the catholic church would not have tried to cover it up if there wasn't some truth.

analogika · Mar 16, 2006, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by deltacav19 in his sig

[FONT="Century Gothic"][/FONT]Our army is the Hammer of GOD!!!

No. THEIR army is the Hammer of God.

YOURS is the "Beacon of Freedom".

Gotta get your terminology right if you want people to be able to tell you apart.

Jawbone54 · Mar 16, 2006, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by deltacav19

didn't he also have a realation ship with Mary Magdline the one who sit to HIS right at the last supper. and if u think im wrong look at the picture of the last supper. also the catholic church would not have tried to cover it up if there wasn't some truth.

Someone's been reading The Da Vinci Code. Got news for you, pal. The supposed "research" proving Jesus' affair with Mary of Magdalene has been discredited for a decade now.

In short: wrong.

Macrobat · Mar 16, 2006, 01:29 PM

Not to mention that the person to Jesus' immediate right in "The Last Supper" is Judas Iscariot - hence the "pulling away" from the traitor.

BTW, you do realize that the painting is not an eyewitness acount, do you not?

Jawbone54 · Mar 16, 2006, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Macrobat

BTW, you do realize that the painting is not an eyewitness acount, do you not?

*ding ding*

deltacav19 · Mar 16, 2006, 02:37 PM

thank you for clearing that up man!!!

olePigeon · Mar 16, 2006, 03:22 PM

Jesus was black, here's proof:

70 ... Then Jesus replied, 'Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!' 70 1/2 Upon which Judas spake, 'Nigga please!' (John 6:70-70 1/2)

Jawbone54 · Mar 16, 2006, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Jesus was black, here's proof:

70 ... Then Jesus replied, 'Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!' 70 1/2 Upon which Judas spake, 'Nigga please!' (John 6:70-70 1/2)

Hmm...

OAW · 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by deltacav19

i do believe jesus was hebrew. which would not make him black right.
or at leats thats wut i grew up understanding.

That is what most "grow up understanding" in the Western world. Consider, however, what some ancient historians had to say about the physical appearance of the relevant populations ....

Herodotus - Book II

It is in fact manifest that the Colchidians are Egyptian by race ... several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and kinky hair (to tell the truth this proves nothing for other peoples have them too) and secondly, and more reliably for the reason that alone among mankind the Egyptians and the Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial. The Phoenicians and Syrians of Palestine themselves admit that they learnt the practice from the Egyptians while the Syrians in the river Thermodon and Pathenios region and their neighbors the Macrons say they learnt it recently from the Colchidians. These are the only races which practice circumcision and it is observable that they do it in the same way as the Egyptians. As between the Egyptians themselves and the Ethiopians I could not say which taught the other the practice for among them it is quite clearly a custom of great antiquity. As to the custom having been learnt through their Egyptian connections, a further strong proof to my mind is that all those Phoenicians trading to Greece cease to treat the pudenda after the Egyptian manner and do not subject their offspring to circumcision.

Aristotle - Physiognomy

Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two.

Lucian - Navigations

He introduces two Greeks, Lycinus and Timolaus, who start a conversation.

Lycinus (describing a young Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin. . . his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not a freeman.'

Timolaus: 'But that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood. It is the exact opposite of the custom of our ancestors who thought it seemly for old men to secure their hair with a gold brooch to keep it in place'.

Diodorus - Universal History, Book III

The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies', which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent. . . They add that the Egyptians have received from them, as from authors and their ancestors, the greater part of their laws.

Ammianus Marcellinus - Book XXII

". . .the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look." He also confirms the evidence already cited about the Colchoi: "Beyond these lands are the heartlands of the Camaritae and the Phasis with its swifter stream borders the country of the Colchoi, an ancient race of Egyptian origin.'

Origins of the Ancient Egyptians - Cheik Anta Diop

A reference from the BBC ...

The Peoples of the Nile Valley

An mural depicting how the Egyptians saw themselves in contrast to other neighboring peoples ....

"Four peoples of the world: Syrian, Nubian, Libyan, and Egyptian. From the tomb of Seti I."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of...ient_Egyptians

Now what does all this talk about Egyptians and Ethiopians have to do with whether or not Jesus was black you say? Well Jesus was said to be a Hebrew ... so let's examine how the ancient Hebrews were described.

Tacitus - The Histories

Some say that the Jews were fugitives from the island of Crete, who settled on the nearest coast of Africa about the time when Saturn was driven from his throne by the power of Jupiter. Evidence of this is sought in the name. There is a famous mountain in Crete called Ida; the neighboring tribe, the Idaei, came to be called Judaei by a barbarous lengthening of the national name. Others assert that in the reign of Isis the overflowing population of Egypt, led by Hierosolymus and Judas, discharged itself into the neighboring countries. Many, again, say that they were a race of Ethiopian origin, who in the time of king Cepheus were driven by fear and hatred of their neighbors to seek a new dwelling-place. Others describe them as an Assyrian horde who, not having sufficient territory, took possession of part of Egypt, and founded cities of their own in what is called the Hebrew country, lying on the borders of Syria. Others, again, assign a very distinguished origin to the Jews, alleging that they were the Solymi, a nation celebrated in the poems of Homer, who called the city which they founded Hierosolyma after their own name. Most writers, however, agree in stating that once a disease, which horribly disfigured the body, broke out over Egypt; that king Bocchoris, seeking a remedy, consulted the oracle of Hammon, and was bidden to cleanse his realm, and to convey into some foreign land this race detested by the gods.

Some other items to note from Biblical tradition ...

Ham's sons were said to have fathered the peoples of Africa. Of Ham's four sons, Canaan fathered the Canaanites; Mizraim the Egyptians; Cush the Cushites and Phut Phutites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic

By far, Egypt and Ethiopia (Cush) are mentioned more often in the Bible than any other lands. Joseph, one of the 12 sons of Jacob and progenitor of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, was sold into slavery in Egypt as a young boy by his brothers and went on to become governor and a trusted aide to Pharaoh. Now when his brothers who had not seen him since he was a small boy encountered him in Egypt as the powerful governor ... they did not recognize him. He appeared to them as just another Egyptian! Which means that they as his relatives would have been phenotypically indistinguishable from Egyptians themselves. Then, of course, there is the whole "400 years enslaved in Egypt" thing which began for the Hebrews in a time after the death of Joseph and ended with Moses and the exodus. In the interim, to suggest widespread intermingling is certainly not a stretch. Moses himself was raised as a prince of Egypt. Again, it is highly unlikely that this could have been done if he looked "foreign". He had to have looked like "one of the family" so to speak.

Some other miscellaneous biblical references ...

Amos 9:7

Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?

Lamentations 5:10

"Our skin was black like an oven, because of the terrible famine."

Song of Solomon 1:5-6

"I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept."

Now the passage above is attributed to King Solomon himself. The son of David. Who went on to do this ...

Menelik I first Emperor of Ethiopia, traditionally believed to be the son of King Solomon of ancient Israel and Makeda, Queen of Sheba. According to Ethiopian legends he was born in the province of Hamasien in Eritrea. Tradition credits him with bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Ethiopia, following a visit to Jerusalem to meet his father upon reaching adulthood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menelik_I_of_Ethiopia

Now tie that in to the origins of the Ethiopian Jews, often referred to as Falashas, who trace their lineage as follows:

The Ethiopian legend described in the Kebra Negast relates that Ethiopians are descendants of Israelite tribes who came to Ethiopia with Menelik I, alleged to be the son of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (or Makida, in the legend). The legend relates that Menelik, as an adult, returned to his father in Jerusalem, and then resettled in Ethiopia, and that he took with him the Ark of the Covenant.

Now let me tie this all to Jesus with the following reference ...

Matthew 2:13-15

"And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son"

Keep in mind that during the time of Jesus Israel was under Roman occupation. Herod was the Roman governor who ruled this territory. He is said to have wanted to kill Jesus when he was an infant, so Joseph packed up Mary and Jesus and hid out in Egypt. In the meantime Herod sent out his men to kill all the male Hebrew children 2 years or younger in Bethlehem just to cover his bases. Having said all that, the point is that Jesus could "blend in" in Egypt because as we've already covered ... and as the historical authors attested .... the Egyptians and Ethiopians were black and the Hebrews were commonly surmised to be of Egyptian or Ethiopian origin.

Let me end this by saying that race and ethnicity are two related but not necessarily synonymous things. First and foremost, "race" is a social construct that has little to no basis in biology as recent DNA analyses have confirmed. Nevertheless, it is a categorization concept that does exist and is commonly based upon phenotypical characteristics such as skin color, hair texture, and facial features. Having said that, "ethnicity" refers to the state of belonging to a social group based upon shared national or cultural traditions. The ancient Hebrews were not a "race" in the commonly used sense of the term. They were simply one "ethnic group" (based upon language and religion) among many in that particular region. So being Hebrew ("ethnically") and being Black ("racially") are not mutually exclusive ... just as being Hispanic and being Black (or white) are not mutually exclusive. Which is why it's so stupid to have Hispanic listed as a "race" on government forms ... but I digress!

The point is that one shouldn't make the mistake of observing the "race" of those who today are "ethnically" Jewish and assume that the same situation existed in ancient times.

OAW

olePigeon · Mar 16, 2006, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

That is what most "grow up understanding" in the Western world. Consider, however, what some ancient historians had to say about the physical appearance of the relevant populations ....

*snip*

My answer was funnier.

analogika · Mar 16, 2006, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by deltacav19 in his sig

U.S. Army, The most powerful Army in the world!!!

What happened to the "Hammer of GOD!!!"?

deltacav19 · Mar 17, 2006, 05:39 AM

thank you much, That cleared somethings up for me, and olepigeon?
thats was pretty damn funny
lol

mania · Mar 17, 2006, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Maflynn

First,
Jesus wasn't blond and blue eye. People from that region just didn't have taht complextion. If you look at the inhabatents of the middle east today they probably are closest to what Jesus might have looked like. Is that black, they'd disagree, are they "white" in the western civiliation connotation, no.

Second.
People are failing to see the trees through the forest. His skin color does not matter, his message does. Agree with the message or not but he came here to do die on the cross for our sins. Who cares about the color of his eyes, or his skin, that's not what is important but what he did was.

Here Here! let me take this moment to critisize Mel Gibsons choice for Jesus in his movie - SO EUROMERICAN! this perpetuates racism and isolationism - as if Jesus was an American and America is Gods chosen country. GET OVER IT RED STATES!

mania · Mar 17, 2006, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

snipped...

dang dude - well thought out.

Kevin · Mar 17, 2006, 08:22 PM

mania what does Gibson have to do with the red states?

bizarre rant that was.

mania · Mar 17, 2006, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

mania what does Gibson have to do with the red states?

bizarre rant that was.

I guess I feel that the American Christians always portray Jesus as an anglo male with long hair and a beard. He probably look much more Jewish with curly black hair and a big nose - who knows - I just don't like the stereotype - and Gibson perpetuates this with his movie.