Originally posted by Tinorangatiratanga
"In pictures and portraits of Christ by the early Christians he is uniformly represented as being black. To make this more certain a red tinge is given to the lips; and the only test in the Christian bible quoted by orthodox Christians as describing his complexion represents it as being black.
Can you provide a link to these pictures? Every picture I have seen
depicts Jesus as a swarthy Semite.
Solomon's declaration, I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem' (Sol, I, 5), is often cited as referring to Christ. According to the bible itself, then, Jesus Christ was a black man.
This is crap. The Song of Solomon is a dialogue.
Confer:
Bride: Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth!
More delightful is your love than wine! Your name spoken
is a spreading perfume--this is why the maidens love you. Draw me!
Daughters of Jerusalem: We will follw you eagerly!
Bride: Bring me, O king, to your chambers.
Daughters: With you we rejoice and exult, we extol your love;
it is beyond wine: how rightly you are loved!
Bride: I am as dark -- but lovely, O daughters of Jerusalem --
as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Salma. Do not stare at
me because I am swarthy, because the sun has burned me....
So, if you are claiming that 'Jesus' is the 'bride' then you also need
to claim that he wants have a man kiss him on the mouth and
that he wants to go up to the king's chamber. If you want to do that,
that's fine with me, but don't make any claims that this is the 'traditional
interpretation.'
Traditionally, despite what idiotic preacher wants to claim taking this
passage out of context, the Bride is thought to by symbolic of the
Church, the Bridegroom being Christ.
A quick skim through the churches listed by Sir Higgins is very revealing.
Cathedral at Moulins 12th-15th century icons.
Church at St. Lazaro 16th century building
Church of St. Stephen at Genoa 16th century building
St. Francisco at Pisa 13th century building.
This is archeological evidence? 1300 years after Christ?
Hardly. I know that there are 'black Madonna' paintings
and sculptures. So what? This proves nothing. There are
white ones too! There are a few made of copper. Was
Jesus copper? This is not evidence. This is a charade by
this so-called 'scholar.'
Here is a site if you want to do more research:
http://www.udayton.edu/mary/resources/blackm/blackm.html#tab
In any event, there is no reason to suggest that the Semtic line --
a people notoriously insular such that Jews from different tribes
of Israel wouldn't even intermarry -- had any more African influence
than it did in the 5th century (when, I suppose, the so-called 'lightening'
of the skin happened, by the absurd claims of your sources). Given
that 4th- and 5th-century depictions of Jesus, as well as earlier depictions
of Jews in general, show 'swarthy Semites,' I reject this 'evidence' you've
provided.
Let us suppose that at some future time he makes his second advent to the earth, as some Christians anticipate he will do, and that he comes in the character of a sable messiah, how would he be received by our Negro hating Christians of sensitive olfactory nerves. Would they worship a Negro God?
I don't believe 'God' is any 'color.' So, if he appears black or white,
or Latino (like I), then I would be surprised. Either way, it ought to
make no difference in terms of Christian 'worship.' If it does to any
Christian, then they've misunderstood Christianity.
However, just because it makes no difference, doesn't mean dubious
claims ought to be true.
If imaginary pictures, misappropriated Scripture passages, and second
millenium art represent the sum total of your evidence, then I will have
to conclude that, given the non-imaginary pictures and biographical details
of the Semite people, Jesus was a swarthy Semite, not a black African.
Nemesio
cistOriginally posted by NemesioTHE BIBLE ( THE WORD OF GOD) does excist whether or not you want it to or not.
There is no answer to this question because
there is no 'THE BIBLE,' like you like to believe.
There are translations of texts which compose
'A BIBLE,' but, as we have found, different people
value different sources and, as such, have different
understandings of NT theo-philosophy.
Nemesio
Originally posted by blindfaith101Editions of the Bible exist, with decisions about which
THE BIBLE ( THE WORD OF GOD) does excist whether or not you want it to or not.
word to use made by an editor or a group of editors,
based on which old source being preferable to which
other old source.
This is why there are different versions of the Bible.
Which edition of the Bible is 'THE BIBLE?' in your mind?
Nemesio
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaJESUS CHRIST, was born of the color of the people that lived in Israel, at that time. Every race see CHRIST the same as themselves, because He was. The only thing that matters is the fact that he came as Jew, to be the passover lamb, for all mankind.
how distorted the 'recorded' words and deeds of Jesus, must indeed be, if even his skin color has been so blatantly misrepresented. He was as of a 'black' man yet tell me of a church ANYWHERE in the US that depicts him as he truly was - as a 'BLACK'.
the simpleton reply is always, 'skin colour doesn't matter'.....ok, if it doesn't mat ...[text shortened]... - WHY THE DISTORTION THEN?
can 'The Word' be trusted if the 'Visuals' are all wrong?
Originally posted by darvlayBeing that you don't believe, one can understand how you feel. But as you walk tha road of life, that you are on, insult, condemm, or laugh all you want. You and all believers shall soon see and hear, what you refuse to believe, THE WORD OF GOD.
Congratulations on your life choices. They are very becoming for a close-minded sheep like yourself. You have chosen to become a part of a collective and cast off your individuality. You have chosen to forsake science, god's most impressive creation, for a life of ignorance. You have chosen to blindly believe, here's the rub, your CULT LEADER (a.k.a. y ...[text shortened]... the God of Israel.
Congratulations, BS101. You can see how we're all very envious of you.
Originally posted by TinorangatiratangaJESUS was a born Jew. MATTHEW 1:1-17
beg to differ, you will need to be historically correct here (as you actually skirt around & away from the base debate😉 )
there had been very little mixed (as in 'color'😉 marriages to 2000yrs ago. The Palestinians and Jews have been considerably 'lightened' by intermarriage to 'white' Cauacasians in the intervening 80- 100 generations - ...[text shortened]... interested in why you resist such a simple 'truth'- would such an admission sway your belief?
Originally posted by NemesioThe reason that there are so many translations,is there are so many languages and understandings.There will be noone who can say, that they didn't understand because, THE WORD OF GOD, was not written to their understanding.
Editions of the Bible exist, with decisions about which
word to use made by an editor or a group of editors,
based on which old source being preferable to which
other old source.
This is why there are different versions of the Bible.
Which edition of the Bible is 'THE BIBLE?' in your mind?
Nemesio
Originally posted by blindfaith101I can, without difficulty, name 7 different English
The reason that there are so many translations,is there are so many languages and understandings.There will be noone who can say, that they didn't understand because, THE WORD OF GOD, was not written to their understanding.
translations. I am assuming that English is your
primary language.
Which edition of the Bible do you use? Why is
your edition 'THE BIBLE' and other editions are
not?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI have 5 different translations of THE BIBLE and they are all translations of THE WORD OF GOD.
I can, without difficulty, name 7 different English
translations. I am assuming that English is your
primary language.
Which edition of the Bible do you use? Why is
your edition 'THE BIBLE' and other editions are
not?
Nemesio
Originally posted by blindfaith101Is that right?
I have 5 different translations of THE BIBLE and they are all translations of THE WORD OF GOD.
Consider:
St Mark 4:19
KJV: ...and the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of
riches, and the lusts of other things entier in, choke the word
and it become unfruitful.
NIV: ...but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth
and the desires for other things come in and choke the word,
making it unfruitful.
NAB: ...but worldly anxiety, the lure of riches, and the craving
for other things intrude and choke the word, and it bears no fruit.
Is it the 'cares' of the 'world,' the 'worries' of this 'life,' or 'worldly
anxiety' which should concern us? Is it the 'deceitfulness' or riches,
or the 'lure' of riches?
This is one of many, many examples of varied translations, each of
which has a slightly different meaning, and a slightly different mandate.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioEach translation fits to the different understanding. They all testify to the comming of THE SON OF GOD,JESUS CHRIST. Who came to this world as a man. Who lived a life without sin. Who was accused, indicted, arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and died on the cross at Calvery. Was burried in a grave for three days, and came back to life. And now sits on the throne of grace, with his father, THE MOST HIGH GOD. All versions, languges, and translations testify of those facts.
Is that right?
Consider:
St Mark 4:19
KJV: ...and the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of
riches, and the lusts of other things entier in, choke the word
and it become unfruitful.
NIV: ...but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth
and the desires for other things come in and choke the word,
making it unfruitful.
...[text shortened]... s, each of
which has a slightly different meaning, and a slightly different mandate.
Nemesio
Originally posted by blindfaith101I started painting my daughter's room yesterday. She picked out the color. Yellow. Had I come back with a gallon of blue paint she might say, "Hey! I thought I asked for yellow. I want yellow!" To which I could say, "It's exactly the same as yellow. It covers the wall. It has the same chemical make-up. It cost the same as yellow. So it's the same as blue."
Each translation fits to the different understanding. They all testify to the comming of THE SON OF GOD,JESUS CHRIST. Who came to this world as a man. Who lived a life without sin. Who was accused, indicted, arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and died on the cross at Calvery. Was burried in a grave for three days, and came back to life. An ...[text shortened]... his father, THE MOST HIGH GOD. All versions, languges, and translations testify of those facts.
That's is what you are sounding like in this argument.