Anti-Bible

Imperator Severn · Post by **Imperator Severn** » Thu May 08, 2003 9:56 pm

Jesus is not a god. He is not God. He was a historical individual, and I'd take accounts of what he said as more or less factual. Whether he performed miracles is debateable, but he was a human being.

I don't think it matters what he looked like, though. It was the fact that he was a common man that was important to begin with, so if you want to think of him as black, or chinese, or as an anime chick, it doesn't really matter. But to make a declarative statement that he was, in fact, something that he was not is wrong and stupid. Art is one thing, science another.

The Forum Hillbilly · Post by **The Forum Hillbilly** » Fri May 09, 2003 3:02 am

Actually, now Jesus, God, and the holy ghost, is all one, but they are differnt, at the same time. O,o if that makes sence

Post by **Martin Blank** » Fri May 09, 2003 8:42 am

[quote="Imperator Severn";p="70611"]The earliest religions were worship of Tangible gods. The beliefs of most Amerindian tribes is a good example of this. As civilization set in, more complex ideas were formulated, and gods became more human. (Ancient Egypt.)[/quote]
Mmmm.... Not always. The empires that formed in Mezoamerica and South America from the Olmec to the Inca had gods, but the tribes of North America, generally speaking, practice(d) pantheism, where the concept of god doesn't exist in a western sense. While they do speak of Mother Earth and Father Sky, it's not in a god or even a spirit sense, but as two aspects of nature, which is, for want of a better term, their god.

Note, though, that as the groups moved more towards formalized city life, certain aspects of nature became more important and pronounced, and evolved over time into the gods we have come to see in the artwork of the empires. This could lend support to the notion that as more people began to be associated with a given area, organized religion with a more formally codified structure became more important in controlling the masses.

radicaledward · Post by **radicaledward** » Fri May 09, 2003 12:55 pm

Would you care to go into detail on why/how/where/when/what etc on Jesus being black? I would like to see your sources/evidence for this.

ok well where was jesus born?
well have you ever seen a white man from that area?
and i'm not talking like moved there or his mom is british i'm talking all out!

it that enough?
i ment to type that before but i was in a rush.

Imperator Severn · Post by **Imperator Severn** » Fri May 09, 2003 1:02 pm

ok well where was jesus born?
well have you ever seen a white man from that area?
and i'm not talking like moved there or his mom is british i'm talking all out!

Near the sea of Galilee.

Yes. The people of that area are Semites. Arabs and hebrews are of the same stock.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Fri May 09, 2003 2:01 pm

[quote="radicaledward";p="71143"]ok well where was jesus born?[/quote]
Map of Israel

You'll notice Bethlehem just a little south of Jeruselem, well inside an area dominated by Semitic peoples for thousands of years. While blacks were certainly not unknown to people of the time, biblical scholars accept that Jesus was a Semitic Jew, and hence not black.

well have you ever seen a white man from that area?
and i'm not talking like moved there or his mom is british i'm talking all out!

Semites are not European in the sense accepted in modern popular sociology. I believe the article I also pointed out in my prior post said as much, as well.

it that enough?
i ment to type that before but i was in a rush.

I have to say that this was certainly one of the least well-thought-out responses I've seen in this kind of a discussion. The idea of Jesus being black certainly made for some interesting artistic expression, but it is little more than a politically correct viewpoint espoused by a handful of people who generally are not taken seriously in biblical, much less anthropological or archaeological, circles.

Seraphim · Post by **Seraphim** » Fri May 09, 2003 4:22 pm

When he said black he probably meant not white. This happened the middle east so he probably looked more middle eastern then our traditional sense of white(like Martin pointed out) I'm optimistically chalking this up to poor wording.

radicaledward · Post by **radicaledward** » Fri May 09, 2003 4:39 pm

When he said black he probably meant not white

Yes
i didn't mean black and i admit i should've mad it more clear.
i meant like dark skined not white ya kno.

but seeing your facts makes me agree to you martin.

and of it being one of the least well thought out responses well that's true i was in a rush(yes again)

Seraphim · Post by **Seraphim** » Fri May 09, 2003 6:36 pm

Don't worry we all do things like this, in a day or two (provided someone like Eigher or salcation doesn't show up) everyone will have forgotten.

Phong · Post by **Phong** » Fri May 09, 2003 6:42 pm

Some of you more often than others. =P

Seraphim · Post by **Seraphim** » Fri May 09, 2003 6:49 pm

sometimes people rush their readings, and interpret it how they want it interpreted rather then thinking about it.

*edited for large gramatical errors thanks for that sarcasm and overview of my point Fixer.

Fixer · Post by **Fixer** » Fri May 09, 2003 7:17 pm

[quote="Seraphim";p="71281"]sometimes people aslot rush their readings, and interpret how it they wanted it interpreted rather then thinking about it.

[/quote]

What does 'aslot' mean? I don't want to misinterpret you....

Seraphim · Post by **Seraphim** » Fri May 09, 2003 7:26 pm

heh... a large typo. I think I didn't completely delete a word....

Imperator Severn · Post by **Imperator Severn** » Fri May 09, 2003 10:34 pm

i meant like dark skined not white ya kno.

So would that make American indians "Black?" They are not "white" if what you mean by white is Caucasians, and more specifically people of Tuetonic extraction. What is generally meant by black is people whose ancestors came from subsaharan africa.

And Jesus wasn't from Galilee, he was from Bethlehem! I knew that! Everyone knows that! *smacks self in head*

He did live near the Galilee, didn't he? Or am I completely hallucinating?

Phong · Post by **Phong** » Fri May 09, 2003 11:20 pm

His most famous sermon/sermons were near Galilee, and he was described at one point I believe as being Galilean ? no ?

Real Life Forums

Anti-Bible

Who is online