Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Maryluvs Message Board > Intellect's Forum > Slaves From West Africa?


Posted by: DeeJay May 19 2009, 04:25 PM
Who are the real Jews according to the Bible?



The modern world has been falsely taught that the real Jews are those Europeans walking around in black and over sized hats. When one think of the real children of Israel they tend to believe these are the children of Israel. The word Jew is not a Hebrew word. It derives from Judahites of Judea. This means that a Jew is a descendant from the tribe of Judah. There were 12 tribes of Israel the tribe of Judah is only one of the tribes. The tribe of Judah are so-called black people in America when you read the Bible and is blessed to understand it by Yah. ( Jeremiah 14:2) " Judah mourneth, and the gates (wise men) thereof languish: they are black ( the real Jews are you so-called blacks in America) unto the ground ( like the different shades if the earth). Jesus was a so-called black man that descended from the tribe of Judah. (Hebrew 7:14) " For it is evidnet that our Lord sprang out of Juda". In Revelation 22:16 Jesus tell us himself that he is from the root of David. Because Jesus ( Yahawashi) only dealt with his people if he was walking the earth today he would be classified as a racist. He said himself he was only sent the the lost sheep of the house of Israel, ( Matthew 15:24). Those so-called white people that are calling themselves Jews today are liars! Those people that call them selves Jews today are Edomites and even some of the House of Japheth . They eventually Departed Mount Seir and moved into the caves in hill of Europe( Caucasus Mountains) thus they are know as Caucasians. Japheth had a Barbaric empire called Khazaria. 80% of so-called white people that called themselves Jews today are Khazars. These were a warring people, cold blooded ruthless killers. Yet they often cry the blues about what occurred under Hitler. Why do they not tell the world of their murderous nature during the Khazaria kingdom? Why do they not tell the world that the so-called white Jews finance the Trans Atlantic slave trade? They tell you that they only made up 5% of the slave trade but do not tell that about 70 to 80 % of them owned slaves.



The vast majority of the world, due to the so-called Jewish media know that the Jews plotted on Jesus but this is an error. During the time of Christ the real Jews( so-called black jews) were in captivity under the cruel Romans. The Edomites(so-called whites) were already forced to keep the laws of Israelite to keep they in order. This prior the Roman invasion the Edomites was forced to convert to our way of life that that refer to today as Judaism during 135 B.C. When the Romans came to rule over us the Edomites (so-called white man) were thought to be Jews because they were already forced to practice our ways of life. Thus those Jews the detested Christ and took counsel to get him hung where so-called white people( Edomites) and not the real Jews( descendants of Judah). Today the descendants of the so-called white Edomites and the house of Japheth have the word thinking that they are the real Jews and the chosen people of God.



Jesus spoke of this people that claimed to be Jews but are really not.

( Revelation 2:9) ....."I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not, but are synagogue of Satan."






socalled white Jews (Edomites) that converted to our way of life in 135 B.C and the others( Khazars) converted in 740 A.D. The real Jews are black. Most of the descendant of the slaves brought from west Africa to America are the real Jews. The so-called white man is a Gentile now he is in Israel calling himself a Jew. Read (Luke 21:24)
Ezekiel 39:23) " And the heathen (all nation that are not Israelites) shall know that the house of Israel went into captivity ( slavery) for their iniquity: because they trespassed against me, therefore I hid my face from them, and gave them into the hand of their enemies: so they fell by the sword."
(Deuteronomy 28:68) " And the lord will bring thee into Egypt (meaing bondage) again with ships...and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bond women..." How do we know that Egypt is speaking of bondage and not the land now called Egypt? Because Jacob and the 70 souls walked in to Egypt. They did not go in ships. But this captivity is speaking to of us being brought to America and the West Indies. ( Exodus 20:2) " I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" Egypt is the house of bondage.
(Isaiah 22:17-18) Behold the Lord will carry thee away with a mighty captivity, and will surely cover thee. He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country( America)."
Who are the Edomites?

Edom = red, Esau = hairy I-shaw = wasted away

According to the Bible ( Genesis 25:21-31) Esau is the so-called white man when you read the scripture and are blessed to over stand.





(Obadiah 1:4)" Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle" ( the symbol of America and the so called white man is and has been the Eagle, The Greeks, Romans, Spanish and even Germany under Hitler used the Eagle as their symbol). " though thou set thy nest among the stars( Sattlelight in outer space, landing on the moon in 1969) " thince will I bring thee down saith the Lord (The Most High is bringing the so-called white mans ruler ship to and end now; hurricanes, tornados, terrorist, west nile virus, bird flu out breaks killing mostly so-called white people)



The Most High hates the so-called white man ( red man) unlike your lying preachers teach( Romans 9:13) Jacob( the 12 tribes of Israel) have I loved, but Esau( the so-called white man) have I hated."



(Hebrew 12:16-17) Informs us that the Edomites can not repent. Esau came to God crying begging for repentance but was rejected, so do not believe the lying preachers that tell you God has forgiven them. The so-called white man has been a warring people since he has been upon the earth. God is going to raise up Christ and his chosen of Israel to destroy them according to the Bible (Ezekiel 25:12-14). God says he hate the Edomites forever! (Malachi 1:4)




Are the so-called "African-Americans" or "Negroes" truly descended from the indigenous people of Africa (Ethiopians, Egyptians, Libyans, South Africans)? NO! They are the true Jews according to the King James Version of the Holy Bible!

The scriptures clearly describe the Jews of the Bible as having dark skin:

LAMENTATIONS 4:8
"Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick."

The Bible says that the visage of the Jews is "blacker than a coal".
Let's see what this word "visage" means when looked up in a dictionary.

From The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition:

visage - poetic/literary a person's face, with reference to the form of the features. a person's facial expression

So we see the word visage relates to a person's facial features. If the Jews of the Bible have facial features blacker than a coal, how are they Caucasian?

LAMENTATIONS 5:10
"Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine."

If the Jews of the Bible have skin "black like an oven", how are they Caucasian? Caucasian people do not at any time turn any shade of brown, let alone "black like an oven". Caucasians lack melanin to even turn the lightest shade of brown.

Job was an Israelite. Let's see how he described himself:

JOB 30:30
"My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat."

Job, an Israelite, says that his skin is black upon him. Do I need to say anything else? Where he says "and my bones are burned with heat", that is referring to the affliction that he was going through.

King Solomon, one of the wisest men to ever walk the face of the earth, and one of the great kings of the nation of Israel, described himself as a black man!

SONG OF SOLOMON 1:1
"The song of songs, which is Solomon's."

The reason I went to this verse is to show that this is Solomon speaking. The world teaches the lie that this is some concubine or the Queen of Sheba. I dare anyone to come forth and prove according to Scripture that this is some "concubine" or the "Queen of Sheba" speaking instead of Solomon himself.

SONG OF SOLOMON 1:5
"I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon."

Solomon, a Jew from the tribe of Judah, is describing himself as black! Furthermore, here is the verse in the original ancient Hebrew:

SHAYAR HASHAYARYAM 1:5

"Sha-chaa-war-ha an-ya, wa-na-ah-wah, ban-wath Ya-raw-sha-lam, ka-ah-hal-ya Qa-dar, ka-ya-ra-ya-i-wath Sha-la-mah."

The first part of this verse which reads "Sha-chaa-war-ha an-ya" literally translates to "I am dark skinned"!

Let's look up the meaning of the word for black, "shachar", as used in this verse for proof:

This is the definition of shachar from The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible:

7838. shachar from 7835; prop. dusky, but also (absol.) jetty:--- black

So the word "shachar" means "dusky". Let's look that word up and see what it means:

The definition of the word dusky from The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition:

dusky - adj.(-ier,-iest) darkish in colour. euphemistic, dated or poetic/literary (of a person) black; dark-skinned.

So we see that:

1. Solomon described himself as black in Song of Solomon 1:5
2. The word "black" as used in Song of Solomon 1:5 in the ancient Hebrew is defined in The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (widely regarded as one of the top concordances of the Bible) as "dusky"
3. The word "dusky" when defined in a dictionary as pertains to a person means dark skinned!

So if Solomon, a Jew from the tribe of Judah is describing himself as dark skinned, how could he or any other Jew writen of in the Bible be white?

Want to find out more information about the true identity of the so-called African-Americans?

According to Scripture, the Jews would never be white![/u]

ISAIAH 29:22
"Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale."

The Bible tells you that Jacob, the progenitor of the Twelve Tribes of the Nation of Israel, that "neither shall his face now wax pale". "Wax" is Old English which means "to turn". So to "wax pale" means "to turn pale". So if Jacob and his descendants' faces would not "wax pale" which means "turn pale", how can a Caucasian be a Jew?

All Caucasian or so-called white people throughout the planet Earth, whether they call themselves "American", "British", "Spanish", "French", "Jewish/Israeli", "Dutch", "German", etc, are all descendants of Esau, the wicked older brother of Jacob (Genesis 25:25, Malachi 1:1-2, Romans 9:13)

The tribe of Judah from which the Jews of the Bible descend from are described as black in the Bible!

JEREMIAH 14:2
"Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up."
Jeremiah 14:2 describes the tribe of Judah (the Jews) as being "black unto the ground", which means different shades of brown. When you dig through the soil, it is many different shades of brown, from light brown to dark brown. You find many shades of brown (light brown to dark brown) amongst the so-called African-Americans.

JEREMIAH 12:9
"Mine heritage is unto me as a speckled bird, the birds round about are against her; come ye, assemble all the beasts of the field, come to devour."

The Lord said through the prophet Jeremiah that his heritage (Israel) is unto Him as a speckled bird. A speckled bird has many different colors. The Twelve Tribes of Israel are many shades of brown.

The enslavement of the so-called African-Americans is written in the Holy Bible and is a curse that pertains to the Twelve Tribes of Israel!
DEUTERONOMY 28:1
"And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken dilligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth."
If we kept the laws, statutes and commandments of our God, Jesus Christ, we would be blessed and set high above all nations of the earth.
HOWEVER.....
DEUTERONOMY 28:15
"But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and over take thee:"
When you read from verses 15-68, the curses that befell the nation of Israel only apply to the true Jews and Israelites (the people of Negro, Indian and Hispanic descent scattered throughout North, South & Central America, the West Indies, Hispanola, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and the four corners of the earth).
But as pertains to the so-called African-Americans, the curse spoken of in verse 68 clearly identifies them as the real Jews:
DEUTERONOMY 28:68
"And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you."
One of the curses that befell the true Jews is that they would be sent "into Egypt again with ships". The word "Egypt" is not the real name of the African country. The Israelites called it "Mizraim" in the Hebrew. "Egypt" also means "bondage" according to Scripture:
EXODUS 20:2
"I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."
So when the real dark skinned Jews were brought out of Egypt the first time, they were brought out of "a house of bondage". Let's read Deuteronomy 28:68 again:
DEUTERONOMY 28:68
"And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you."
Again, when our people were brought out of Egypt (the African country), we were brought out of "a house of bondage". So Moses (a black man) prophesized that the true authentic dark skinned Biblical Jews would go "into Egypt again" or a "house of bondage" again. How? With ships!
Now I ask you, what dark skinned people were brought into bondage with ships? Didn't this happen to the so-called "African-Americans", "West Indians", and "Haitians"? Yes, it did! Never did this happen to the Caucasians who say they are Jews and are not!(Rev. 2:9 and 3:9)
Where it says "by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again" means that the land of Israel, that the Lord spake unto our fathers about, we would no longer see it again. This shows you that the real Jews are not in the land of Israel at this current time!
And it goes on to say, "and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you". Where it says "and there" it means the place we were taken into bondage by way of ships, which was America. In that place, America, what does the Bible say would happen to us? ".....ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen". When we were brought over here in bondage, we were indeed sold into slavery by our enemies (the white race) for bondmen (slave men) and bondwomen (slave women). Where it says "and no man shall buy you", that isn't saying we wouldn't be purchased, because at this point you already see that we were sold unto our enemies.

The word "buy" written in the Old Quaker English the King James Version Bible is written in means "to save or to redeem". If you are redeeming someone, you are saving them from evil. No man, be it Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc or any of the so-called "leaders" of our people could save us from the evil that has and still is coming down upon our people from 1619 to the present with constant oppression by this country America and the white race (Edom) on many different levels.

Jesus Christ, who is the God of Israel only and a black man according to the Holy Bible (Revelation 1:1, 14-15, Daniel 10:5-6) is the only one that can save us.


maryluvs_snack.gif So what do you guys think of this maryluvs_hmm.gif

Posted by: Scared By Love May 19 2009, 05:34 PM
WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Posted by: DeeJay May 19 2009, 05:51 PM
QUOTE (~I AM THE STORM~ @ May 19 2009, 04:24 PM)
WHAT DO YOU THINK?

I believe there is truth in all of this

Is is coincidence that the only two rivers that flow north in the world are in Egypt and the U.S. (St. Johns in Jacksonville, Fl)?

Is it coincidence that the Washington Monument is an Egyptian Obelisk?

I just have a hard time believing the history that we've been taught. Especially since it came from the very people who enslaved us.


Posted by: Rhapsody In Blue May 19 2009, 07:39 PM
Everybody wanna be the REAL Jews.

You know who the real Jews are? ARABS.

Posted by: mj-star May 19 2009, 10:30 PM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ May 19 2009, 04:41 PM)
I believe there is truth in all of this

Is is coincidence that the only two rivers that flow north in the world are in Egypt and the U.S. (St. Johns in Jacksonville, Fl)?

Is it coincidence that the Washington Monument is an Egyptian Obelisk?

I just have a hard time believing the history that we've been taught. Especially since it came from the very people who enslaved us.

I believe what you have posted to be true. We have been lied to for far to long. We have been manipulated and stripped of our dignity. The truth will set you free, while lies will keep you in bondage.

Posted by: LoyalTilTheDeathOfMe May 19 2009, 10:41 PM
Great read and The Almighty will have the last word. I'm content and have faith that thee is a God who is in total control of what we as humans feel we have control over. I put my faith and trust in a much higher power, Jesus Christ.
t4p

Posted by: LoyalTilTheDeathOfMe May 19 2009, 10:42 PM
QUOTE (Madame X @ May 19 2009, 06:29 PM)
Everybody wanna be the REAL Jews.

You know who the real Jews are? ARABS.

u think? i dunno, great read though. maybe i will look more into it and see what i find.

Posted by: Jay Luv May 20 2009, 03:08 PM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ May 19 2009, 04:41 PM)

I just have a hard time believing the history that we've been taught. Especially since it came from the very people who enslaved us.

maryluvs_excl.gif


THE FIRST SHALL BE LAST AND THE LAST SHALL BE FIRST

Posted by: DeeJay May 20 2009, 05:15 PM
QUOTE (Madame X @ May 19 2009, 06:29 PM)
Everybody wanna be the REAL Jews.

You know who the real Jews are? ARABS.

I just know that the jews that are calling themselves jews arent jews.


Posted by: Wee Tony May 20 2009, 08:20 PM
Jesus H fucking Christ maryluvs_rolleyes0.gif

And I have little green fairies living under my bed. Whatever next?

Posted by: DeeJay May 20 2009, 09:41 PM
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 20 2009, 07:10 PM)
Jesus H fucking Christ maryluvs_rolleyes0.gif

And I have little green fairies living under my bed. Whatever next?

Too far fetched? maryluvs_snack.gif

Posted by: Wee Tony May 20 2009, 10:39 PM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ May 21 2009, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 20 2009, 07:10 PM)
Jesus H fucking Christ  maryluvs_rolleyes0.gif

And I have little green fairies living under my bed.  Whatever next?

Too far fetched? maryluvs_snack.gif

No more so than anything else in the bible, I suppose.

I'm afraid it would take more than a few choice phrases from the bible to convince me of anything - remember what a few choice phrases from the bible have been used to vindicate in the past... slavery, misogyny, fascism, and homophobia to name a few. The bible is one of those texts that are so long and contradictory that people can use it to justify any fly-by-night theory they have. It is cherrypicking evidence at its worst.
What I'd be looking for is some evidence that doesn't come from all the one source... especially one that has been through countless translations, and been subject to political interference over the years.
Whenever you're dealing with the bible, you're dealing with circular logic (i.e. I believe in god cos of the bible, and I believe in the bible cos of god) which is dodgy territory and does nothing to prove anything.


There's a lot of interesting speculation surrounding similar things... for example, there's the ancient religions and folk tales of Ethiopia which suggest a unique place for their church in Christianity. This is backed up by other historical sources.
Even more interesting, there's a tribe that currently lives in South Africa and Zimbabwe (in fact, I think Dippy is descended form them) who lay claim to be one of the lost tribes of Israel. Genetic evidence backs them up. Archaeological evidence backs them up. Funnily enough, the bible ignores them (remembering the political motivations of those who wrote it).

History in many places is based on misunderstood myths, but so are many modern conspiracy theories. I believe you are absolutely right to doubt that the history you have been taught is gospel, but that doesn't automatically mean a conclusion should be rashly jumped to, it should only warn you to appreciate the biases that have written history... including the biblical version.

But apart from that, why is it relevant... even if it were true? maryluvs_hmm.gif

P.S. The obelisk is a shape found commonly throughout Europe and Asia, dating both from ancient times (like the Obelisk in Paris), and modern times (like the washington monument)
P.P.S. Rivers that flow north in Europe:- The Rhine, and on the other side of Germany is the Elbe, which flows into the Baltic Sea, and with its tributary the Neisse has formed Germany's border with Poland since the end of World War II. Other north-flowing rivers in Germany include the Ems, Uecker, Spree, Necker, Weser, and Warnow; there are many more. Other north-flowing rivers in Poland include the Vistula and the Warta. North flowing in England is the Mersey, and in Scotland, the Clyde.

Posted by: Rhapsody In Blue May 21 2009, 03:36 AM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ May 21 2009, 12:05 AM)
QUOTE (Madame X @ May 19 2009, 06:29 PM)
Everybody wanna be the REAL Jews.

You know who the real Jews are? ARABS.

I just know that the jews that are calling themselves jews arent jews.

maryluvs_excl.gif

That too. I esp love it when they pull the "Semitism" trick when 3/4 of them are from Europe maryluvs_brow.gif

Posted by: Wee Tony May 21 2009, 09:32 AM
The 12 tribes of Israel are supposedly descended from brothers (one of which being Judah) - so this theory is asking me to accept that one brother and his descendants were white, while another brother and his descendants were black? Despite being from the same climate and geographical area?
The colour of someone's skin is determined by the pigment of that skin which is determined by exposure to the sun over multiple generations. Why would two sets of people from the same small area of the world have such wildly differing colours of skin? Especially since they are supposedly descended from a common ancestor.

Only people who are as thick as pig shit will claim Jesus was white. Anyone with a shred of sense accepts that Jesus - like all people from that area - resembled modern day Palestinians.

QUOTE (Madame X @ May 21 2009, 08:26 AM)

maryluvs_excl.gif

That too. I esp love it when they pull the "Semitism" trick when 3/4 of them are from Europe maryluvs_brow.gif

You're going to have to elaborate on that. Cos at the moment, it just sounds like an ignorant generalisation.

Posted by: Jay Luv May 21 2009, 09:58 AM
JUST LIKE THE FIRST ORGANIZED CIVILIZATION AND UNIVERSITY WAS IN TIMBUKTU, WEST AFRICA..........THEY DONT TEACH THAT TO THE YOUNG ONES COMING UP

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES



Posted by: Wee Tony May 21 2009, 10:17 AM
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 02:48 PM)
JUST LIKE THE FIRST ORGANIZED CIVILIZATION AND UNIVERSITY WAS IN TIMBUKTU, WEST AFRICA..........THEY DONT TEACH THAT TO THE YOUNG ONES COMING UP


More misperceptions.
The cradle of civilisation was neither black nor white, but Arabian. The region of Mesopotamia shows the earliest signs of agriculture and writing anywhere in the world by thousands of years.
The University you are talking about is the University of Sankore. It is very widely accepted that it was one of the earliest medieval Universities dating from the 11th century. And sorry to knock the chip off your shoulder, but it was neither black nor white who pioneered higher education - it was the Chinese, again beating the rest of the world by thousands of years.

And the University of Sankore was founded by muslims, so it is of a complete irrelevance to a thread discussing Judaism.

QUOTE

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES


You seem to be having a hard time posting without relying on myths and stereotypes. As highlighted by you posting a misunderstood history aswell as your stereotype about white people.

Posted by: Jay Luv May 21 2009, 10:50 AM
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 02:48 PM)
JUST LIKE THE FIRST ORGANIZED CIVILIZATION AND UNIVERSITY WAS IN TIMBUKTU, WEST AFRICA..........THEY DONT TEACH THAT TO THE YOUNG ONES COMING UP


More misperceptions.
The cradle of civilisation was neither black nor white, but Arabian. The region of Mesopotamia shows the earliest signs of agriculture and writing anywhere in the world by thousands of years.
The University you are talking about is the University of Sankore. It is very widely accepted that it was one of the earliest medieval Universities dating from the 11th century. And sorry to knock the chip off your shoulder, but it was neither black nor white who pioneered higher education - it was the Chinese, again beating the rest of the world by thousands of years.

And the University of Sankore was founded by muslims, so it is of a complete irrelevance to a thread discussing Judaism.

QUOTE

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES


You seem to be having a hard time posting without relying on myths and stereotypes. As highlighted by you posting a misunderstood history aswell as your stereotype about white people.

I MENTIONED NOTHING ABOUT BLACK NOR WHITE..............I REFERRED TO AN AREA/REGION IN WEST AFRICA. SHIT LIKE THIS SCARES WHITE PEOPLE DUE TO THEM THINKING THEY ARE SUPERIOR. I KNOW MY HISTORY VERY WELL SIR AND DONT NEED ANY LESSONS FROM YOU. THANKS

Posted by: Ra May 21 2009, 10:51 AM
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 09:40 AM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 02:48 PM)
JUST LIKE THE FIRST ORGANIZED CIVILIZATION AND UNIVERSITY WAS IN TIMBUKTU, WEST AFRICA..........THEY DONT TEACH THAT TO THE YOUNG ONES COMING UP


More misperceptions.
The cradle of civilisation was neither black nor white, but Arabian. The region of Mesopotamia shows the earliest signs of agriculture and writing anywhere in the world by thousands of years.
The University you are talking about is the University of Sankore. It is very widely accepted that it was one of the earliest medieval Universities dating from the 11th century. And sorry to knock the chip off your shoulder, but it was neither black nor white who pioneered higher education - it was the Chinese, again beating the rest of the world by thousands of years.

And the University of Sankore was founded by muslims, so it is of a complete irrelevance to a thread discussing Judaism.

QUOTE

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES


You seem to be having a hard time posting without relying on myths and stereotypes. As highlighted by you posting a misunderstood history aswell as your stereotype about white people.

I MENTIONED NOTHING ABOUT BLACK NOR WHITE..............I REFERRED TO AN AREA/REGION IN WEST AFRICA. SHIT LIKE THIS SCARES WHITE PEOPLE DUE TO THEM THINKING THEY ARE SUPERIOR. I KNOW MY HISTORY VERY WELL SIR AND DONT NEED ANY LESSONS FROM YOU. THANKS

maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif u been on a roll lately!

Posted by: Jay Luv May 21 2009, 11:01 AM
QUOTE (Ra @ May 21 2009, 09:41 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 09:40 AM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 02:48 PM)
JUST LIKE THE FIRST ORGANIZED CIVILIZATION AND UNIVERSITY WAS IN TIMBUKTU, WEST AFRICA..........THEY DONT TEACH THAT TO THE YOUNG ONES COMING UP


More misperceptions.
The cradle of civilisation was neither black nor white, but Arabian. The region of Mesopotamia shows the earliest signs of agriculture and writing anywhere in the world by thousands of years.
The University you are talking about is the University of Sankore. It is very widely accepted that it was one of the earliest medieval Universities dating from the 11th century. And sorry to knock the chip off your shoulder, but it was neither black nor white who pioneered higher education - it was the Chinese, again beating the rest of the world by thousands of years.

And the University of Sankore was founded by muslims, so it is of a complete irrelevance to a thread discussing Judaism.

QUOTE

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES


You seem to be having a hard time posting without relying on myths and stereotypes. As highlighted by you posting a misunderstood history aswell as your stereotype about white people.

I MENTIONED NOTHING ABOUT BLACK NOR WHITE..............I REFERRED TO AN AREA/REGION IN WEST AFRICA. SHIT LIKE THIS SCARES WHITE PEOPLE DUE TO THEM THINKING THEY ARE SUPERIOR. I KNOW MY HISTORY VERY WELL SIR AND DONT NEED ANY LESSONS FROM YOU. THANKS

maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif u been on a roll lately!

maryluvs_whistling.gif


maryluvs_bye1.gif


BEEN MOODY THIS WEEK maryluvs_dunno.gif











maryluvs_giggle.gif

Posted by: Ra May 21 2009, 11:07 AM
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 09:51 AM)
QUOTE (Ra @ May 21 2009, 09:41 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 09:40 AM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 02:48 PM)
JUST LIKE THE FIRST ORGANIZED CIVILIZATION AND UNIVERSITY WAS IN TIMBUKTU, WEST AFRICA..........THEY DONT TEACH THAT TO THE YOUNG ONES COMING UP


More misperceptions.
The cradle of civilisation was neither black nor white, but Arabian. The region of Mesopotamia shows the earliest signs of agriculture and writing anywhere in the world by thousands of years.
The University you are talking about is the University of Sankore. It is very widely accepted that it was one of the earliest medieval Universities dating from the 11th century. And sorry to knock the chip off your shoulder, but it was neither black nor white who pioneered higher education - it was the Chinese, again beating the rest of the world by thousands of years.

And the University of Sankore was founded by muslims, so it is of a complete irrelevance to a thread discussing Judaism.

QUOTE

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES


You seem to be having a hard time posting without relying on myths and stereotypes. As highlighted by you posting a misunderstood history aswell as your stereotype about white people.

I MENTIONED NOTHING ABOUT BLACK NOR WHITE..............I REFERRED TO AN AREA/REGION IN WEST AFRICA. SHIT LIKE THIS SCARES WHITE PEOPLE DUE TO THEM THINKING THEY ARE SUPERIOR. I KNOW MY HISTORY VERY WELL SIR AND DONT NEED ANY LESSONS FROM YOU. THANKS

maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif u been on a roll lately!

maryluvs_whistling.gif


maryluvs_bye1.gif


BEEN MOODY THIS WEEK maryluvs_dunno.gif











maryluvs_giggle.gif

maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_laughing.gif

Posted by: Wee Tony May 21 2009, 11:36 AM
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 03:40 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 02:48 PM)
JUST LIKE THE FIRST ORGANIZED CIVILIZATION AND UNIVERSITY WAS IN TIMBUKTU, WEST AFRICA..........THEY DONT TEACH THAT TO THE YOUNG ONES COMING UP


More misperceptions.
The cradle of civilisation was neither black nor white, but Arabian. The region of Mesopotamia shows the earliest signs of agriculture and writing anywhere in the world by thousands of years.
The University you are talking about is the University of Sankore. It is very widely accepted that it was one of the earliest medieval Universities dating from the 11th century. And sorry to knock the chip off your shoulder, but it was neither black nor white who pioneered higher education - it was the Chinese, again beating the rest of the world by thousands of years.

And the University of Sankore was founded by muslims, so it is of a complete irrelevance to a thread discussing Judaism.

QUOTE

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES


You seem to be having a hard time posting without relying on myths and stereotypes. As highlighted by you posting a misunderstood history aswell as your stereotype about white people.

I MENTIONED NOTHING ABOUT BLACK NOR WHITE


Yes you did. It's there in my original quote, but just to refresh your memory...
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009 @ 02:48 PM)

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES


QUOTE
..............I REFERRED TO AN AREA/REGION IN WEST AFRICA. 

That would be Mali.

QUOTE

SHIT LIKE THIS SCARES WHITE PEOPLE DUE TO THEM THINKING THEY ARE SUPERIOR.


Yet another startling generalisation.
QUOTE

I KNOW MY HISTORY VERY WELL SIR AND DONT NEED ANY LESSONS FROM YOU. THANKS


No you don't, apparently you do, and you're welcome maryluvs_happy.gif

Posted by: Jay Luv May 21 2009, 12:30 PM
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 10:26 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 03:40 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 09:07 AM)
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009, 02:48 PM)
JUST LIKE THE FIRST ORGANIZED CIVILIZATION AND UNIVERSITY WAS IN TIMBUKTU, WEST AFRICA..........THEY DONT TEACH THAT TO THE YOUNG ONES COMING UP


More misperceptions.
The cradle of civilisation was neither black nor white, but Arabian. The region of Mesopotamia shows the earliest signs of agriculture and writing anywhere in the world by thousands of years.
The University you are talking about is the University of Sankore. It is very widely accepted that it was one of the earliest medieval Universities dating from the 11th century. And sorry to knock the chip off your shoulder, but it was neither black nor white who pioneered higher education - it was the Chinese, again beating the rest of the world by thousands of years.

And the University of Sankore was founded by muslims, so it is of a complete irrelevance to a thread discussing Judaism.

QUOTE

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES


You seem to be having a hard time posting without relying on myths and stereotypes. As highlighted by you posting a misunderstood history aswell as your stereotype about white people.

I MENTIONED NOTHING ABOUT BLACK NOR WHITE


Yes you did. It's there in my original quote, but just to refresh your memory...
QUOTE (Jay Luv @ May 21 2009 @ 02:48 PM)

WHITE PEOPLE COULDNT EXIST WITHOUT BELIEVING IN MYTHS AND STEROTYPES



That would be Mali.

QUOTE

SHIT LIKE THIS SCARES WHITE PEOPLE DUE TO THEM THINKING THEY ARE SUPERIOR.


Yet another startling generalisation.
QUOTE

I KNOW MY HISTORY VERY WELL SIR AND DONT NEED ANY LESSONS FROM YOU. THANKS


No you don't, apparently you do, and you're welcome maryluvs_happy.gif

WOW THIS LOOKS CRAZY blink.gif

I DIDNT FEEL LIKE READING ALL THIS BUT UMMM............

THANK YOU FOR THE CRITIQUE AND ANALYSIS OF EVERY LINE I WROTE


BORED MUCH maryluvs_whistling.gif

Posted by: Wee Tony May 21 2009, 03:18 PM
maryluvs_rolleyes0.gif Who let the fuckwit into the intellect forum?

Posted by: Rhapsody In Blue May 21 2009, 05:39 PM
Alright Tony.

Alot of Jews pull the Anti-Semitism card to attack Arabs, when ALOT of them are not descendants of Semitic people. Mind you ALOT not ALL, because there're many Arab Jews, in fact they're the 1st Jews.

How can Arabs be Anti-Semitism when they're the ORIGINAL semitic people? Its all in your bible by the way.

That was my point.

Posted by: Wee Tony May 21 2009, 06:36 PM
QUOTE (Madame X @ May 21 2009, 10:29 PM)
Alright Tony.

Alot of Jews pull the Anti-Semitism card to attack Arabs, when ALOT of them are not descendants of Semitic people. Mind you ALOT not ALL, because there're many Arab Jews, in fact they're the 1st Jews.

How can Arabs be Anti-Semitism when they're the ORIGINAL semitic people? Its all in your bible by the way.

That was my point.

Yeah, I see your point, but at the same time, I worry about the generalisations that people might read into it (I almost did myself).

And I agree with you to some extent - the anti-Semitic label has been applied to so many people that it is a nonsense term. Hardline Israelis call Arabs anti-Semitic, when they'd be more correct to call them anti-Zionist. But problems arise, cos many non-Israeli Jews are also anti-Zionist. And it's far easier to attract 'aid' from America if America thinks Israelis are the victims of racism rather than just another country who doesn't get on with their neighbours. (BTW I'm not transposing the terms Israel and Judaism, I'm separating them).

The bit that caught my eye was your remark about Jews from Europe not being Semitic. I'm not sure if you have followed the history of Jews in Europe (after the bible, but before the holocaust), but they were an ethnic group from the Middle East who emigrated to Europe. And due to their custom and local bigotry directed toward them(inter-marriage was not common at all), their community and gene pool over all this time is largely intact. And being surrounded on all sides by hostile Europeans, they zealously protected their culture. So from their point of view, they have retained what made them semitic: religion, culture, genes, but they have not retained the land. Generally, Arabs on the other hand have pretty much done the opposite: they retained the land (until recently), but all other elements of who they were have evolved into something new e.g. some Arabs stayed Jewish, most moved to Islam. It's not as if there was a recruitment drive in Europe where new Jews were recruited - it was just the original ones reproducing.

The problem with generalisations is that it paints an unnecessarily black and white picture. We're not talking about original people here, we're talking about the descendants of original people, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. The original people are all long dead, their descendants are where they are by accident of birth.

Posted by: DeeJay Jun 5 2009, 03:46 PM
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 05:26 PM)
QUOTE (Madame X @ May 21 2009, 10:29 PM)
Alright Tony.

Alot of Jews pull the Anti-Semitism card to attack Arabs, when ALOT of them are not descendants of Semitic people. Mind you ALOT not ALL, because there're many Arab Jews, in fact they're the 1st Jews.

How can Arabs be Anti-Semitism when they're the ORIGINAL semitic people? Its all in your bible by the way.

That was my point.

Yeah, I see your point, but at the same time, I worry about the generalisations that people might read into it (I almost did myself).

And I agree with you to some extent - the anti-Semitic label has been applied to so many people that it is a nonsense term. Hardline Israelis call Arabs anti-Semitic, when they'd be more correct to call them anti-Zionist. But problems arise, cos many non-Israeli Jews are also anti-Zionist. And it's far easier to attract 'aid' from America if America thinks Israelis are the victims of racism rather than just another country who doesn't get on with their neighbours. (BTW I'm not transposing the terms Israel and Judaism, I'm separating them).

The bit that caught my eye was your remark about Jews from Europe not being Semitic. I'm not sure if you have followed the history of Jews in Europe (after the bible, but before the holocaust), but they were an ethnic group from the Middle East who emigrated to Europe. And due to their custom and local bigotry directed toward them(inter-marriage was not common at all), their community and gene pool over all this time is largely intact. And being surrounded on all sides by hostile Europeans, they zealously protected their culture. So from their point of view, they have retained what made them semitic: religion, culture, genes, but they have not retained the land. Generally, Arabs on the other hand have pretty much done the opposite: they retained the land (until recently), but all other elements of who they were have evolved into something new e.g. some Arabs stayed Jewish, most moved to Islam. It's not as if there was a recruitment drive in Europe where new Jews were recruited - it was just the original ones reproducing.

The problem with generalisations is that it paints an unnecessarily black and white picture. We're not talking about original people here, we're talking about the descendants of original people, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. The original people are all long dead, their descendants are where they are by accident of birth.

That's all well and good but Being that Jews are God's chosen people, the only reliable source as to who they are should come from his word, the bible.
And in God's word when the Jews are being described they are described as having 'Dark skin'. The people that are calling themselves Jews and are inhabiting Israel don't even fit the description of Jews in the bible. And at the same time the bible warns us of the 'fake Jews' AKA 'synagogue of satan' Revelation 2:9.

So unless you can find something in God's word that says otherwise, it's irrelevant.


Posted by: Wee Tony Jun 5 2009, 06:41 PM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 5 2009, 08:36 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 05:26 PM)
QUOTE (Madame X @ May 21 2009, 10:29 PM)
Alright Tony.

Alot of Jews pull the Anti-Semitism card to attack Arabs, when ALOT of them are not descendants of Semitic people. Mind you ALOT not ALL, because there're many Arab Jews, in fact they're the 1st Jews.

How can Arabs be Anti-Semitism when they're the ORIGINAL semitic people? Its all in your bible by the way.

That was my point.

Yeah, I see your point, but at the same time, I worry about the generalisations that people might read into it (I almost did myself).

And I agree with you to some extent - the anti-Semitic label has been applied to so many people that it is a nonsense term. Hardline Israelis call Arabs anti-Semitic, when they'd be more correct to call them anti-Zionist. But problems arise, cos many non-Israeli Jews are also anti-Zionist. And it's far easier to attract 'aid' from America if America thinks Israelis are the victims of racism rather than just another country who doesn't get on with their neighbours. (BTW I'm not transposing the terms Israel and Judaism, I'm separating them).

The bit that caught my eye was your remark about Jews from Europe not being Semitic. I'm not sure if you have followed the history of Jews in Europe (after the bible, but before the holocaust), but they were an ethnic group from the Middle East who emigrated to Europe. And due to their custom and local bigotry directed toward them(inter-marriage was not common at all), their community and gene pool over all this time is largely intact. And being surrounded on all sides by hostile Europeans, they zealously protected their culture. So from their point of view, they have retained what made them semitic: religion, culture, genes, but they have not retained the land. Generally, Arabs on the other hand have pretty much done the opposite: they retained the land (until recently), but all other elements of who they were have evolved into something new e.g. some Arabs stayed Jewish, most moved to Islam. It's not as if there was a recruitment drive in Europe where new Jews were recruited - it was just the original ones reproducing.

The problem with generalisations is that it paints an unnecessarily black and white picture. We're not talking about original people here, we're talking about the descendants of original people, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. The original people are all long dead, their descendants are where they are by accident of birth.

That's all well and good but Being that Jews are God's chosen people, the only reliable source as to who they are should come from his word, the bible.
And in God's word when the Jews are being described they are described as having 'Dark skin'. The people that are calling themselves Jews and are inhabiting Israel don't even fit the description of Jews in the bible. And at the same time the bible warns us of the 'fake Jews' AKA 'synagogue of satan' Revelation 2:9.

So unless you can find something in God's word that says otherwise, it's irrelevant.

Don't you see the circular logic there?
And even if I did take the Bible as a reliable resource, it stopped recording events in the 1st century. I'm unsure as to what this line of thought is setting out to achieve?

Do you know how white people came about? How the transition from black to white occurred in the human genome, and how long it took to occur?
The amount of pigment in the skin is an irrelevancy of the highest degree - we're all children of Africa.



But to tackle the actual subject matter of the original post... considering the geography of where JC lived, and that Joseph and Mary were poor, it's pretty unlikely that he was a Roman. Of the other ethnicities that were in the area, there were people who looked like modern day arabs/palestinians, and people who looked like modern day africans. Nobody seems to be contesting the almost certainty that Jesus was dark-skinned, so why the need to resort to a contested book to try to prove a non-contested issue? Remember that the Bible has been translated dozens of times, and it was written by men, regardless of the source of the actual inspiration behind it....

Remember that missionaries have a long history, in other religions as well as Christianity, to depict their central figure(s) as looking like the people that they're trying to convert, and that it has a lot to do with people being leery of anything new... one less thing to worry about. I suggest you look at the differences between Japanese, Chinese, and Indian depictions of Buddha, and how the Chinese representations of Siddartha look Chinese. It's a normal cultural thing and not exclusive to Judaic religions.

Finally, the movie Dogma beat the original post to the point... in it, Chris Rock's character came back to earth from Heaven on a quest to have the Bible changed to reflect that Jesus was black.

Posted by: DeeJay Jun 5 2009, 08:37 PM
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jun 5 2009, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 5 2009, 08:36 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ May 21 2009, 05:26 PM)
QUOTE (Madame X @ May 21 2009, 10:29 PM)
Alright Tony.

Alot of Jews pull the Anti-Semitism card to attack Arabs, when ALOT of them are not descendants of Semitic people. Mind you ALOT not ALL, because there're many Arab Jews, in fact they're the 1st Jews.

How can Arabs be Anti-Semitism when they're the ORIGINAL semitic people? Its all in your bible by the way.

That was my point.

Yeah, I see your point, but at the same time, I worry about the generalisations that people might read into it (I almost did myself).

And I agree with you to some extent - the anti-Semitic label has been applied to so many people that it is a nonsense term. Hardline Israelis call Arabs anti-Semitic, when they'd be more correct to call them anti-Zionist. But problems arise, cos many non-Israeli Jews are also anti-Zionist. And it's far easier to attract 'aid' from America if America thinks Israelis are the victims of racism rather than just another country who doesn't get on with their neighbours. (BTW I'm not transposing the terms Israel and Judaism, I'm separating them).

The bit that caught my eye was your remark about Jews from Europe not being Semitic. I'm not sure if you have followed the history of Jews in Europe (after the bible, but before the holocaust), but they were an ethnic group from the Middle East who emigrated to Europe. And due to their custom and local bigotry directed toward them(inter-marriage was not common at all), their community and gene pool over all this time is largely intact. And being surrounded on all sides by hostile Europeans, they zealously protected their culture. So from their point of view, they have retained what made them semitic: religion, culture, genes, but they have not retained the land. Generally, Arabs on the other hand have pretty much done the opposite: they retained the land (until recently), but all other elements of who they were have evolved into something new e.g. some Arabs stayed Jewish, most moved to Islam. It's not as if there was a recruitment drive in Europe where new Jews were recruited - it was just the original ones reproducing.

The problem with generalisations is that it paints an unnecessarily black and white picture. We're not talking about original people here, we're talking about the descendants of original people, both in the Middle East and elsewhere. The original people are all long dead, their descendants are where they are by accident of birth.

That's all well and good but Being that Jews are God's chosen people, the only reliable source as to who they are should come from his word, the bible.
And in God's word when the Jews are being described they are described as having 'Dark skin'. The people that are calling themselves Jews and are inhabiting Israel don't even fit the description of Jews in the bible. And at the same time the bible warns us of the 'fake Jews' AKA 'synagogue of satan' Revelation 2:9.

So unless you can find something in God's word that says otherwise, it's irrelevant.

Don't you see the circular logic there?
And even if I did take the Bible as a reliable resource, it stopped recording events in the 1st century. I'm unsure as to what this line of thought is setting out to achieve?

Do you know how white people came about? How the transition from black to white occurred in the human genome, and how long it took to occur?
The amount of pigment in the skin is an irrelevancy of the highest degree - we're all children of Africa.



But to tackle the actual subject matter of the original post... considering the geography of where JC lived, and that Joseph and Mary were poor, it's pretty unlikely that he was a Roman. Of the other ethnicities that were in the area, there were people who looked like modern day arabs/palestinians, and people who looked like modern day africans. Nobody seems to be contesting the almost certainty that Jesus was dark-skinned, so why the need to resort to a contested book to try to prove a non-contested issue? Remember that the Bible has been translated dozens of times, and it was written by men, regardless of the source of the actual inspiration behind it....

Remember that missionaries have a long history, in other religions as well as Christianity, to depict their central figure(s) as looking like the people that they're trying to convert, and that it has a lot to do with people being leery of anything new... one less thing to worry about. I suggest you look at the differences between Japanese, Chinese, and Indian depictions of Buddha, and how the Chinese representations of Siddartha look Chinese. It's a normal cultural thing and not exclusive to Judaic religions.

Finally, the movie Dogma beat the original post to the point... in it, Chris Rock's character came back to earth from Heaven on a quest to have the Bible changed to reflect that Jesus was black.

To read the bible and actually comprehend it requires a belief and relationship with it's author. The bible isn't a novel, you just can't read it and understand it on your own reconnaissance. The bible was originally written in Hebrew & Greek, (Men have taken that text and translated it as they see fit) which as of last week I am beginning to learn both languages so that I can read the bible in it's original text. Most people who doubt the validity of the bible hasn't read it to begin with, yet alone have read it having a relationship with it's author.

And where do you think they got the idea that Jesus was black from?

But the original purpose of the thread was to challenge the whole "African American" or "Black" tag that the descendants of slaves have been given in this country.

I just have a hard time believing that all the slaves were just random West Africans who were either sold by their King or captured by some mercenaries and sold.



Posted by: Wee Tony Jun 5 2009, 10:52 PM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 6 2009, 01:27 AM)
To read the bible and actually comprehend it requires a belief and relationship with it's author. The bible isn't a novel, you just can't read it and understand it on your own reconnaissance. The bible was originally written in Hebrew & Greek, (Men have taken that text and translated it as they see fit) which as of last week I am beginning to learn both languages so that I can read the bible in it's original text. Most people who doubt the validity of the bible hasn't read it to begin with, yet alone have read it having a relationship with it's author.


I'm well aware that the bible isn't a novel, but neither is it an accurate historic document.
There are theologians who will tell you that some of the New Testament (thought to be originally Koine Greek) were in fact translated from Aramaic with the original texts long lost. We don't have an original bible - we have documents that are close, but not original. Original traditions were largely oral and liable to the 'Chinese whisper' effect. And what we have of original texts is very open to interpretation e.g. there are no vowels or punctuation in the original documents - they were all added.
Punctuation can make a massive difference - take this example:
In punctuating, “Woman without her man is nothing”
The men write: “Woman, without her man, is nothing.”
The women write: “Woman: Without her, man is nothing.”
A little punctuation can make a big difference. Imagine that unpunctuated statement carried the weight that a biblical quote did.

After having being brought up in a fervent religious family and school, I am very familiar with the bible, and its authors, so that attempt to dent my credibility is null and void, but this is beside the point.
When making a historical claim, it requires historical evidence, rather than a contested source and cherry-picked history.

QUOTE

And where do you think they got the idea that Jesus was black from?

Geography?

QUOTE

But the original purpose of the thread was to challenge the whole "African American" or "Black" tag that the descendants of slaves have been given in this country.

I just have a hard time believing that all the slaves were just random West Africans who were either sold by their King or captured by some mercenaries and sold.


I'm all for the empowerment of the descendants of slaves - I fully support this, but only when it is based on hard facts. What's the point in trading one set of cultural myths for another set?
In fact, I'd go one further and say the tags 'black' and 'African-American' should be actively opposed. As while they are used, they perpetuate division rather than embracing common ancestry.

Your view seem to hold an American-centric take on things as it seems to be dealing with issues that are almost exclusively American. Does addressing these problems really require dragging a Bronze age family feud into the modern world?
Slaves were never exclusively from West Africa - no one (with any credible knowledge) would claim otherwise. However, the American experience will place greater emphasis on this part of the world as this is where the Europeans drew the majority of their slaves from at that particular time, which coincided with the invasion of America (at least 1500-5000 years after the events described in the bible). They also justified these terrible actions with what they had interpreted from the bible (in its Greek and Hebrew forms).
Using the bible to claim racial superiority is as abhorrent in the 21st century as it was in the 16th - regardless of the race perpetrating it. Considering this, there is an irony in the original post.

Posted by: DeeJay Jun 6 2009, 03:54 AM
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jun 5 2009, 09:42 PM)

I'm well aware that the bible isn't a novel, but neither is it an accurate historic document.
There are theologians who will tell you that some of the New Testament (thought to be originally Koine Greek) were in fact translated from Aramaic with the original texts long lost. We don't have an original bible - we have documents that are close, but not original. Original traditions were largely oral and liable to the 'Chinese whisper' effect. And what we have of original texts is very open to interpretation e.g. there are no vowels or punctuation in the original documents - they were all added.
Punctuation can make a massive difference - take this example:
In punctuating, “Woman without her man is nothing”
The men write: “Woman, without her man, is nothing.”
The women write: “Woman: Without her, man is nothing.”
A little punctuation can make a big difference. Imagine that unpunctuated statement carried the weight that a biblical quote did.

After having being brought up in a fervent religious family and school, I am very familiar with the bible, and its authors, so that attempt to dent my credibility is null and void, but this is beside the point.
When making a historical claim, it requires historical evidence, rather than a contested source and cherry-picked history.

QUOTE

And where do you think they got the idea that Jesus was black from?

Geography?

QUOTE

But the original purpose of the thread was to challenge the whole "African American" or "Black" tag that the descendants of slaves have been given in this country.

I just have a hard time believing that all the slaves were just random West Africans who were either sold by their King or captured by some mercenaries and sold.


I'm all for the empowerment of the descendants of slaves - I fully support this, but only when it is based on hard facts. What's the point in trading one set of cultural myths for another set?
In fact, I'd go one further and say the tags 'black' and 'African-American' should be actively opposed. As while they are used, they perpetuate division rather than embracing common ancestry.

Your view seem to hold an American-centric take on things as it seems to be dealing with issues that are almost exclusively American. Does addressing these problems really require dragging a Bronze age family feud into the modern world?
Slaves were never exclusively from West Africa - no one (with any credible knowledge) would claim otherwise. However, the American experience will place greater emphasis on this part of the world as this is where the Europeans drew the majority of their slaves from at that particular time, which coincided with the invasion of America (at least 1500-5000 years after the events described in the bible). They also justified these terrible actions with what they had interpreted from the bible (in its Greek and Hebrew forms).
Using the bible to claim racial superiority is as abhorrent in the 21st century as it was in the 16th - regardless of the race perpetrating it. Considering this, there is an irony in the original post.

I wish I had an opportunity to go to school overseas. The education here is sugar coated, watered down, and steadily declining. I enjoy having discussions with you. You challenge my way of thinking.
maryluvs_bye1.gif

Posted by: Wee Tony Jun 6 2009, 10:41 AM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 6 2009, 08:44 AM)

I wish I had an opportunity to go to school overseas. The education here is sugar coated, watered down, and steadily declining. I enjoy having discussions with you. You challenge my way of thinking.
maryluvs_bye1.gif

Why thank you - you've made my day wub.gif

The opportunities to study overseas are there (and bizarrely, it's a LOT cheaper than a second rate education in the States maryluvs_confused1.gif ). You should look into it. I know a Maryluvs that went to Italy - I'm not saying it's easy, but it isn't impossible. A lot of European countries have a falling population and are giving all sorts of incentives to attract students (e.g. free education).

I had quite a few Americans on my courses and they had the time of their lives. In fact, I know of one who liked it so much, he stayed here after the course finished.

Posted by: DeeJay Jun 6 2009, 11:41 PM
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jun 6 2009, 09:31 AM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 6 2009, 08:44 AM)

I wish I had an opportunity to go to school overseas. The education here is sugar coated, watered down, and steadily declining. I enjoy having discussions with you. You challenge my way of thinking.
  maryluvs_bye1.gif

Why thank you - you've made my day wub.gif

The opportunities to study overseas are there (and bizarrely, it's a LOT cheaper than a second rate education in the States maryluvs_confused1.gif ). You should look into it. I know a Maryluvs that went to Italy - I'm not saying it's easy, but it isn't impossible. A lot of European countries have a falling population and are giving all sorts of incentives to attract students (e.g. free education).

I had quite a few Americans on my courses and they had the time of their lives. In fact, I know of one who liked it so much, he stayed here after the course finished.

Professor? what is it that you teach? maryluvs_hmm.gif

Posted by: Josh Jun 7 2009, 01:32 PM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 6 2009, 03:27 AM)
as of last week I am beginning to learn both languages so that I can read the bible in it's original text. Most people who doubt the validity of the bible hasn't read it to begin with, yet alone have read it having a relationship with it's author.


Why don't you start with the U level English and after that Spanish, French, or German?? I mean both Ancient Greek and Herbrew have different alphabetes and modern day people who speak the relative languages don't even understand them properly. unsure.gif The ancient languages won't get you a job and/or better life standard.

And no, unless I'm unaware of something, these days there could hardly be anyone who has a relationship with those who wrote the bible. Trust me, or better read an encyclopedia article on those who translated the bible, they had a profound knowledge of what they did. Yet they are only humans, too.

Articles for you to read:

Polysemy
Interpretation
Translation

That's where you start.

Posted by: Josh Jun 7 2009, 01:40 PM
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jun 6 2009, 05:42 AM)

I just have a hard time believing that all the slaves were just random West Africans who were either sold by their King or captured by some mercenaries and sold.

True, the Arabs captured millions of slaves in East Africa and Europe long before Europeans ventured into slave trade. This is also a fact that is not much talked about.

Posted by: DeeJay Jun 7 2009, 05:28 PM
QUOTE (Josh @ Jun 7 2009, 12:22 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 6 2009, 03:27 AM)
as of last week I am beginning to learn both languages so that I can read the bible in it's original text. Most people who doubt the validity of the bible hasn't read it to begin with, yet alone have read it having a relationship with it's author.


Why don't you start with the U level English and after that Spanish, French, or German?? I mean both Ancient Greek and Herbrew have different alphabetes and modern day people who speak the relative languages don't even understand them properly. unsure.gif The ancient languages won't get you a job and/or better life standard.

And no, unless I'm unaware of something, these days there could hardly be anyone who has a relationship with those who wrote the bible. Trust me, or better read an encyclopedia article on those who translated the bible, they had a profound knowledge of what they did. Yet they are only humans, too.

Articles for you to read:

Polysemy
Interpretation
Translation

That's where you start.

I appreciate the lesson and except the spirit in which it was given.

However if you have read the bible (in this case I will assume you have) John 1:1-5 says what? In God's own complex simplicity he lets you that He is indeed the AUTHOR of the word. So if continue reading John chapter 1 He also lets you, the reader know that if you have any questions or doubts about His word. Get to know My son Jesus. After all He was the word made flesh and lived among men. Because God's word is his son Jesus, So in order for you to comprehend His word you must have his spirit inside of you (Acts 2:38). I'm not belittle you or come for you (lol), see the beauty of his word is that it's a double edged sword it cuts both ways maryluvs_bye1.gif

Posted by: Josh Jun 7 2009, 05:34 PM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:18 AM)

However if you have read the bible (in this case I will assume you have) John 1:1-5 says what?

I'm sorry, unlike Tony I haven't coz I have many better books to read. Where I live religion is not very popular. maryluvs_bye2.gif

Posted by: DeeJay Jun 7 2009, 05:49 PM
QUOTE (Josh @ Jun 7 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:18 AM)

However if you have read the bible (in this case I will assume you have) John 1:1-5 says what?

I'm sorry, unlike Tony I haven't coz I have many better books to read. Where I live religion is not very popular. maryluvs_bye2.gif

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Having a relationship with Jesus isn't religion or religious. You are religiously on this site. It is what it is, a RELATIONSHIP. God has shown us how much he loves us by making Himself flesh and dying on the cross for our sins so that we may once again be worthy to be in his presence for eternity. You wouldn't want to spend the rest of your life with someone you don't know and neither does God want to spend the rest of eternity with those who don't know His Son, Jesus.

Posted by: Josh Jun 7 2009, 05:59 PM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:39 AM)
QUOTE (Josh @ Jun 7 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:18 AM)

However if you have read the bible (in this case I will assume you have) John 1:1-5 says what?

I'm sorry, unlike Tony I haven't coz I have many better books to read. Where I live religion is not very popular. maryluvs_bye2.gif

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Having a relationship with Jesus isn't religion or religious. You are religiously on this site. It is what it is, a RELATIONSHIP. God has shown us how much he loves us by making Himself flesh and dying on the cross for our sins so that we may once again be worthy to be in his presence for eternity. You wouldn't want to spend the rest of your life with someone you don't know and neither does God want to spend the rest of eternity with those who don't know His Son, Jesus.

I do think it's too obscure for me. I think I'll better let this this thread rest. maryluvs_bye2.gif

Posted by: DeeJay Jun 7 2009, 06:04 PM
QUOTE (Josh @ Jun 7 2009, 04:49 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:39 AM)
QUOTE (Josh @ Jun 7 2009, 04:24 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jun 8 2009, 12:18 AM)

However if you have read the bible (in this case I will assume you have) John 1:1-5 says what?

I'm sorry, unlike Tony I haven't coz I have many better books to read. Where I live religion is not very popular. maryluvs_bye2.gif

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Having a relationship with Jesus isn't religion or religious. You are religiously on this site. It is what it is, a RELATIONSHIP. God has shown us how much he loves us by making Himself flesh and dying on the cross for our sins so that we may once again be worthy to be in his presence for eternity. You wouldn't want to spend the rest of your life with someone you don't know and neither does God want to spend the rest of eternity with those who don't know His Son, Jesus.

I do think it's too obscure for me. I think I'll better let this this thread rest. maryluvs_bye2.gif

Well your still alive, I'm sure Jesus will reveal himself to you. maryluvs_bye1.gif

Posted by: Wee Tony Jul 2 2009, 07:55 AM
Seen this article from the BBC.

Thought it might be of some interest to some people on this thread...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8117258.stm

Posted by: DeeJay Jul 2 2009, 02:09 PM
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jul 2 2009, 06:45 AM)
Seen this article from the BBC.

Thought it might be of some interest to some people on this thread...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8117258.stm

Flawed

Posted by: Wee Tony Jul 2 2009, 02:10 PM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jul 2 2009, 06:59 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jul 2 2009, 06:45 AM)
Seen this article from the BBC.

Thought it might be of some interest to some people on this thread...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8117258.stm

Flawed

maryluvs_confused1.gif What is?

Posted by: DeeJay Jul 2 2009, 02:17 PM
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jul 2 2009, 01:00 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jul 2 2009, 06:59 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jul 2 2009, 06:45 AM)
Seen this article from the BBC.

Thought it might be of some interest to some people on this thread...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8117258.stm

Flawed

maryluvs_confused1.gif What is?

What they're doing. Even in the article itself it said it was flawed. Or inaccurate.

Posted by: Wee Tony Jul 2 2009, 02:23 PM
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jul 2 2009, 07:07 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jul 2 2009, 01:00 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jul 2 2009, 06:59 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jul 2 2009, 06:45 AM)
Seen this article from the BBC.

Thought it might be of some interest to some people on this thread...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8117258.stm

Flawed

maryluvs_confused1.gif What is?

What they're doing. Even in the article itself it said it was flawed. Or inaccurate.

Aw right... yeah, it's a whole load of horse shit - we're nowhere near having the technology ready to do that accurately maryluvs_laughing.gif

I just read it, and it reminded me of this thread.
What I want to know is, who is the guy quoted at the end? Which magazine is that? I can't find anything online about it.
It was his quote that reminded me of the original post in this thread and it made me chuckle to myself maryluvs_giggle.gif

Posted by: DeeJay Jul 3 2009, 03:07 PM
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jul 2 2009, 01:13 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jul 2 2009, 07:07 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jul 2 2009, 01:00 PM)
QUOTE (V.A.L.L.E.J.O. @ Jul 2 2009, 06:59 PM)
QUOTE (Wee Tony @ Jul 2 2009, 06:45 AM)
Seen this article from the BBC.

Thought it might be of some interest to some people on this thread...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8117258.stm

Flawed

maryluvs_confused1.gif What is?

What they're doing. Even in the article itself it said it was flawed. Or inaccurate.

Aw right... yeah, it's a whole load of horse shit - we're nowhere near having the technology ready to do that accurately maryluvs_laughing.gif

I just read it, and it reminded me of this thread.
What I want to know is, who is the guy quoted at the end? Which magazine is that? I can't find anything online about it.
It was his quote that reminded me of the original post in this thread and it made me chuckle to myself maryluvs_giggle.gif

maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif maryluvs_dead2.gif

I tried to ignore that maryluvs_laughing.gif

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)