"Jesus was a Black man who was oppressed by White men"

I never said the Bible is racist or Afro-centric, only YOUR warping/mistranslation of it.

 

it doesnt have to be spelt out [for ppl to know what others are thinking]

 

the Bible says nothing about skin color, except for the Nazarines.

all other speculation is baseless and based on a likely racist agenda.

According to Psalms 45:2, the Messiah is "fairer than the children of men".

Lamentations 4:7 says "Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk."

 

the ethnic origin, stay on topic please or you will be reported for continual derailment.

 

where does the Bible state the skin color of Noah and his sons?

it never does. Not once.

but it does state that Jesus was white and the Nazarines were white.

 

smart ppl have moved on from the false idea of 'race'. care to join us?

 

The Bible is a very valuable historical document, every academic knows this, or should know this. For years many scholars dismissed the old testament as pure fantasy and said certain cities and figures never existed until archaeology proved them wrong. There is no proof that noah existed or that he didn't exist. You can't make a blanket statement like "Noah never existed" and claim it as fact. We simply don't know. There is a babylonian 'noah' in their flood legend as well. And historians agree that the hero of that legend may have indeed been a king of sumer.

You also don't know that the bible is "nothing" but make-believe fantasy, you have no proof to back up that statement. It would be like saying "Muhammad is pure fantasy, he never existed." How can you prove this?

And this is coming from an agnostic. I am very familiar with biblical history and to say that its all 'pure fantasy' is absurd. Funny how the cities of Akkad and Uruk are mentioned in genesis long before archaeologists discovered any confirming evidence outside of the bible that these cities existed.

 

We have documents actually written by Muhammed. There is a HUGE amount of historical evidence that he existed.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah, ever existed.

And it is ABSURD to say "can you prove he didn't exist?"



This is an intellectual discussion, not a discussion of theology.

 

I didn't say all of the Bible is fantasy. I have already said that we can start accepting some of the Bible to be historically legit. around the time of David and Solomon.

But obviously the entire story before Abraham is one big fantasy.

We don't even know if Abraham existed, but its not beyond possibility.

Noah? his sons? give me a break.

 

Its not absurd to say that at all. We simply don't know. There are many references to a large flood outside of the bible in many different cultures. Some scholars have denied the existence of Muhammad btw. Its their opinion which they are entitled to, it doesn't make it fact. Many have said Jesus never existed either, same deal.

 

without hard evidence, its absurd to say that Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah existed.

do you often believe things that have no evidence?

 

The narrative in genesis is way before Solomon or David which are discussed in the later part of the old testament in the writings.

 

so what.

its still absurd to believe that Noah and his sons existed, without evidence.

if I say I am the King of Mars & Jupiter, will you believe me without evidence??

 

I don't believe either way. I believe there is no evidence to make a final judgement about such things. As I said, I am agnostic, we simply don't know. Not knowing and admitting to ignorance is the opposite of believing in something.

- - - Updated - - -

The bible is a largely historical document, we are talking about major cities mentioned in genesis, many of which have been confirmed by archaeology.

 

it is illogical to say: "the Bible mentions Jerusalem, and we know its a real place, therefore Noah was a real person".

totally absurd.

I say I am the King of Jupiter and Uranus. Can you prove I am not?

 

I'm talking about Akkad, Calneh, Erech, Assur, and others. No other book in the time of man has such historical relevance to archaeology of the middle east. For years the academic community said that many biblical figures never existed and were later proven wrong. Their statements were based on the fact of a lack of corroborating evidence at the time. The only thing that is absurd is to make an authoritative claim that a 'noah' never existed without any evidence. I never stated that the mention of major cities is evidence of noah either. There many stories of a major flood in the region, not just from the bible, the epic of gilgamesh, atrahasis, etc. Biblical genealogies have also been show to be very accurate and informative. The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence proving or disproving the existence of noah. There isn't even a general consensus on the big bang which supposedly took place billions and billions of years ago.

As to your claim that muhammad most definitely existed, that is according to muslim literature. Why is the bible questioned any more than the Qur'an and other islamic sources?

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

And btw, even the muslims believe in Noah (Nu7).

 

fine, let me know when historical evidence for the existenc of Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain, and Abel comes out. until then, I don't believe it.

not the ones in Genesis.

we have actual documents written by Muhammed. we have his actual descendents that can be compared genetically.

so, looks like irrational/illogical thinking is a mass-illness.

 

And that is your right, but you can't definitively say to everyone else that it is pure myth while believing in things that have supposedly occurred billions or trillions of years ago. And its odd that you would believe in Muhammad when his existence is based on islamic sources.

To date, there is no evidence proving or disproving the genealogies. You yourself said Muhammad's existence is proven by oral traditions and the existence of the arabs, why a special case for him?

According to islamic tradition. How is this any different than biblical tradition? Its still hearsay.

Various Pharaohs are mentioned in the bible, Ramses in exodus. So its obvious that some genealogies and references to place names before the time of King David have been proven to be authentic and accurate.

The big bang has recently come into question and according to polls, many americans don't believe in it anymore. How can something that some people claimed to have happened billions of years ago (without any witnesses or direct evidence)automatically be accepted as fact? In addition, why is the bible, which was written only a few thousand years ago, automatically dismissed as myth?

For years many scholars said Sargon II of the Bible never existed prior to the discovery at Khorsabad in the 19th century. They even denied the deportation of the israelites. And yet the bible was accurate after all. How do you explain this?

 

we have mentions of Muhammed in non-Muslim sources.

we also have historic events attributed to Muhammed that we know took place.

there is also no evidence disproving that I am the King of Jupiter and Uranus. Are you honestly saying that its possible that I am the King of Jupiter and Uranus?????? lol!!!!!

i said NOTHING about the Arabs. If you can't honestly repeat my claims, don't talk to me.

yes, we know Ramses existed. But there is no historical evidence of Jacob, Isaac, Joseph, or the Israelites' slavery in Egypt nor their exodus to Canaan.

there is scientific evidence for the Big Bang. There is ZERO evidence for the Creation story, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah, etc...

some of the Bible is historically accurate. Much of it is downright lies and pure fantasy.

how do we know which parts are myth and which parts are true?

the parts that can be confirmed by outside sources are likely true.

the parts that are silly and fantastical, are stupid bull(*)(*)(*)(*).



I follow this logic: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

follow this and you shall never go wrong.

 

Look, I don't know why you have become increasingly sarcastic, condescending and antagonistic in the past week, even going as far to say I am not being truthful when I quote Hamas' goal to spread islam across the entire world or that arab leaders have said themselves there is no difference between palestine and jordan. I remember originally you even stated an outrageous claim weeks ago that middle eastern jews never have blue eyes or fair features (and I respectfully countered your claim with pictures last month), and then the other day said that Bar Rafaeli must have got her good looks from her 'white' ashkenazi side implying that mizrahi women are not good looking. If you say 'don't talk to me' I say in response, fine. With pleasure.

I have always been respectful to you despite your ignorant claims. Its just not worth it.

 

why are you taking this discussion personally?

you are making claims, I am asking for evidence.

you are responding by demanding I prove you are wrong. That is a logical fallacy. That is not a mature or intelligent way to debate.

 

caucasians didnt even exist before 500 years ago, how can Israelites have been caucasion.

 

lol!!!!!!!!!!!!

there was no such thing as white people and Caucasians, before 1514????????????

 

here is a link to art from more than 1,000 years ago showing white Europeans.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/sear...dv_prop=image&fr=slv8-tyc9&va=art+middle+ages

http://images.search.yahoo.com/sear..._adv_prop=image&fr=slv8-tyc9&va=byzantine+art

claiming that white people didn't exist more than 500 years ago, is insane.

 

do not edit my comment so as to change the intent, again. I have reported this.

as to white people, they have existed for tens of thousands of years or more.

saying that they only existed for 500 years is absurd. there is art from 1,500 years ago showing white people.