Jesus was black.

[selfactivated]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gopher
I have previously provided biblical quotes which refer to Jews as being black. Therefore, Jesus could have been so as well. But there is no proof that He was white as Europeans portrayed Him after the 1400s.


But, there is no proof Yeshua was anything to begin with, as I keep pointing out.
But, whether white, black, green, purple, eight-armed, monocular, pseudopod, etc. the principles are the important part, as Sanc says.

Yeah but PROOF would be nice for us heatherns. I mean if Im going to be raked over the coals every two minutes for some evaganical that "lived" over 2000 years ago I want proof the dude existed!

 

[L Gilbert]

You have obviously never read Thomas Aquinas' 5 proofs of the existence of God -

Background:

St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) was a Dominican priest, theologian, and philosopher. Called the Doctor Angelicus (the Angelic Doctor,) Aquinas is considered one the greatest Christian philosophers to have ever lived. Two of his most famous works, the Summa Theologiae and the Summa Contra Gentiles, are the finest examples of his work on Christian philosophy.

"The truth of the Christian faith...surpasses the capacity of reason,

He got it right there, it's irrational. There's nothing of the basis of faith that has anything to do with reality.

nevertheless that truth that the human reason is naturally endowed to know can not be opposed to the truth of the Christian faith."

Aquinas argued that there are at least 5 "proofs" of the existence of God....

First Way: The Argument From Motion

St. Thomas Aquinas, studying the works of the Greek philsopher Aristotle, concluded from common observation that an object that is in motion (e.g. the planets, a rolling stone) is put in motion by some other object or force. From this, Aquinas believes that ultimately there must have been an UNMOVED MOVER (GOD) who first put things in motion. Follow the agrument this way:

1) Nothing can move itself.

2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.

3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

Nuts. Is there any proof that things weren't in motion in the beginning? Is there any proof that there was a beginning?
Unless everything is at 0° Kelvin, there is constant motion because atoms, parts of atoms, etc. constantly oscillate. So does that mean that your god is simply heat energy? So at least some of Aquinas' hypotheses are based upon supposition.

I could refute each and every "proof" (note the quotation marks signifying my refusal to believe that Aquinas knew what scientific proof is), but the following is a long winded version of the "proof" that Aquinas' "proof" is screwy:

link

And what's more:

link

link

link

This is interesting:

link

 

[Ariadne]

That's debatable.

It is interesting to note, that we see many images of the Egyptians of later dynasties, but if you research archeological discoveries of early and contemporary researchers. You will find the further you go back the more negroid the features become.

There is good reason for that.

The further you go back, the less interbreeding you have.

Hence, it is logical to sumize that not only did Jesus have olive or darker skin, but he likely would have had features that were likely more negroid then caucasian. He was and I can say this, with the support of an entire field of scientific and archeological research, that he was as far from caucasian as I am from Chinese.

Jesus was Jewish and Arabic. Arabs are considered to be caucasian due to bone and skull structure. Negros have a different bone structure and are a different race. Therefore, Jesus was in fact caucasian, however most likely not the blond haired, blue eyed version.

"White - A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East ."
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwafa/forms/race_categories.html

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You have obviously never read Thomas Aquinas' 5 proofs of the existence of God -

Those are not proofs, they are merely arguments and don't prove anything. The first three are just different ways of doing the same thing. They all involve an infinite regression--every answer provokes another question, and the answer to that provokes another question, and so on, forever--and invoke god to terminate it quite arbitrarily. It's far from clear why god himself wouldn't be subject to exactly the same kind of infinite regression argument. You have to grant some pretty sweeping assumptions for those arguments to have any force, so much so that they amount to begging the question. The fourth one is just stupid. You could also go to the other extreme just as logically: there is a maximum of ugliness and it's contained in god. Stick in any kind of comparison you like, and you'll come to the same dumb conclusion.

The teleological argument is the only one that's in regular use these days, and we've had many discussions about that in various threads here so I'm not going to delve deeply into it in this one. David Hume and Charles Darwin blew the argument to bits years ago. Thanks to Darwin, for instance, we can no longer say that the appearance of design is an argument for design. Natural selection very strongly produces an appearance of design.

 

[Ariadne]

Those are not proofs, they are merely arguments and don't prove anything. The first three are just different ways of doing the same thing. They all involve an infinite regression--every answer provokes another question, and the answer to that provokes another question, and so on, forever--and invoke god to terminate it quite arbitrarily. It's far from clear why god himself wouldn't be subject to exactly the same kind of infinite regression argument. You have to grant some pretty sweeping assumptions for those arguments to have any force, so much so that they amount to begging the question. The fourth one is just stupid. You could also go to the other extreme just as logically: there is a maximum of ugliness and it's contained in god. Stick in any kind of comparison you like, and you'll come to the same dumb conclusion.

The teleological argument is the only one that's in regular use these days, and we've had many discussions about that in various threads here so I'm not going to delve deeply into it in this one. David Hume and Charles Darwin blew the argument to bits years ago. Thanks to Darwin, for instance, we can no longer say that the appearance of design is an argument for design. Natural selection very strongly produces an appearance of design.

I don't think you're allowed to introduce the "infinite regression" argument because the argument stipulates, by definition, that the causes cannot be infinite:

"The second way is very similar to the first. It argues that," In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." By this he means that any thing, circumstance or event cannot change itself, but can only change something else (concept of efficient cause). Since there is a string of causes in which the string cannot be infinite (see premise #1), then all causes must attribute themselves to a first cause: God."
http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/RE/R-B2--00.HTM

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I don't think you're allowed to introduce the "infinite regression" argument...

I didn't, Aquinas did, and then arbitrarily terminated it with god, assuming that god himself is not subject to the same regress. He's simply assuming the truth of what he's trying to prove, and that's not a logically valid way to proceed.

 

[sanctus]

Jesus was Jewish and Arabic. Arabs are considered to be caucasian due to bone and skull structure. Negros have a different bone structure and are a different race. Therefore, Jesus was in fact caucasian, however most likely not the blond haired, blue eyed version.

"White - A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East ."
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwafa/forms/race_categories.html

Thank you, that was my point. Joshua bar-Jonah(Jesus) being born of a Jewish mother in Judea would obviously have to be racially of the same mix as His human side. But again, what matters is not this, but rather His teachings.

 

[Ariadne]

I didn't, Aquinas did, and then arbitrarily terminated it with god, assuming that god himself is not subject to the same regress. He's simply assuming the truth of what he's trying to prove, and that's not a logically valid way to proceed.

It doesn't really matter whether he calls it God or Thing One, he still, as part of his argument, specifies that cause cannot be infinitely regressive. He uses inductive logic and contradiction to demonstrate that when something is great, let's define it as God, there cannot be something else that is greater because then by definition, it would be God, so therefore it is not infinitely regressive.

He's not begging the question, he's saying that let's suppose there is a great thing out there ... something that we can imagine as the greatest. Let's define it as Thing One, let X=T1. If there was another thing greater than Thing One, our original Thing One would be Thing Two and the greater thing would still be defined as Thing One. But Thing One is defined by Great (meaning there is nothing greater). Therefore, it is still called Thing One, therefore contradiction and greatness is not infinitely regressive.

define T1 > T2, T3, ...Tn (everything)
and T1 > T2
if T2 > T1
then T1 is not greater than everything <contradiction>
Therefore, T2 < T1
QED

He's not assuming, he's defining terms, constructing an inductive argument and using contradiction to demonstrate proof - very common argument.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...as part of his argument, specifies that cause cannot be infinitely regressive.

That's not how I read it. He specifies that the cause *is* an infinite regress and arbitrarily conjures up god to terminate it, while making the unjustified assumption that god is immune to the regress, so questions like "Who designed the designer" become disallowed. That's not good logic.

He's not begging the question, he's saying that let's suppose there is a great thing out there ...

Exactly. Let's suppose god's out there, then we can invoke him to terminate the infinite regress. If you're setting out to prove god's out there, that argument by definition is begging the question.

...something that we can imagine as the greatest. Let's define it as Thing One, let X=T1.... etc.

You're edging over toward St. Anselm's ontological argument here, which is also bankrupt. I don't see the point of your argument at all. You've defined T1 as greater than T2, and T3, and so forth, so if T2, or any Tn, is greater than T1, you haven't got a contradiction, you've got a faulty definition, and haven't proven a thing.

Really though, I don't understand why people keep trying to prove god's existence with logic. Given the characteristics god is generally thought to have, no such proof is possible. God's supposed characteristics, like omnipotence and omniscience, are logically inconsistent, so clearly this is a not question where logic will be of much use.

 

[Ariadne]

That's not how I read it. He specifies that the cause *is* an infinite regress and arbitrarily conjures up god to terminate it, while making the unjustified assumption that god is immune to the regress, so questions like "Who designed the designer" become disallowed. That's not good logic.

Exactly. Let's suppose god's out there, then we can invoke him to terminate the infinite regress. If you're setting out to prove god's out there, that argument by definition is begging the question.

You're edging over toward St. Anselm's ontological argument here, which is also bankrupt. I don't see the point of your argument at all. You've defined T1 as greater than T2, and T3, and so forth, so if T2, or any Tn, is greater than T1, you haven't got a contradiction, you've got a faulty definition, and haven't proven a thing.

Really though, I don't understand why people keep trying to prove god's existence with logic. Given the characteristics god is generally thought to have, no such proof is possible. God's supposed characteristics, like omnipotence and omniscience, are logically inconsistent, so clearly this is a not question where logic will be of much use.

That's funny. I almost get the impression that you are begging the question by suggesting that God is out there just to terminate the infinite regression. The argument states that because we can imagine greatness, it must exist. Greatness refers to something that is greater than all else. That greatness causes other things to exist. Even if we regress one iteration, we still end up at the same point of greatness and whether we call it God, Thing One or X, the argument still holds true. If we regress infinitely, we still end up at the same point of greatness.

Suppose we consider God to be zero and the positive numbers to be good and evil people. In some mathematics, infinite iterations lead us closer to zero so even if it is an infinite regression, limit theory leaves us back at zero. You know the example of taking the interval between zero and one and dividing it in two. Each part is half as big. Then we divide those parts and each part is a quarter as big. We divide an infinite number of times and the part is closer and closer to zero. It could be the same with an infinite regression where we are approaching the definition of greatness by slowly eliminating everything that is slightly less than great.

 

[gopher]

Jesus was without a doubt white.

If that is what you wish to believe, that's fine with me. But historians who specialize in that era will not be convinced just because you say so.

 

[Ariadne]

Jesus was without a doubt white.

If that is what you wish to believe, that's fine with me. But historians who specialize in that era will not be convinced just because you say so.

If he was Arabic, which he most likely was when you consider where he lived and the limited travel opportunities about 2000 years ago, then he was caucasian.

 

[gopher]

Arabs are descended of Ishamel which means they are not of the 12 tribes. Jesus was descended of Judah and I have previously listed a link which describes Jews as being black according to the Bible (please see above).

 

[L Gilbert]

That's funny. I almost get the impression that you are begging the question by suggesting that God is out there just to terminate the infinite regression. The argument states that because we can imagine greatness, it must exist. Greatness refers to something that is greater than all else.

Wrong. "Greatest" or "greater" does that as they're terms relating to quantitative characteristics. "Greatness" does not indicate a quantitative characteristic as it's qualitative. I or you or Dex or Sanc have greatness in some ways, but does that mean we're greater than all else? Hardly.

 

[L Gilbert]

.......... and the limited travel opportunities about 2000 years ago, then he was caucasian.

??? Thought he could walk on water. I figure if he could walk on water, he could fly, too.

 

[Ariadne]

Arabs are descended of Ishamel which means they are not of the 12 tribes. Jesus was descended of Judah and I have previously listed a link which describes Jews as being black according to the Bible (please see above).

There is an Ethiopian group that call themselves the 13th tribe. They are black/negro. The other 12 tribes reject this group. Black could easily have referred to darker skin, but people that originated in the Middle East were, and are, considered caucasian. If Jesus was in the Middle East, then why would anyone conclude that he was of African origin. Furthermore, if people of Jewish religion are descended from African blacks, how did they stop being black and become caucasian? It's not like they can re-organize their bone structure.

 

[wallyj]

Wow,I saw that this thread was still going so I thought I would peruse it for a bit.There seems to be a lot of people who like to parse and debate and argue about trivial points that are completely irrelavant to most. So I will weigh in,of course.I don't care what colour,gender or hairstyle your god was born,created,hatched or otherwise. Why argue,debate or parse,if you believe?If your god says" believe in me " him not me, ,or you are a lesser person,then you have a god who does not believe in the human race. Get off your pedestals,live within yourself.

 

[gopher]

Again, I refer you to the specific language used in the Bible which clearly describes biblical Jews as being black. If you read accounts of Solomon's amorous adventures you would know he had multiple African wives. In fact, several words if East African languages are Hebraic in origin because he has so many living descendants in that part of the world.

It is essential that people read what the Bible says in order to fully understand this issue.

 

[L Gilbert]

Wow,I saw that this thread was still going so I thought I would peruse it for a bit.There seems to be a lot of people who like to parse and debate and argue about trivial points that are completely irrelavant to most. So I will weigh in,of course.I don't care what colour,gender or hairstyle your god was born,created,hatched or otherwise. Why argue,debate or parse,if you believe?If your god says" believe in me " him not me, ,or you are a lesser person,then you have a god who does not believe in the human race. Get off your pedestals,live within yourself.

You've got no sense of haha or fun, do you? :sad10:

 

[Ariadne]

??? Thought he could walk on water. I figure if he could walk on water, he could fly, too.

Some people believe that religious books are meant as fables or moral, ethical and health related story-telling while others believe that they are fact.

My son asked me about the sharing of bread and wine so of course, I had to explain that Jesus wasn't really magic, in fact he was revered so when he tried to share his meagre ration of bread with so many people, they all politely passed it from one person to the next while discreetly pulling a meagre bread ration out of their own pocket. When the bread made it's way through the crowd and all the way back to Jesus, he could declare it a miracle because everyone had something to eat, but each person privately knew that they didn't actually take any of Jesus's bread. When you think about it, everyone had a little food and drink hidden in their pockets when they went for a hike back then ... it's not like there was a McDonalds on every corner. The moral of the story is that it's good to share, good to revere the supreme leader, good to create stories to teach children socially appropriate behavior and all that other stuff. All the stories about pork are probably related to trichinosis. There's a reason for all the stories, but the reason is not necessarily because they are all fact ... but maybe Jesus could fly from Africa to the Middle East and physically alter all the negro people so that they became caucasian.