If the "Real Jews" are Black people does that mean...

[Mr. 1nighter]

You calling your names because you are a fukking moron

the bible is from hebrew text first of all, stop saying its greek

I gave the greek word which is the equivalent to Niger, since we are speaking in English, this is the word we are using
not the greek word you moron, the people calling him this spoke greek, but we are reading the bible in English

the Bible is translated in many languages, the original is hebrew, the point you are trying to make doesn't make any sense and you know it

The bible is translated into English you moron no matter what language you translate it to there is a word for Niger

I gave you the greek word which predates Niger, it means the exact same thing, and is also where the world ****** comes from in our time

I never said what language they were speaking to him, I quoted what was in the bible

King James Bible
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Old Testament is Hebrew. New test is Greek

 

[thekingsmen]

a brother could tell you lost nikkas that 2+2 = 4 and you wouldn't believe them

but you believe the white man when he tells you peanut butter + 476.3/5 * 80 + air bud 4 = 4

btw @FLYINHAWAIIAN why do you act like a scorned woman when it comes to this topic? what camp were you in?

and how is @HebrewAllahTripleDarkness not banned yet

Real talk...

 

[Mr. 1nighter]

Aramaic and Hebrew are not one and the same though.

The Aramaic word for Matityahu (Matthew) is "Mattai‎".

So, was the Book of Matthew first written in Hebrew?

No it was in Greek and no one knows who truly wrote it. Council of nicea stuff

 

[AyahuascaSippin]

Hellenized Jews were literally Jews from the Southern Kingdom of Judah, they were just following heathenistic customs. Just because they were throughout Europe doesn't mean they were so called white people. They were so called Black people.

My understanding from years of reading and various sources is that the hellenistic jews grew due to the conquests of alexander. Multiple sources show their mother tongue was greek, and egypt had been infiltrated for centuries already. You're telling me that these jews who burdened their people with debt in lands that were now under european control were 'evil black people' whos proginy are being gunned down to this day due to the sin tied to them within a frequenty mistranslated book, written by aristocratic europeans? I find that hard to believe and a little bit fukked up.

 

[Apollo Creed]

@ this thread going from


To

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The New Testament is written in English in our ible lmao which in English the word Niger is derived from Latin

The original text is Hebrew not greek you moron

I literally have never met someone who thought the original text of the New Testament was Hebrew. You're confused.

They were speaking Aramaic. By the time it was written down, it was being written for a much broader audience, so it was written in Greek. Both those facts are pretty well established. Who gave you this whole, "the original text was Hebrew" idea, and on what evidence?

The original hebrew/habiru/ebru people were of african descent yes.

The story of jesus was transformed to such a degree that this mans name is now a representation of a greek god.

By the time of his death, egypt was already on a mass decline due to infiltration over the previous centuries. The north and south was divided by hyksos and african rule. Many had already began their 'exodus' away from the kingdom.

The knowledge gained from the empire benefitted the greeks, who had a religious system based on a contorted version of the egyptians. This is now known as hellenistic judaism, and it was stamped out not out of hate, but to preserve its influence among the ruling/aristocratic class, while giving birth to christianity in order to unite the soon to be roman empire (stretching from europe to africa).

Christians were persecuted by the Roman empire for 300 years before it became the empire's favored religion in 313 (for a short time), and even then there was some back-and-forth for another 70 years before it became the state religion for the first time in 380.

And right when Christianity finally became the state religion in 380, the whole Roman empire split in half into Eastern and Western sides, Rome was sacked by 410, and the Eastern and Western churches quickly condemned each other and refused to collaborate for the next 1500 years.

"Christianity was made to unite the Roman empire" has got to be one of the most historically ignorant theories I have ever heard.


p.s. - don't let your government authorites start running your religion brehs.

 

[unit321]

Israelites are black.... according to scripture.......

okay. if you can quote the scripture rather just make statements without backing, that would be good.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

"Christianity was made to unite the Roman empire" has got to be one of the most historically ignorant theories I have ever heard.

That's right up there with 'Jesus' 'divinity' was decided on a vote by the Council of Nicea', and, 'There were DOZENS of 'Gospels' but only those accepted by the Catholic Church made it into the Bible. The rest were destroyed.'....................

Cats read too much Dan Brown and Acharya S.​

 

[AyahuascaSippin]

Christians were persecuted by the Roman empire for 300 years before it became the empire's favored religion in 313 (for a short time), and even then there was some back-and-forth for another 70 years before it became the state religion for the first time in 380.

And right when Christianity finally became the state religion in 380, the whole Roman empire split in half into Eastern and Western sides, Rome was sacked by 410, and the Eastern and Western churches quickly condemned each other and refused to collaborate for the next 1500 years.

"Christianity was made to unite the Roman empire" has got to be one of the most historically ignorant theories I have ever heard.


p.s. - don't let your government authorites start running your religion brehs. Bad shyt happens.

Where did i say they weren't persecuted? Christianity during persecution was far closer to paganism/lollardy than the christianity of today, and the reason for adoption was one of an imperial goal. Obviously you're entitled to disagree, but you've clearly let the government authorities run your education too, or else you would have connected the dots between the crisis of the third century (the empire was crumbling wayyy before adopting christianity), constantines conversion, his commissioning of the council (in 325 btw idiot) which ultimately gave birth to todays christianity.

 

[Rekkapryde]

In the old testament thats the truth

in the new testament, Judea is not Judah which was the Kingdom that split from Israel, Judea is a Roman Province
during jesus' time

names change and borders change over time,

also the "jews" didn't kill jesus the Pharisees did, because Jesus challenged their authority

If all these people were black they wouldn't have called Simeon "Niger" in the church of Antitoch

Niger means "a black man" a christian

and was pronounced as NIG-GER

as you can see here in greek

Strong's Greek: 3526. Νίγερ (Niger) -- Niger, a Christian

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Where did i say they weren't persecuted?

Probably when you said, "This is now known as hellenistic judaism, and it was stamped out not out of hate, but to preserve its influence among the ruling/aristocratic class, while giving birth to christianity in order to unite the soon to be roman empire (stretching from europe to africa)."

That statement is senseless historically, and has nothing to do with a church that would go nearly 300 years of NOT being the Roman Empire, with occasional off-and-on persecution by them.

And ignores the fact that when Christianity finally became the official Roman religion 350 years after it started, the Roman Empire was already in the process of dividing, and became MORE divided, not less, after adopting Christianity.

Christianity during persecution was far closer to paganism/lollardy than the christianity of today, and the reason for adoption was one of an imperial goal.

I've read dozens and dozens of Christian documents from those periods, both from orthodox and hetero-orthodox sources, and all I can say is that you're speaking against virtually all the evidence out there.

Christianity was fundamentally Jewish at the beginning, which it slowly drifted away from as more and more non-Jews became Christian, but never lost entirely. While there can always be drift-off sects who practice whatever the hell they want, there was never a point in history where the main body of Christianity was "far closer to paganism", and certainly not before Constantine's interjections.

Obviously you're entitled to disagree, but you've clearly let the government authorities run your education too, or else you would have connected the dots between constantines conversion and his commissioning of the council (in 325 btw idiot) which ultimately gave birth to todays christianity.

What the kind of government authorities would have done that? It's not like they were teaching us about Christian origins in high school.

The idea that the Council of Nicene "gave birth to today's Christianity" is ridiculous if you've actually read the documents of the 250 years before that.

And what does "(in 325 btw idiot)" mean? I'm guessing that's in response to something you misread regarding something you don't understand, but not sure what it is. Feel free to elaborate so I can reeducate you.

And if you think the purpose of all this was to bring unity to the empire...you probably forgot that Julian, who was an emperor AFTER Constantine, was an anti-Christian who promoted paganism, and the period in which Christianity was finally brought in as the official Roman state religion was immediately followed by the permanent breakup of the empire.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Where did i say they weren't persecuted? Christianity during persecution was far closer to paganism/lollardy than the christianity of today, and the reason for adoption was one of an imperial goal. Obviously you're entitled to disagree, but you've clearly let the government authorities run your education too, or else you would have connected the dots between the crisis of the third century (the empire was crumbling wayyy before adopting christianity), constantines conversion, his commissioning of the council (in 325 btw idiot) which ultimately gave birth to todays christianity.

LOL, the Council of Nicea didn't do squat and really had nothing to do with how Christianity is today. That was all ironed-out 200+ years before Constantine was even born. Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the 'official' religion of Rome, not Constantine, with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380.......55 years after the Council........and banned all forms of 'paganism' about 15 years later.

'Christianity' was never 'pagan'. It was Jewish monotheism. The first Christians conceived of a 'binitarian diety' within a few years of Jesus' death based entirely on the Tanakh and that's why Jesus = 'G-d' to them.​

 

[AyahuascaSippin]

Probably when...(several paragraphs of nothing

Dont skip ahead to julian just yet, after constantines conversion and death, his three sons held territories ranging from britain to syria and down through africa, while suppressing previous religions and pushing nicene orthodoxy upon these territories. Religious doctrine, which was convened by their father and his council, spread throughout the empire. This is the use of religion for imperial goals. Yeah it fell apart due to infighting rather than cooperation and Julian took control, conveniently closer to the fall of the empire than the adoption of christianity was. I wrote that first post you took issue with pretty quickly, but you're clearly just arguing over semantics as opposed to anything substantial. You must be terrible to live with.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

That's right up there with 'Jesus' 'divinity' was decided on a vote by the Council of Nicea', and, 'There were DOZENS of 'Gospels' but only those accepted by the Catholic Church made it into the Bible. The rest were destroyed.'....................

Cats read too much Dan Brown and Acharya S.​

Well, to tell the truth, there are "dozens of gospels" (around 40 that we know of), if you count every book written between A.D. 30 and A.D. 600 that has Jesus as a main character to be a "gospel".

But counting any random story that any random Persian made up about Jesus 200 years after he died as a "gospel" is about as historically relevant as listing "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" as a presidential biography because it repeats Lincoln's name a lot.

all of Acharya's major points are in fact wrong....[her book] is filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to believe the author is serious.

Mythicists of this ilk should not be surprised that their views are not taken seriously by real scholars, mentioned by experts in the field, or even read by them.

That's not a Christian writer...that's Bart Erhman, one of the most anti-Christian of the early Christian history scholars out there. And even he has to admit that not only is her theory a pile of rubbish...but literally the entire field of study knows it's rubbish.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Dont skip ahead to julian just yet, after constantines conversion and death, his three sons held territories ranging from britain to syria and down through africa, while suppressing previous religions and pushing nicene orthodoxy upon these territories. Religious doctrine, which was convened by their father and his council, spread throughout the empire. This is the use of religion for imperial goals. Yeah it fell apart due to infighting rather than cooperation and Julian took control, conveniently closer to the fall of the empire than the adoption of christianity was. I wrote that first post you took issue with pretty quickly, but you're clearly just arguing over semantics as opposed to anything substantial. You must be terrible to live with.

Ah, I get it. You believe that Christianity was "invented" in 325, that it somehow was derived from Hellanistic Judiasm at that time (pure batshyt crazy territory), and that is somehow "unified" the empire for the short time of Constantine and his son's reigns (even though most of the empire didn't even believe it).

Here's a few hundred documents that you really, really shouldn't get around to reading then.