Wow, if this is true about Tariq and hidden colors

[KOohbt]

Not disagreeing with what you said. But please not this...

1. African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Jamaicans, Mexicans, Native Americans and Haitians being Hebrew Israelites? Yes, that is retarded.
2. Africans being evil Hamites? Yes, that is retarded.
3. African Americans not being African, but again Hebrew? Yes, that is retarded.
4. Said Hebrews traveling from the Israel and into West Africa and then ultimately being enslaved? Yes, that is retarded.
5. The forefathers of Judaism being dark skinned and maybe Northeast African i.e "black?" No, that is not retarded because there are actually strong arguments. And for both sides who agree or disagree

There is a strong argument(with good sources btw) that the forefathers of the Ancient Hebrew Israelites could have been Northeast African i.e Egyptian/Nubian due to the land of southern Canaan(Levant) being heavily influenced by Nile Valley people. Whether they were Nile Valley people or not, they would have been dark skinned.

They could've looked like either this:

Or even this:

But definitely not like these modern Jews and hell not even these modern lighter toned Arabs we see today!

Arabia in general was populated by black people well into the medieval times. Not only that but Israel is literally right near Egypt. The thing that gets people confused is they don't truly know where places are located and they don't know the history of these areas with the correct timelines. If you go back to say 500AD. The areas was dominated by the Byzantines. A lot of these "Arabs" are just left over mixes of the natives and Europeans from Turkey and Rome. That area went through a lot of changes, that whole area stretching into North Africa was Black until relatively recent history. Really interesting racial dynamics going on.

 

[Bugatti Biceps]

Smh at any "pro-black" person that believes we are Jews. Yall nikkas so scared to be black yall will pretend you're literally anything else.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Arabia in general was populated by black people well into the medieval times. Not only that but Israel is literally right near Egypt. The thing that gets people confused is they don't truly know where places are located and they don't know the history of these areas with the correct timelines. If you go back to say 500AD. The areas was dominated by the Byzantines. A lot of these "Arabs" are just left over mixes of the natives and Europeans from Turkey and Rome. That area went through a lot of changes, that whole area stretching into North Africa was Black until relatively recent history. Really interesting racial dynamics going on.

Indeed. Also I believe these lighter toned Arabs today are what the Greeks referred to as "Leucosyrian", who came from more "northern" parts. As far as I know dark skinned people whether African or non-African were more numerous throughout the world.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Smh at any "pro-black" person that believes we are Jews. Yall nikkas so scared to be black yall will pretend you're literally anything else.

As far as I can remember Judaism is a religion and not a race and any black person can be a Jew, just as any black person can be a Christian or Muslim.

 

[Bugatti Biceps]

As far as I can remember Judaism is a religion and not a race and any black person can be a Jew, just as any black person can be a Christian or Muslim.

Then you remember wrong, because its an ethnicity and a religion, and these nikkas truly believe they are ETHNIC Jews.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

You guys know that there are ancient Semitic tribes related to the hebrews still around in the ME right? Look up the Mandaens. They look like what you would expect a stereotypical "middle easterner" to look like and speak a language closely related to aramaic...as a matter of fact, they may have once been Jews who gave up their religion. Their religion is based on water baptism.

That's most likely what the ancient hebrews looked like,

 

[Fani Willis fan]

Smh at any "pro-black" person that believes we are Jews. Yall nikkas so scared to be black yall will pretend you're literally anything else.

yall need to clearify between a religious practice and ethnicity, because they are black hebrews till this day

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Then you remember wrong, because its an ethnicity and a religion, and these nikkas truly believe they are ETHNIC Jews.

And you just made my point again? NO, Jews are not an ethnic group. Its a myth that won't go away. There are many "Jewish" ethnics Ashkenazic (German or Eastern European), Sephardic (Spain and Portugal), Mizrahim (Middle Eastern, North African) and smaller ethnics also exist. The reason why we think of Jews as an ethnoic is because the Ashkenazic Jews who we mostly see are the majority of Jews and being Jewish has become synonymous with them.

Yes those Hebrew Israelites are crazy and delusional, but really ANY person can become a Jew like with Christians/Muslims... So if they convert to Judaism why is it weird that they believe themselves to be Jews?

 

[WaveGang]

There's an element of truth in the Hebrew thing.

I got documents that prove enslaved Africans had Hebrew names. Wouldn't be surprised if whites stole that off us.

But nah ain't no one telling me I ain't African.

Thats undisputed shyt.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

There's an element of truth in the Hebrew thing.

I got documents that prove enslaved Africans had Hebrew names. Wouldn't be surprised if whites stole that off us.

But nah ain't no one telling me I ain't African.

Thats undisputed shyt.

Just because they Africans had Hebrew names doesn't mean they are descendants from people of the Levant. Highly unlikely. And that's one of the main arguments of these Hebrew Israelites.

 

[ChatGPT-5]

1. We have dna and fossil evidence that the palestinians/israelites are semite. This isn't the 80s anymore we have haplogroups and mtdna to map this out.

2. nothing special about being israelite since god isn't real, jesus never walked on water, and moses never spoke to a burning bush. These are fukking fairytales.


end of discussion.

 

[WaveGang]

Just because they Africans had Hebrew names doesn't mean they are descendants from people of the Levant. Highly unlikely. And that's one of the main arguments of these Hebrew Israelites.

I don't follow that levant stuff so I agree.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

1. We have dna and fossil evidence that the palestinians/israelites are semite. This isn't the 80s anymore we have haplogroups and mtdna to map this out.

2. nothing special about being israelite since god isn't real, jesus never walked on water, and moses never spoke to a burning bush. These are fukking fairytales.


end of discussion.

Do you want a cookie or something? Who said Palestinians or the people of Israel weren't Semite? I mean BOTH groups speak a Semite language...

Also I don't know about Bible stories being real, BUT NO one can prove that an omnipotent being is real or not. Fact.

 

[ChatGPT-5]

Do you want a cookie or something? Who said Palestinians or the people of Israel weren't Semite? I mean BOTH groups speak a Semite language...

Also I don't know about Bible stories being real, BUT NO one can proof that an omnipotent being is real or not. Fact.

Pretty sure the claim is that those written in the bible, living in those middle eastern towns which still hold their names today, were black, black meaning african. No they were not. They were middle eastern. I'll take a chocolate chip.

as for your second line. nice try, but thats not how it works. the one who believes in god has the burden of proof. this is how we can tell what is actually in front of us "reality" and what is not.

2. Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing withsupernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disproved their existence.

Burden of Proof
Apologists have the burden of proof for the existence of god since they are making a knowledge claim and their view is unfalsifiable. Philosopher Bertrand Russell compared the attempt to disprove god to attempting to disprove the existence of a celestial teapot. Since it is impractical to expect a disproof of either and are therefore unfalsifiable, the burden of proof cannot lay with the skeptic.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Pretty sure the claim is that those written in the bible, living in those middle eastern towns which still hold their names today, were black, black meaning african. No they were not. They were middle eastern. I'll take a chocolate chip.

And who the heck said they weren't Middle Eastern???? What are you getting at exactly?

as for your second line. nice try, but thats not how it works. the one who believes in god has the burden of proof. this is how we can tell what is actually in front of us "reality" and what is not.

2. Arguments similar to, "Belief in proposition X is justified because you can't prove it's not true," are based on the premise that belief in something is justified until sufficient evidence refutes its existence (i.e. argument from ignorance). In this case, the theist is asserting that belief in God is justified even without evidence. While this view may seem reasonable to those who already accept the existence of God, this approach to belief merely represents a form of compartmentalization. If we were to broadly accept the general premise (i.e., "belief is warranted because you can't prove a negative"), we would be unable to develop any useful picture of reality because every claim would be necessarily accepted as true until it was disproved. This is a burden that is impossible to meet when dealing withsupernatural claims. The theist is compartmentalizing his or her supernatural beliefs and applying standards different from those applied to other beliefs. To put it more bluntly, a rational person does not seriously claim that leprechauns or unicorns must be assumed to exist because we have not disproved their existence.

Burden of Proof
Apologists have the burden of proof for the existence of god since they are making a knowledge claim and their view is unfalsifiable. Philosopher Bertrand Russell compared the attempt to disprove god to attempting to disprove the existence of a celestial teapot. Since it is impractical to expect a disproof of either and are therefore unfalsifiable, the burden of proof cannot lay with the skeptic.

I don't know why you posted this, when it serves nothing. When I'm not TRYING TO PROVE a god exist by stating we can't prove one doesn't exist. All I'm really saying arguing a higher being exist or not is a waste of time.

An omnipotent being is an omnipotent being. It would be far too beyond our comprehensive. Not only that, but humans being a very tiny spec in this universe also adds to that. S yeah we wouldn't be able to comprehend one. Nor can we prove or dismiss that one exist. Because our knowledge on the universe is LIMITED. Why do you think science and scientist don't try to disprove a higher being?