And you have just proven my point. One more post like this and I will remove you from this section as it's obvious that either you are trolling or you are completely oblivious about what you are saying, which means you will only cause unnecessary arguments. The fact that, like an immature child, you're going on about "triggered triggered" says it all. Your ignorance is nothing more than a potential hazard for meaningless arguments. So either you act like a mature person or I'm going to kick you out as I don't cut corners when it comes to moderating this section.
Judaism is a religion, the Jewish people however are more than just people who have the same faith. Unlike Christianity and Islam, which are religions that always have been open towards new members, it's extremely hard to become a Jew. Jews believe that they are the chosen people by God and as such you can't just become such a chosen person. They have always been proud about their heritage, their culture and their religion. On top of that they were stigmatized and persecuted for millennia. This all resulted in that Jews had distinctive, isolated communities in society that were hard to get in to or out of. In fact the more they were hunted down, the more obstinate they became and the stronger their communities became. A Jew would almost certainly marry a Jew. Calling them a race is a bit of a stretch, but they are very well genetically distinctive. Many Jews have typical physical features that are attributed to their Jewish ancestry. It often happens in movies that a character knows that another character is Jewish just by looking at him once and/or hearing his last name as many Jews are distinctive in both. You can't say the same thing about Muslims or Christians as they are way too diverse for that. In fact that's the primary reason Christianity broke with Judaism as Christians wanted to allow everyone into their faith, something the Jews did not want.
So yeah you are completely wrong. The only thing you are right about, is that it indeed was different 2000 years ago, so I wonder how is it that despite knowing that, you are saying the absurd and false statement that Jesus was black which contradicts what you just said? And how you say that he would have been different from a European despite the reality that Europeans would have also looked differently back then? You are not even making any sense. Not to mention I am taking into consideration how the situation was 2000 years ago, everything I said was true. The Eastern Mediterranean, and even parts of the Middle East, were historically, culturally, genetically and appearance wise at the time of Jesus much more related to the European continent than Central Africa, which is where the people lived who could truly be described as being "black".
What you say doesn't even make sense. Apparently according to you there are only whites and blacks. If you would go from Northern Europe all the way down to the equator, you would go from as pale as snow in Northern Europe to as black as charcoal around the equator. This all has to do with the intensity of the sun, so if you would already start categorizing people based on distinct differences in their skin color, you would end up at least in the double digits, maybe even the triple digits. So if you would actually follow your own messed up reasoning, by all means Jesus was white as he sure resembled someone from Europe more than someone from Central Africa, unless you want to call everyone in Southern Europe black as the further north people went, the lighter their skin became.
How is it possible that you claim you are talking about diversity while you are using the term "black". That on itself invalidates everything you say. I mean look at what you just did. You just said that people were 2000 years ago different, you then ignore that same statement for Europeans and then you post a picture of modern day Egyptians to prove something about Egyptians that lived 5000 years ago. There have been many dynasties in Ancient Egypt and the territories they ruled expanded and shrunk countless of times, so there are huge differences depending on which time, dynasty and place you talk about. However by no means you can describe them as being black on average. The last dynasty was even a Greek one, which really were not black. So you could as easily have given a picture of a bunch of pale Egyptians. You can't even follow your own arguments through, it's almost pathetic that you can't even see your own contradictory statements. You are subjectively deciding who are the original natives and who are not, which on itself is a relative statement because as I said, the further you go into Africa, the darker the skin will become and the territories of Ancient Egypt varied. Jean Grey is absolutely right in saying that you are doing the exact same thing you described in the OP: you vehemently deny things that are painfully obvious.
You have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about any of the historical matters you talk about and you have even less understanding about the complexities about how history is written and perceived. That became even more obvious about your comment saying that I should not view this from the present...as that's what I have been doing all along, it's you who completely failed at that. Again you say something that's true and then you do exactly the opposite yourself. Everything I said, so far that that is possible, was seen from the correct historical perspective, something you absolutely refuse to do. "Hey, you should not view the past from the present...and here me is holding up a picture of modern day Egyptians to prove something about 5000 years ago"...what?
And I'm not sugarcoating it. If he was not black, he was not black. It's not my fault that apparently you consider everyone that's not as pale as a corps as being black. Btw this has actually already been investigated, so you are denying with non-sensical BS something that has already been researched. Let me give you yet another historical trivia: do you know where exactly several important large migrations entered Europe? Greece, Turkey and the many islands and coastal regions in the Eastern Mediterranean and I'm not talking about some far away migrations from 10 000 BC, I'm talking about migrations that occurred around 1500-1000 BC. How could someone like you who has no knowledge about history whatsoever ever look at historical themes like these with any other perspective then a present day one?
This is the last chance you will get before I will remove you from this section because it is as I predicted. You dropped a controversial statement that is wrong on all fronts which you consequently tried to defend with half-assed arguments that contradict each and every time and this will lead to nothing other than senseless arguments. One of the things I hate the most is when people like you molest and harass history just to cause a stir.
Go get some common sense and a rational mind if you are only going to quote the Bible as almost all of your quotes are irrelevant. Did you ever play that game where you have to whisper a sentence into someone's ear and that person then whispers it in someone else's ear and so on and then when the last person has to say the sentence, it doesn't even remotely resemble the original sentence anymore? Well the exact same thing happened to the Bible, only a thousand times more severe as it was done over a period over 2000 years. So you quoting a sentence about Jesus' looks has almost as much value as someone using a dorito with a face on it to prove how Jesus really looked. Even the church father Augustine said you shouldn't be taking everything that's written in the Bible literally.
I think you quoted the wrong post.
