Holy Trinity Discussion

[Vol8188]

Are these women black to you or not?

View attachment 713153

They're not from Africa by the way. They're from the island of Vanuatu in the Pacific. Genetically they are most closely related to Asians. So one could theoretically say they're Asian. But their phenotype is clearly black. They have dark brown skin, flat broad noses, full lips, and tightly curled kinky hair. All features common among people commonly classified as black.

I define blackness based on PHENOTYPE not geography. It's why nobody would say a pale skin Arab from North Africa is black because he's African. Similarly you ain't non-black simply because you are Asian. If an individual has dark skin, full lips, and tightly curled afro hair most people would say that person is black regardless of what continent they are native to.

Race is based on physical features not geography.

Lmfao back to your argument that everyone who isn’t white…is black.

This is complete nonsense. People near equators have darker skin, yes. Pretending they’re all one people is a joke.

You’re expanding your own definition to such an extreme point that it no longer has meaning. The only reason I can imagine for you to do this is some weird way of taking credit for the accomplishments of other people’s.

“Samoans? No! Those were black people! Egyptians? No! Those were black people!…etc”

It’s nonsense

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Lmfao “it’s not just the braids”….and now we are back to “only black people have braids!”

Only black people have those sort of kinky braids. No other race has that type of hair texture. When white people try to copy braided hairstyles the braids are usually thinner and more flimsy. They lack the rigidity and firmness that kinky hair has when braided. Maybe you can't spot the difference but it's easy to see the difference between braids on a black person versus on a person with non-black hair.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Lmfao back to your argument that everyone who isn’t white…is black.

This is complete nonsense. People near equators have darker skin, yes. Pretending they’re all one people is a joke.

You’re expanding your own definition to such an extreme point that it no longer has meaning. The only reason I can imagine for you to do this is some weird way of taking credit for the accomplishments of other people’s.

“Samoans? No! Those were black people! Egyptians? No! Those were black people!…etc”

It’s nonsense

No. My argument is very simple. If you look black then you're black. Those young Melanesian women if they came to America would be viewed by everyone as black if they were walking down the street. Just because they're native to the Pacific doesn't mean they're not black.

By the way that's why Papau New Guinea has the name it does. When the first European sailors landed on the island they thought the natives looked just like the natives they saw in Guinea (a country in West Africa). So they called this new island "New Guinea".

If it looks like a duck and quacks like duck, it's s duck. Similarly, if the person looks black then they're black.

 

[Orangeslice13]

DNA doesn't lie about what? All DNA does is tell us about your ancestry not your race. For example look at Adolph Hitler. His Y-DNA haplogroup is E1b1b. DNA Tests: Hitler Descended From Jews, Africans?

E1b1b is most commonly found in Africa. Primarily in the Horn of Africa in countries like Somalia. Does this make Adolf Hitler black?

The peoples of Papau New Guinea look like this:

View attachment 713154



But genetically Europeans are more closely related to Africans than these folks. The black people of the Pacific Islands despite looking black are genetically closer to Asians than they are Africans.

DNA doesn't tell you anything about race. All it tells us is about ancestry which doesn't necessarily correlate to phenotype which is influenced by the environment as well as genetics.

You can twist, you can turn, and you can lie but DNA doesn’t.
My DNA proves that I’m the same as the people living on the land from ancient burials of the Hebrews 2500 years ago and neither of us were black.

And that pigmentation on our DNA chain is irrelevant to the G-d of A,I, and J. Exodus is clear that anyone who follows YHWH is the same as the Natural Born Hebrews who follow YHWH in the eyes of YHWH.

Your belief in skin color is not only incorrect but irrelevant

 

[Orangeslice13]

. Btw, I don’t need to be recognized by other denominations validating my beliefs. It’s pretty meaningless actually.

you have absolutely nailed it here.
when you are judged before G-d, at the end of your existence, you will be all alone. What I think of your beliefs and actions will be beyond irrelevant. What you think of my judgment will also be irrelevant.
Everyone should know for themselves what the truth is.
Because “the creed says so” is a horrible way to live if “the creed” is wrong and you (general you not you specifically) never questioned it. An even worse way to be judged.

Reality is most will meet their judgement that way and find out they were wrong.

Messiah says in Mathew 7 that most people will be cast out.

Speaking to “Christians”

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [s]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

 

[Vol8188]

Only black people have those sort of kinky braids. No other race has that type of hair texture. When white people try to copy braided hairstyles the braids are usually thinner and more flimsy. They lack the rigidity and firmness that kinky hair has when braided. Maybe you can't spot the difference but it's easy to see the difference between braids on a black person versus on a person with non-black hair.

“No other race”….odd because you seem to assume white and black as the only other races given you’re pretending dark skin people on any continent are all the same people.

 

[Vol8188]

No. My argument is very simple. If you look black then you're black. Those young Melanesian women if they came to America would be viewed by everyone as black if they were walking down the street. Just because they're native to the Pacific doesn't mean they're not black.

By the way that's why Papau New Guinea has the name it does. When the first European sailors landed on the island they thought the natives looked just like the natives they saw in Guinea (a country in West Africa). So they called this new island "New Guinea".

If it looks like a duck and quacks like duck, it's s duck. Similarly, if the person looks black then they're black.

If you had an albino son would you tell him he’s white

 

[tbh]

Lmfao “it’s not just the braids”….and now we are back to “only black people have braids!”

C'mon, man...can't you see he got a certificate in anthropology while attending barber school?

 

[tbh]

Now find me the South American with kinky braided hair like this.

View attachment 713156


What you posted of South Americans with broad features would be like me finding pictures of Africans with straight hair (of which there are plenty) like this young lady...

View attachment 713158


And claiming straight hair is a feature common in black Africans. It isn't. Most black people have a much curlier and kinkier hair texture than this. Similarly broad noses and full lips are not common in Central and South America. If they did we would see them here in America considering there are millions of Mexican immigrants. And yet I rarely see Mexicans with negroid facial features. You can't try to use outlier physical features in a community when all the Olmec heads show these features which are rare in Central and South America but are common in black populations.

Where is the other significant number of "back of head" shots of Olmec carvings/statues? There are only a handful, so how is it you can say (with a straight face) that the handful you've produced are in fact representative of the vast majority of the group? You cannot, and it is obvious that you only see what you want to see, and for that, you're ignorant.

Go back to making wild predictions about football players' Heisman hopes or pro career prospects. At least then your sh!t sticks to the wall on occasion.

 

[LouderVol]

Seems self defeating to be a jerk about your superior biblical knowledge.

man, you just put every religious figure or authority out of a job. many/most have fallen into the academia trap of needing to know more than anyone else. not because it actually makes them a better person or scientist or whatever, but just to know better.

 

[Jxn Vol]

Has God posted in this thread yet and cleared up any confusion? Or are we still speculating?

 

[LouderVol]

With regard to the color of the Ancient Hebrews the argument that they were black is based on the Bible and known historical record. According to the Bible, both Moses and Joseph were mistaken for Egyptians. Thus we can logically conclude that there were no visible physical differences between the Ancient Hebrews and the Ancient Egyptians during the time they were in Egypt. We also know from the Bible that the Ancient Egyptians were considered one of the sons of Ham (father of the black race) along with Kush (biblical name for Ancient Nubia). We also know from the accounts of Ancient Greek historians like Herodutus that the Ancient Egyptians were described as having "black skin and wooly hair" like the Ancient Nubians (aka Ethiopians to the Ancient Greeks). So if the Ancient Egyptians were black according to the Bible and historical record and if Hebrews like Moses and Joseph were mistaken for being Egyptians rather than Israelites then it must logically follow that the Ancient Hebrews were also black.

With regard to black people preceding Columbus in the Americas, the evidence is numerous. I'll start with the most scientifically accepted piece of evidence. LUZIA: America’s OLDEST Skeleton is a “Black” WOMAN

The new face of Luzia and the Lagoa Santa people

Study by 72 researchers from eight countries concludes that the Lagoa Santa people are descendants of Clovis culture migrants from North America. Distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong.

agencia.fapesp.br

The oldest human remains found in the Americas is the fossil of Luzia woman. Found in Brazil, the anthropologists that found the remains said that the skull didn't look like the skulls of the Indians found in the region. But instead of looked like the skull of a negroid woman. So according to mainstream science the oldest human fossil found in the Americas is that of a black woman.

Now the second piece of evidence that shows black people were in the Americas comes to Christopher Columbus own journal of his second voyage to the Americas. In modern day Dominican Republic/Haiti he said that the Native Indians told him: “Black-skinned people had come from the southeast in boats, trading in gold-tipped spears.”

SCHOLAR: COLUMBUS’ JOURNAL BEARS EVIDENCE OF BLACKS IN AMERICAS

FORT LAUDERDALE — Controversial scholar Ivan Van Sertima, who theorizes that Africans came to the Americas before Columbus, discovered Fort Lauderdale on Thursday. Van Sertima was given a rec…

www.sun-sentinel.com

And if you want even more evidence there are the Olmec heads which were found in Mexico which are the remains of the oldest civilization in the Americas. This is how those heads looked.

View attachment 713080


Looks like a black man if you ask me. And when they were first discovered the earliest Europeans thought the same thing. And because I know yall will lie to yourselves and act like this isn't clearly a black head. Let's look at how the back of the head looks.

View attachment 713081

Yes you're seeing that right. It's braids. The Olmec heads have braided hair in the back. So you're gonna tell me these heads with broad flat noses, full thick lips, and braided hair ain't depicting black people?


When you put all the evidence together from the earliest fossil remains of Luzia woman to the earliest civilization in the Olmecs, and Columbus own account its obvious black people were in the Americas before Columbus.

Luzia being negroid has been called into question. It was based on one cranial feature, that is no longer considered 'concrete evidence' of race.

"Although the measurements derive from this historical framework, some of the premises and procedures of the quantitative analysis used in the study of Luzia are connected to later theoretical ruptures....Today, therefore, rather than being considered a 'definitive' marker of biology-race, the cranial structure is seen to be partially determined by genetics (hence its use in studies of biological affinities between populations) but not exclusively so."

also Luzia, even if directly from Africa, wouldn't have been a "discoverer" of America to be compared to Columbus. she was an original settler long before Columbus, and no one doubts that there were peoples here before Columbus.

The colour of the bones: scientific narratives and cultural appropriations of 'Luzia', a prehistoric skull from Brazil

and to the point of first people there is also a skull featuring caucasian morphology that was found in Washington state dating from at least the same period as Luzia. Look up the Kennewick man, he is mentioned in that same article. So even if Luzia is negroid she arguably wasn't here any sooner than the caucasians.

there are emerging fields, read as saying 'none of it is settled', that is saying that the Bering land bridge wasn't the only mode people made it to the Americas. during the ice age there would have been far more islands in the Atlantic and Pacific that would have allowed people to cross easier. Look at all the pacific islands that were settled by "natives" when the white explorers showed up. some of those current inhabited islands are more isolated than the distance from some inhabited islands to the Americas. so it seems extremely plausible she island hopped from either direction.

there are further complexities in the field around what exactly counts as negroid, specifically when referring to some of those islands, and Australian aborigines and if its fair to classify them as negroid. they maintain some of the same morphology to look negroid, but there were separated for really long times to see variations in DNA that do not show up in samples from an African negroid. Its possible Luzia was one of these, separated from Africa for many many generations, maintaining shared outward physical properties but being genetically separate. so she, and others, may be negroid but not fairly considered as being "from Africa", but rather being "from Australia" or some other ancient population center.

the Olmecs would likely fall into that same category. beyond their head statues almost nothing is known about them. its impossible to know if those stone heads were actually intended to be accurate "portraits" or if they were caricatures. also given the amount of human sacrifice in the area, it could also just be a threat. you skin anyones face and stretch it over a rounded rock you are going to get wide nose and lips as you stretch the skin, regardless of race. They absolutely COULD be of african descent, but as of this moments its just as likely as any other explanation because we know so little.

braids are a mighty leap to on the assumption front too. Africans weren't the only ones to use braids. Vikings had braids long before they made it to the Mediterranean. The "Dutch Braid" is named as such for a reason. various native American tribes braided their hair without any connection to Africa. its likely just an example of co-development. people with longer hair and limited resources needed a way to control their hair. weaving it makes as much sense as anything else, and doesn't require an African start. just because Africa was the first doesn't mean that all subsequent uses of a thing developed out of Africa.

 

[volbound1700]

I guess I have to explain Christian ideology to Christians. Well here you go.

So Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. That means yall worship only ONE God. However, that God comes in three different versions (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). This is an ideology called "the Trinity". Christians don't believe these are 3 different people but rather one individual manifesting himself in 3 different forms. That means Jesus is not only the Son but also the Father and the Holy Spirit. So when the Father (aka God) was ordering Moses to take his people out of Egypt that was actually Jesus ordering him. Since Jesus, the Fat

her, and the Holy Spirit are the same person.

I know it's all very confusing but this is the justification Christians make to believe Jesus is God while also maintaining they are monotheists worshiping ONE God instead of three. Going by this logic then the inspiration behind the Old Testament was Jesus because Jesus is God aka the Father.

Get it now?

The closest thing that I can connect how God interacts with our world is how we interact with Computers/Programs.

My name is obviously not volbound but it is a persona that I have created for this online forum. Jesus is God's Avatar when he became flesh in our world. Interestingly, though, Jesus was SEPERATED from God. This is something that is hard to fathom. There is an argument that at his crucifixion, the real pain was the separation more than even the Earthly pain.

One theme of the Bible is that God, the Father, cannot associate with sin. It is the opposite of Him. Since Jesus took on all sins, God could not associate with Jesus (basically His avatar) for a short stint of 3 days (death, burial, resurrection).

There is also the Holy Spirit which is an essence of God put into His children (believers). Think of it like that scene in one of the Terminator movies where the T1000 terminator put a piece of itself in machinery and was able to influence/control it.

 

[volbound1700]

God was pretty ruthless before Jesus.

Read Acts 5:1-11

 

[hndog609]

Luzia being negroid has been called into question. It was based on one cranial feature, that is no longer considered 'concrete evidence' of race.

From literally the first sentence of one of HIS cited links.

"Study by 72 researchers from eight countries concludes that the Lagoa Santa people are descendants of Clovis culture migrants from North America. Distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong."

 

[volbound1700]

From literally the first sentence of one of HIS cited links.

"Study by 72 researchers from eight countries concludes that the Lagoa Santa people are descendants of Clovis culture migrants from North America. Distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong."

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

You can twist, you can turn, and you can lie but DNA doesn’t.
My DNA proves that I’m the same as the people living on the land from ancient burials of the Hebrews 2500 years ago and neither of us were black.

You have a deep misunderstanding of DNA then. You seem confused so let me help you out. Imagine two brothers both from Africa. One decides to move to Europe the other stays in Africa. Both look black because of the environment in Africa that their ancestors originated in. The one who moved to Europe procreates with women native to Europe. His lineage now carries his African Y-DNA marker despite the fact that after many generations all his descendants start to look white. Now his brother who stayed in Africa procreated with African women and all his descendants carry his Y-DNA marker and they look black.

Now if scientists were to come hundreds of years later and tested the European descendants and African descendants of the two brothers they would see that both populations carry the same Y-DNA haplogroup marker. One set of descendants (those in Europe) would look white while the other set of descendants (in Africa) would look black. Genetically they would be more closely related to each other than they would be to their African and European neighbors despite the fact one group would look totally white and other would look totally black.

I dumbed down a very complicated topic but in general this is how genetic ancestry data works. Especially DNA haplogroups which are probably the best for tracing human movement into the deep past. It's why Hitler can carry a DNA marker found most commonly in East Africa. And why there are millions of Central Africans who carry the R1b Y-DNA marker that is most common in Western Europe. Our ancestors liked to move around even in the ancient past. It's why we find DNA from Europe in Africa and DNA from Africa in Europe. Taking a DNA test doesn't tell you about race. Looking at someone is how you determine race.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

If you had an albino son would you tell him he’s white

White and albino Africans are two different things. The Albino still has tightly curled hair, full lips, and other black features. The only difference between an albino and a typical black person is the lack of pigmentation.

 

[hndog609]

What does any of this have to do with the OP?

Nothing, dude posted and I posted reply.

 

[GAVol]

Has God posted in this thread yet and cleared up any confusion? Or are we still speculating?

He’s too busy shaking his head at things that don’t matter.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

From literally the first sentence of one of HIS cited links.

"Study by 72 researchers from eight countries concludes that the Lagoa Santa people are descendants of Clovis culture migrants from North America. Distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong."

I want you to read that statement closely. It says "distinctly" African features. So it isn't denying the features on Luzia woman are African. They're just saying it isn't "distinct" to just Africans. To which I agree with because Pacific Islanders have the same features. These are the sorts of word play agenda driven scientists engage in. Just like you lot they can't handle the reality that black people were in the Americas first.

 

[hndog609]

I want you to read that statement closely. It says "distinctly" African features. So it isn't denying the features on Luzia woman are African. They're just saying it isn't "distinct" to just Africans. To which I agree with because Pacific Islanders have the same features. These are the sorts of word play agenda driven scientists engage in. Just like you lot they can't handle the reality that black people were in the Americas first.

From same article.

According to Tábita Hünemeier, a geneticist at the University of São Paulo’s Bioscience Institute (IB-USP) who took part in the research, “one of the main results of the study was the identification of Luzia’s people as genetically related to the Clovis culture, which dismantles the idea of two biological components and the possibility that there were two migrations to the Americas, one with African traits and the other with Asian traits”.

and

“Luzia’s people must have resulted from a migratory wave originating in Beringia,” she said, referring to the now-submerged Bering land bridge that joined Siberia to Alaska during the glaciations, when sea levels were lower."

and

“The genetic results of the new study show categorically that there was no significant connection between the Lagoa Santa people and groups from Africa or Australia. So the hypothesis that Luzia’s people derived from a migratory wave prior to the ancestors of today’s Amerindians has been disproved. On the contrary, the DNA shows that Luzia’s people were entirely Amerindian.”

The sad part is we've been over this before. I don't give the slightest damn what you think of this but thought others following your real time rorschach test would find it interesting.

 

[LouderVol]

I want you to read that statement closely. It says "distinctly" African features. So it isn't denying the features on Luzia woman are African. They're just saying it isn't "distinct" to just Africans. To which I agree with because Pacific Islanders have the same features. These are the sorts of word play agenda driven scientists engage in. Just like you lot they can't handle the reality that black people were in the Americas first.

its called being accurate rather than pushing an agenda and assuming a single piece of evidence proves a point.

and you haven't actually proven the last. we have archaeological evidence of human habitation in the Americas before Luzia. The Olmecs came way after Luzia.

 

[LouderVol]

You have a deep misunderstanding of DNA then. You seem confused so let me help you out. Imagine two brothers both from Africa. One decides to move to Europe the other stays in Africa. Both look black because of the environment in Africa that their ancestors originated in. The one who moved to Europe procreates with women native to Europe. His lineage now carries his African Y-DNA marker despite the fact that after many generations all his descendants start to look white. Now his brother who stayed in Africa procreated with African women and all his descendants carry his Y-DNA marker and they look black.

Now if scientists were to come hundreds of years later and tested the European descendants and African descendants of the two brothers they would see that both populations carry the same Y-DNA haplogroup marker. One set of descendants (those in Europe) would look white while the other set of descendants (in Africa) would look black. Genetically they would be more closely related to each other than they would be to their African and European neighbors despite the fact one group would look totally white and other would look totally black.

I dumbed down a very complicated topic but in general this is how genetic ancestry data works. Especially DNA haplogroups which are probably the best for tracing human movement into the deep past. It's why Hitler can carry a DNA marker found most commonly in East Africa. And why there are millions of Central Africans who carry the R1b Y-DNA marker that is most common in Western Europe. Our ancestors liked to move around even in the ancient past. It's why we find DNA from Europe in Africa and DNA from Africa in Europe. Taking a DNA test doesn't tell you about race. Looking at someone is how you determine race.

I seriously doubt that. its not like they only would have bred with the locals once during that timeline, or with just a single source/family during that timeline.

there might be once specific piece of the DNA that is closer to their African roots rather than their neighbors DNA; but on a whole it gets diluted pretty quickly.

and you have to remember its not just the European brother's children who would have been deviating from their forefather. the African brother's children were also breeding with others, and assuming enough genetic diversity to not be harmful they would have likewise been separated from their forefather's "base" DNA. so you could find a link, but the deviations would happen in each set of DNA not just one.

 

[volbound1700]

No. My argument is very simple. If you look black then you're black. Those young Melanesian women if they came to America would be viewed by everyone as black if they were walking down the street. Just because they're native to the Pacific doesn't mean they're not black.

By the way that's why Papau New Guinea has the name it does. When the first European sailors landed on the island they thought the natives looked just like the natives they saw in Guinea (a country in West Africa). So they called this new island "New Guinea".

If it looks like a duck and quacks like duck, it's s duck. Similarly, if the person looks black then they're black.

I am not trying to be mean but this entire conversation is pretty racists. The reason racism erupted is because we started defining people in categories. To be fair to the people back in the day, there was cultural, language, and religious barriers that made what we define as white and black people different and there just wasn't the education and history of racism like we have today. Those barriers don't exist today.