So, I’m sure you eagle-eyed B-BBC readers will have spotted that the BBC has been caught out trying to downplay the impact of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s association with the Obama campaign, as picked up by Janet Daly in the Telegraph. The key line is the expression that the BBC correspondent uses when suggesting that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a man “whom the US media depicts” as a racially inflammatory figure. This rhetorical device rather implies that Wright is a cleric more sinned against than sinning and that is the bad US MSM which thinks Wright is a wrong-‘un, not the American people. Well, maybe not empty-headed BBC correspondents who probably get themselves excited about Wrights’ vehement anti-Semitic anti-Americanism, but I believe that millions of ordinary Americans have been shocked by this preacher’s poison So please BBC , STOP trying to shill for Obama at every opportunity and STOP trying to ameliorate his dodgy connections, stick to the facts and the primary fact in these primaries is that Rev Wright IS a race-hustling demagogue, and up until a few weeks ago he was Obama’s spiritual guru who he could no more deny than his (white) grandmother.
WRIGHT NOT WRONG?
Bookmark the permalink.
Nearly Oxfordian | 12.05.08 – 7:42 pm |
We have no way of establishing that Jesus WAS African, and it’s highly unlikely. Using that very remote possibility as an argument is clutching at straws, to say the least.
Actually, if we take the religious texts at face value (which believers do, which is the whole point of this argument, so why don’t we for that sake?), we can definitively say that Jesus was not African. New Testament scholars will know that the writers took great pains to point out that Jesus was descended from Kind David of the Israelites. According to the rules in the Old Testament, the Messiah must be “a sprout of Jesse”, in other words, a descendant of David’s father.
New Testament scholars will also remember Judas’s infamous betrayal of Jesus. The Romans had him do this so they could pick Jesus out amongst the crowd. A crowd of Jews, that is. If Jesus had African features, Judas would have merely had to say, “Go nick that coloured fellow.”
Old Testament scholars will know that David is described as having decidedly non-African features:
And Samuel said unto Jesse: ‘Are here all they children?’ And he said: ‘There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep.’ And Samuel said unto Jesse: ‘Send and fetch him; for we will not sit down till he come hither.’ And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal beautiful eyes, and goodly to look upon. And the Lord said: ‘Arise, anoint him; for this is he.’
(First Samuel XVI. verse 11)
The Hebrew word translated here as “ruddy” is “admoni” (I don’t know how to make Hebrew letters appear here), which means just that. The root is the word for both “red” and “earth” (as in “clay”, from which Adam was made and got his name). That’s red, not brown. In short, David was ginger.
Elsewhere Biblical sources are very clear that Cushites have different skin color than Israelites. Moses married a Cushite, which angered his siblings, but that’s beside the point. Sources from Josephus all the way through to modern Hebrew usage (“Cushim” for “blacks”) tells us that they were black, and different in appearance from Israelites.
There are no Cushites, or even non-Jews in the list of “begats” which leads from Jesse and David to Jesus. There is no possibility at all that Jesus was black. Zero. Unless one wants to start denying the Bible, in which case one is very unlikely to arrive at a happy ending regarding Jesus’ heritage and genetic potential for being the Messiah. Never mind, of course, that if Jesus was the Son of God and not the human Joseph, all that genealogy goes out the window.
Oh yes, I’d forgotten that Jesus was supposed to be of the House of David š
I don’t believe in this stuff, but Wright is required to, otherwise what’s he doing calling himself a Christian minister?
Nearly Oxfordian | 13.05.08 – 7:15 am |
I don’t believe in this stuff, but Wright is required to, otherwise what’s he doing calling himself a Christian minister?
Wright can believe whatever he likes, and call himself whatever he likes. All I’m saying is that his beliefs are inherently anti-Semitic, in any definition of the term.
“We have no way of establishing that Jesus WAS African, and it’s highly unlikely. ”
Probability is irrelevant. As long as it is possible Blackness and Jewishness are not mutually exclusive as Preiser claims.
“(I don’t know how to make Hebrew letters appear here)”
I usually use a painstaking combination of wikipedia and Ctrl-C. If you’ve got anything better it’d be much appreciated.
“The Hebrew word translated here as “ruddy” is “admoni”, which means just that. ”
Ruddy of hair or ruddy of face, in a healthy, rosy-cheeked, outdoorsy way?
Anyway, theology aside, you say:
“There are no Cushites, or even non-Jews in the list of “begats” which leads from Jesse and David to Jesus.”
Does this include wives? If not there is a possibility that a good quantity of African blood got mixed in. Unlikely, but as long as it remains a possibility, Black Jesus and Jewish Jesus (in the modern, ethnic sense of the word) remain compatible.
There is also the possibility of symbolic blackness, which I have brought up before and you have ignored, and Black Jesus being born to White Mary in the same miraculous way as He was born to a virgin.
“All I’m saying is that his beliefs are inherently anti-Semitic, in any definition of the term.”
Complete and utter bollocks. See above. Especially “in any definition”, you arrogant so-and-so.
Alex, fair enough. I’ll look forward to your defence should a American church minister praise Nick Griffin as one of the most important politicians of his generation and then allow, say, the Ku Klax Klan to use his church newsletter to make a wild allegations that immigrants are plotting to kill all the white kids or some such nonsense.
Alex talking about arrogance? ROFLMAOWMP.
David, sure, there is no disagreement between us that Wright is an antisemitic bastard. No wonder Alex is tying himself in knots, as per usual, trying to defend him.
I see you didn’t read my post, or didn’t have any counter-arguments.
Alex | Homepage | 13.05.08 – 3:51 pm |
Ruddy of hair or ruddy of face, in a healthy, rosy-cheeked, outdoorsy way?
This is classic usage to describe someone with reddish hair and other typical ginger features. I’m not making a random interpretation here. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s merely my opinion.
Anyway, theology aside, you say:
“There are no Cushites, or even non-Jews in the list of “begats” which leads from Jesse and David to Jesus.”
Does this include wives? If not there is a possibility that a good quantity of African blood got mixed in. Unlikely, but as long as it remains a possibility, Black Jesus and Jewish Jesus (in the modern, ethnic sense of the word) remain compatible.
Um, no. I mentioned that Moses married a Cushite and that has brother and sister were upset for a reason: according to Jewish tradition, “Jewishness” comes from the mother. That is, if your mother is Jewish, so are you, even if your father isn’t. Now, the Cohen (priestly) line is passed on paternally, as are all the other usual things in patriarchal society (name, property, etc.). Even Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were told to marry close cousins (that was, and still is, the tribal way, of course, but we’re taking the story at face value here, and there weren’t any Jews around yet anyway). Jews have always been supposed to marry other Jews (again, not unusual), and all of King David’s descendants most certainly would have done so.
(Genetic research has benefited from this because of the unique properties of mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down by the mother, but that’s another story.)
The names of the mothers who did all that begatting aren’t listed because, let’s face it, this was a patriarchal society, and the records were kept with that attitude. But you can be sure they weren’t Cushites, or anything other than Israelites. It wasn’t just”unlikely”, and there was no possibility.
There is also the possibility of symbolic blackness, which I have brought up before and you have ignored, and Black Jesus being born to White Mary in the same miraculous way as He was born to a virgin.
Well, sure, but that’s not the same thing as what Wright and people like him say. And I can assure you that believers like those at the Ressurection Church (Catholic!) in Harem, who see the black Jesus and the black Virgin Mary in their chapel every Sunday aren’t thinking just symbolically in the way you suggest. Sure, that whole sci-fi concept of we each see God the way we want to, we see a reflection of ourselves, Jesus is Black to Black people, White to White people, etc., but that’s a different concept from what’s going on here.
If you knew more about the religious tenets of people who truly believe in a Black Jesus, you would understand that. Please feel free to do some homework and realize that the symbolic representational theory you suggest is not what these people actually believe.
“All I’m saying is that his beliefs are inherently anti-Semitic, in any definition of the term.”
Complete and utter bollocks. See above. Especially “in any definition”, you arrogant so-and-so.
Again, you are wrong. Go and learn something outside of your own emotional responses. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the reality.
“I see you didn’t read my post, or didn’t have any counter-arguments”
Abu Alex digging like mad, having run out of anything intelligent with which to respond. Oops, wait: he never had any of that in the first place.
“If you knew more about the religious tenets of people who truly believe in a Black Jesus, you would understand that.”
Enlighten me. What is the specific claim about today’s Jews that is made by the proponents of a Black Jesus?
I’ve dug through Google looking for anything to do with Jesus being Black and anti-Semitism, and there is noting but a certain ‘Shabazz’ who claims Jesus was Black and talks of false-Semites, but, in what seems to be his typical style, makes no connection between the two. And there’s also Hitler and his Celtic Jesus. Even “false semitic” mostly turns up linguistics and “false jews” turns up nothing to do with Jesus’ race.
Again, this seems to be (very) loose association to anti-Semites and not anti-Semitism itself. But enraged free-association seems to be standard practice here, so no surprises there,
“Abu Alex digging like mad, having run out of anything intelligent with which to respond.”
Respond to what? You didn’t actually say anything except childish insults.
Alex, do try to exhibit reading comprehension skills beyond those of a slow 3-year old, will you? It’s becoming quite embarrasing.
It was you, on another thread, who claimed that Arthur (or Bryan, or whoever it was) is ‘arrogant’ for disagreeing with your politics, and threw your toys out of your pram and screeched about all of us ‘Daily Mail-reading bunch’. That epithet is arrogant crap. So when you started accusing others here of being arrogant, I reminded you of it. Clearly, you are incapable of following this simple argument.
Alex | Homepage | 14.05.08 – 6:29 pm |
Enlighten me. What is the specific claim about today’s Jews that is made by the proponents of a Black Jesus?
I’ve dug through Google looking for anything to do with Jesus being Black and anti-Semitism, and there is noting but a certain ‘Shabazz’ who claims Jesus was Black and talks of false-Semites, but, in what seems to be his typical style, makes no connection between the two. And there’s also Hitler and his Celtic Jesus. Even “false semitic” mostly turns up linguistics and “false jews” turns up nothing to do with Jesus’ race.
Educate yourself:
From about one-third of the way down this page:
Black Liberation Theology:
Radical Afrocentric Christianity is often a part of Black Liberation Theology. The two movements generally agree that the Hebrew Bible and biblical faith are rooted in black culture and black history. Sometimes this is explained in a very radical and rather anti-Semitic manner such as in the works of Yosef A. A. ben-Jochannan, the author of We The Black Jews: Witness to the `White Jewish Race’ Myth.12 Often, it is instead, slanted in a different way in the more academic works of such authors as Hopkins and Cone who are mentioned above.
‘White Jewish Race’ Myth? But not anti-Semitic in any way? Hmmm.
Again, this seems to be (very) loose association to anti-Semites and not anti-Semitism itself. But enraged free-association seems to be standard practice here, so no surprises there.
“Enraged free-association”? Please.
From the aptly named blackjesus.com:
Your favorite reverend further explains what is at the core of Black Liberation Theology. He doesn’t mention Jews in this clip. He only reaffirms the foundatin of his own belief in Black Liberation Theology, and says what he’s really about is “reconciliation”. But notice how he defines that.
So, Black Liberation Theology says fundamentally that Jesus was a Black Man of African origin, and so were the original Jews. This means that today’s Jews are false ones. Combine that with Wright’s own words that Israel (Jews) controls the US, along with other things like his sponsoring of modern Blood Libel in the literature he uses to lead his flock, and you are very close to realizing the truth.
You can continue with your denial – which is now reaching epic BBC proportions – if you like, but unless the university which you attend starts paying us a stipend for teaching coursework, I’m not interested in wasting any more time on this.
What are these prats saying, David – that today’s Jews are Khazars? Maybe Norwegians? How about Japanese?
Nearly Oxfordian | 14.05.08 – 10:04 pm |
What are these prats saying, David – that today’s Jews are Khazars? Maybe Norwegians? How about Japanese?
LOL! I doubt these people have ever heard of the Khazars or given any thought to the origin of caucasoid Jews at all, other than that they’re not black. To them, we’re all just more white usurpers of African culture. Kind of like whoever it was that faked all those Egyptian tomb paintings.
Oxfordian:
“threw your toys out of your pram and screeched about all of us ‘Daily Mail-reading bunch’. ”
I don’t recall saying anything of the sort. I think WoaD said it as a “typical beeboid line” which you falsely attributed to me. Again, reading skills need work.
David:
“Radical Afrocentric Christianity is often a part of Black Liberation Theology.”
A part of. Not the whole of. This is an association not a causal link.
“The two movements generally agree that the Hebrew Bible and biblical faith are rooted in black culture and black history.”
‘Black’ as in of African descent, or ‘black’ as in ‘not White Caucasian’, and is this definition something both agree on?
“Sometimes this is explained in a very radical and rather anti-Semitic manner”
Key-words ‘sometimes’ and ‘manner’. This is not only the explanation rather than the core of the belief, but an exception rather than a rule, as indicated by ‘sometimes’. You can’t possibly extrapolate this to ‘every adherent of the belief is therefore an anti-Semite’.
“such as in the works of Yosef A. A. ben-Jochannan, the author of We The Black Jews: Witness to the `White Jewish Race’ Myth.12”
Is this the myth that Jews were white in the pasty, blue-eyed, not-at-all-Middle-Eastern-looking way Jesus is often portrayed, or the myth that they weren’t African?
“He doesn’t mention Jews in this clip.”
There’s a surprise. Wright “doesn’t mention Jews” so often one might even think he doesn’t have any particularly strong feelings about them.
As for the rest of the clip, it has this vague message of “All God’s children are equal regardless of race”, which I can’t imagine being compatible with “plus all Jews are evil”. He didn’t actually mention Jesus’s skin, and unless I’m mistaken, even the Son himself was was absent from the lecture. Not sure about why you linked to it.
“So, Black Liberation Theology says fundamentally that Jesus was a Black Man of African origin, and so were the original Jews. This means that today’s Jews are false ones.”
In your interpretation, yes. Is this Wright’s interpretation? Is this anybody’s interpretation save yours and the lunatic fringes of the anti-Semite movement.
“Combine that with Wright’s own words that Israel (Jews) controls the US”
Quotes?
“along with other things like his sponsoring of modern Blood Libel in the literature he uses to lead his flock”
I assume you mean the ‘ethnic bomb’ thing. I believe it was that neo-Marxist propaganda-rag the Times that first broke that story.
Give up. I have asked you repeatedly for one single anti-Semitic quote or expressed held belief from Wright, and you have so far provided NOTHING, except vague comments which require you to, as Nearly Oxfordian puts it, tie yourself in knots to relate the quotes to Jews or make them show them in a negative light. All you have proven is that you have filed Wright and anti-Semites in the same drawer in your brain.
Alex | Homepage | 15.05.08 – 3:37 pm |
“Combine that with Wright’s own words that Israel (Jews) controls the US”
Quotes?
Watch the fucking video I showed you in the first place. You said you got the sound to work, so either you scanned through them and didn’t pay attention, you have a very poor ability to understand what is being said when someone speaks, or you are now deliberately lying that Wright didn’t say that in the video.
Do you have any integrity or honesty at all?
As far as I’m concerned, judging from the emotional way you attack all of us here, your deliberate denials of facts and illogical dancing around topics, and the fact that you have in the past said that you actually do think the BBC is biased occasionally, but you just don’t like the way we complain about it, you qualify as a troll who should be banned.
-“threw your toys out of your pram and screeched about all of us ‘Daily Mail-reading bunch’. ”
-I don’t recall saying anything of the sort. I think WoaD said it as a “typical beeboid line” which you falsely attributed to me. Again, reading skills need work.
As I am sure your tutor tells you every day, with mounting exasperation and disgust.
“Watch the fucking video I showed you in the first place. ”
I did. He said scurred Negroes get awful quiet when you mention the ‘dirty word’ Israel, implied there was a “connection between nine-one-one-oh-one and the Israeli-Palestinian” and offered to lend me his glasses. How on earth does that mean “Israel controls the US”? Or does it mean “Israel did 9/11”? Surely a short sentence like that couldn’t explicitly mean both.
“As I am sure your tutor tells you every day, with mounting exasperation and disgust.”
Charming. First you falsely attribute bollocks to me and then you insult me. Out of valid counter-arguments?
I notice that on your hilarious website, you blame Israeli soldiers for all civilian Arab deaths in Gaza, since according to the absurd ‘Angry Young Alex’, Israel should simply ignore the constant attacks on its citizens by Islamo-Nazis. After all, those murdered in Israel are mostly Jews. And furthermore, the deaths of Israeli soldiers are ‘morally preferable’ to those of the ones supporting the genocidal mass-murder of Jews. You could not have been clearer about your vile ‘morals’.
“After all, those murdered in Israel are mostly Jews. And furthermore, the deaths of Israeli soldiers are ‘morally preferable’ to those of the ones supporting the genocidal mass-murder of Jews.”
I think I’ve cracked it. Your idea of reading comprehension is to add the word ‘Jew’ every couple of lines. No wonder my conventional methods seem so inept to you.
Any more words on our friend Jeremiah?
LOL. You are stupid and mendacious beyond words. And a coward. Can’t you at least stand behind the vicious crap you post on your website? Well, no, you can’t: that’s not what yellow beeboids do.
I said the death of a combatant was preferable to the death of a non-combatant. Jewishness was never mentioned, was irrelevant to my reasoning and is something you have read into it.
Yes, I would say the death of a Jewish soldier is preferable to the death of a non-Jewish civilian, but I would also say the death of a non-Jewish soldier is preferable to the death of a Jewish civilian. So am I a rabid anti-Semite, a rabid philo-Semite, or do the two cancel each other out?
By the way, any other thoughts on whether the Reverend Wright is an anti-Semite or not? Or have you given up trying to prove that kind of drivel?
Alex: “any other thoughts on whether the Reverend Wright is an anti-Semite or not? Or have you given up trying to prove that kind of drivel?”
Alex, you might disagree that calling Farakhan “one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience”; seeming peculiarly interested in talking about Jews; and publishing anti-semitic conspiracy theories in your church magazine are strong evidence of anti-semitism. However, to describe that argument as “drivel” is a little arrogant – particularly since your explanations for these unusual character traits are far from strong.
Incidentally I liked your inference that the Times would never have anything to do with a wild anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Priceless.
Most of these we’ve been over, but if you will insist on bringing them up again:
“calling Farakhan “one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience””
You have to admit, Farrakhan is quite an important figure. This is the same anti-Semitism by association as pointing out that they are friends. Note that one is a Muslim and one is a Christian, and both seem to be quite devout. This would imply that they probably don’t agree on everything. Has Wright ever endorsed or defended Farrakhan’s comments on Jews?
“and publishing anti-semitic conspiracy theories in your church magazine are strong evidence of anti-semitism”
This conspiracy theory was a couple of lines in an article, mostly on how nice Palestine is, which spanned nearly four A4 pages. And an article that was written by a Muslim. So the idea that Wright agreed with every word wholeheartedly is ridiculous.
“Incidentally I liked your inference that the Times would never have anything to do with a wild anti-semitic conspiracy theory. Priceless.”
I inferred that the Times is not a particularly anti-Israel newspaper these days. Things were obviously a bit difficult back in 1921.
This is the one I found interesting though:
“seeming peculiarly interested in talking about Jews”
He talks about Israel, but considering Israel has a large non-Jewish population and that nearly two-thirds of the world’s Jews do not live there, this might have something to do with the state and local politics rather than the race/religion.
And of all the quotes you have posted, not one contains the word ‘Jew’. Or ‘Israelite’, ‘Hebrew’, ‘cosmopolitan’ or any other typical euphemisms. As I said before, for an anti-Semite he really doesn’t have a lot to say on the subject.