Where did the Black Race come from??

[Pastor Larry]

The fact that you did notlike the answer does not in any way negate the existence of the answer. I repeat it here for your edification.

So your answer is that Jesus gave up his deity? Not even you should like that answer. That cannot be seriously entertained.

Jesus' divinity is inarguable; however, as a human on earth He grew up in the same manner as us all (yet, it is true, without sin). This means He was potty trained, learned to eat on His own, learned to read, and so on

But that doesn't mean he gave up his position in the Trinity.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Larry, Jesus did not say that Moses wrote Genesis.

Jesus attributed the first five books of the OT to Moses as the author. The NT is consistent on this, as is Jewish tradition.

He did say it was one of the books of Moses, and there is a difference. When someone edits the collected works of a group of authors and puts the collection into one piece, it is considered the editor's 'book.'

Not in Scripture. That is a modern idea, not an ancient one. And when this happends today, the editor is called the editor. It is footnoted that way and written that way in teh bibliography.

That is what the evidence indicates may have happened with Genesis. It appears to be a series of eyewitness accounts which came down to Moses and was collated by him with some editorial comments added.

I don't think there is any substantive evidence for this type of approach. It may well be that there were traditions passed on orally. But Moses was the author of the book. It originated in unbelief. It is usually considered a hallmark of orthodoxy. It makes much more sense to believe that God revealed it to Moses.

In addition, it does not take any great stretch to figure that Joshua, at the time of Moses' death, closed off Moses' writings for him by recording that death.

Or Moses may have written it himself before he died. Either is possible, and neither contradicts Mosaic authorship.

 

[Helen]

He gave up His divine perogatives. He did not give up His divinity.

 

[Pastor Larry]

That's one explanation, Helen. It is usually framed as "He gave up the independent use of his divine attributes." Fee, in his commentary on Philippians, gives what is becoming an increasingly popular view it seems and that is the "kenosis" is simply a metaphor for his becoming man. I can't remember the full explanation now, and my notes are at the office (with Fee). I am torn between them. But in either case, he certainly did not give up his position in the Trinity. He was still the second person of the Godhead.

 

[Helen]

Pastor Larry, He confirms that many, many times. "When you have seen me you have seen the Father..."

Also, in the Greek, it is even more evident. Three times in John He is quoted as using the "ego eimi" -- I am I AM -- terrible grammar and thus a strong identification that He was God and knew it. In John 10:33, after Jesus has asked the Jews why they want to stone Him, they reply "...because you, a mere man, claim to be God." They understood that claim He was making very clearly.

In addition, there is one we often miss. In Matthew 26:64, when Jesus is asked if he is the Christ, the Son of God, we know He replies yes. But the last part of verse 64 we often don't catch the implication of -- but it is the actual reason the high priest tore his clothes. Jesus had said that He would not only be sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One, but that He would be returning on the clouds of heaven. In other words, He was claiming to be the Divine Resident of the Shekinah Glory Cloud. It was this which was the 'clouds' or 'cloud' of heaven -- the same which received Him back to heaven in Acts 1:9. The angels, or 'two men dressed in white' told the disciples that Jesus would be returning the same way, just as He told the High Priest -- in the cloud(s) of heaven -- the Shekinah Glory.

If we pay attention to Jesus' words, there is no way to escape the fact that He claimed to be God. And, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, that either made him Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. His claim does not leave room for Him being simply a prophet or a nice man.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Are you saying that if blacks marry and interbred then they might one day get white children? I don't think so.

Nope. You need to insert many generations of varying coloured skin between the blacks parents and the white children.

But Adam and Eve might have had a different DNA than we have today. They had the information for black skin, white skin, yellow skin and so on all in their genes and this means that they could get white children, black children and so on.

That is a nice completely unscientfic theory that ignores basic genetics.

What does meiosis have to do with this? Can you tell me? When I have sugar and only sugar then can I get salt from mixing the sugar in 100 different combinations? I don't think so.

Sugar and salt are not proteins that arise from DNA. That is a poor analogy.

We are talking about the loss of information.

The whole, "no new information" line that creationists are now spouting is from a faulty understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and is counter to basic high school genetics that is independent of evolution.

if you have blonde people which have lost the information for black or brown hair and interbreed them then you will always get blonde offspring, this is how it works.

Yes, you have selected for that trait. But a genome is composed of thousands of genes. If two blond people have 4 children, they will have 4 blond people with more genetic diversity than the initial two parents. This is a result of genetic recombination from meiosis.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Although this is Punnit Square high school genetics, it is grossly simplified. It is not a matter of two individuals only having two alleles (variations) possible of each gene. It is a matter of combinations of genes.

Genetics knows that it is not a matter of one gene/one trait as was formerly believed. Genes interact with other genes to provide far greater variation than once supposed. In addition, the timing mechanisms between genes also contribute to the variety possible.

Correct. Skin colour is a complex interaction of many genes.[/quote]

The production of melanin is controlled by two pairs of genes.

Would you care to provide support for this statement? From my research, melanin production is so complex that scientists currently does not know which genes or how many impact melanin production.

Thus, yes, two people could bequeath to the human race all manner of variation without any mutations being involved initially at all.

Agreed. Recombination produces plenty of new information to account for many of the variations that exist in human gene pools. Of course the new information from mutations also contribute to that diversity.

Mutations include point mutations, insertions, deletions, amplifications, chromosomal translocations, chromosomal inversions and many other types of mutations that have been observed when DNA is compared.

Again this is high school genetics that doesn't require any evolutionary theory.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

One more thought, Christ accepted worship, while on earth. If he had given up his sonship, then worship directed at him would violate O/T law, that's what I get out of it.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

OK, just one more last thought.......

Perhaps what the verse in Philippians is referring to is the fact that, whenever Christ's full glory was revealed, people couldn't handle it.

Matthew 17:5 & 6 "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid."


John 18:6 "As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground."

Christ was always God, never giving up his position in the trinity, but took on humanity to have an effective ministry. Can't teach people who can't look at you.

The verse in Phillipians talks about Christ's voluntary submission to his father.

 

[Bro. James]

Where Did the Black Race Come From?

"Black Race", "White Race", "Yellow Race" are all misnomers--there really is no purity of race.

The Book of Genesis gives the gene pool as starting with Adam and Eve. This gene pool was destroyed in the flood of Noah--save the eight souls which were spared by the Grace of God. That leaves the three sons of Noah to replenish the earth--using Adam's gene pool, including the fallen Adamic nature(sinner, depraved, by nature). All the races(?)since then have come out of this same gene pool. Interesting: an individual's DNA is unique.

Of course, all this flies in the face of evolution. This is why an evolutionist must allegorize Genesis--all the way through Revelation to be sure. If Genesis has untruth, all of scripture is not trustworthy.

Interesting: black slave trading increased during the middle of the 19th century. Charles Darwin published "Origin of Species" in 1859. Many people regarded Blacks as sub-human in an evolution sense. Some still believe there is something genetically deficient between races--based on evolution theory. Racism is alive and prospering on Planet Earth.

I take melatonin nightly for sleep.:sleeping_2: My skin color has not changed much--however there are more "age" spots appearing. My skin gets pretty dark if I stay in the sun too much--melanin as needed?. Some folks be darker than others.:smilewinkgrin: Now what?
Choose wisely,

Bro. James

 

[Eliyahu]

I think Skin color relates to Melanin and its resistance to UV.
The color may have varied since the Flood as the water droplet layer in the sky which prevented UV was destroyed which caused the shortening of life time as well. But this may cause another question as the black skin doesn't change even though black people live near arctic area or underground. Whether UV destroyed generic or not, I don't know.

 

[BobRyan]

I am hispanic and have many Black Friends who are still learning about Christ. I was asked, where did the Black Race come from. If God Created Adam and Eve, where did that race come from, also where did chineese people get their style of eyes from.

I hope no one gets offended its just a real question I always wanted to ask. Because of Chinese people eyes evolved to what they are now... the does evolution exist. Where did the Black Race come from??

Adam and Eve were the first humans -- but in fact we all descended from Noah's family since all other lines from Adam were wiped out at the flood.

The genetics and "adaptive systems" of human biology -- account for all the variations you see today descending from Noah's family - who descended from Adam.

If you look at the position of the culture relative to the equator and the food they eat - you see "human biology adapting" to its environment.

It is very likely that Adam was a bronze color from which all other races draw their characteristics at one end of the scale or another.


In Christ,

Bob

 

[tragic_pizza]

Do you not believe that Chirst is God? Even now?

Of course I do. I believe, further, that He was God while on earth as well.

What He was not was omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

The Trinitarian God does not operate in an independent fashion. All the works of God are the works of all, whether that work is creation, redemption, healing, etc.

The only way to articulate the immensity of Christ's work on earth -- the fact that He lived every common human experience, "tempted as we are, yet without sin," is to assert that He gave up, if not the nature, then the privilege of being part of the Trinitarian God.

There is a hierarchy of function in the Trinity, yet no Person is "more God" or "less God" than the others. The Oneness crowd has this part kind of right, while the Greek Orthodox crowd has another part right, seeing the Trinity not as a triangular "big Father, little Son and Spirit" kind of arrangement, but as a coequal "dance."

So, yes, perhaps it is hyperbole to assert that Christ gave up being part of the Trinity in one sense, but I find it a challenge to properly explain His condescension for us, and for our salvation, in any better way.

 

[tragic_pizza]

One more thought, Christ accepted worship, while on earth. If he had given up his sonship, then worship directed at him would violate O/T law, that's what I get out of it.

Saying Christ gave up His position and saying He gave up His divinity and Sonship are two wildly different things.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Some still believe there is something genetically deficient between races--based on evolution theory. Racism is alive and prospering on Planet Earth.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Saying Christ gave up His position and saying He gave up His divinity and Sonship are two wildly different things.

No, it's not. His position in the trinity is the son. You can't give up one, and not the other.

Anyhoo, I've posted verses, I disagree with you, and that's probably all that needs to be said. I hope you don't think I doubt your salvation, or walk with God, or look down on you in any way. Just a vehement disagreement.

 

[tragic_pizza]

No, it's not. His position in the trinity is the son. You can't give up one, and not the other.

Anyhoo, I've posted verses, I disagree with you, and that's probably all that needs to be said. I hope you don't think I doubt your salvation, or walk with God, or look down on you in any way. Just a vehement disagreement.

OK, I appreciate it. I think it's more a confusion of terminology than anything, though... meaning I don't articulate it well.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yeah, yer probably right about that, about the confusion, that is. You usually articulate well.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Perhaps TP, you are trying to express a distinction between what is usually called the ontological trinity (that Father Son and Spirit all partake wholly and indivisibly of the same essence) and the functional trinity (that Father Son and Spirit perform different functions in "obedience").

That is different than saying Christ gave up his position in the Trinity.

Helen is correct that the deity of Jesus (his position as God) is explicit in Scripture. To deny that Jesus is God is to deny Jesus, and thus to have no salvation.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Perhaps TP, you are trying to express a distinction between what is usually called the ontological trinity (that Father Son and Spirit all partake wholly and indivisibly of the same essence) and the functional trinity (that Father Son and Spirit perform different functions in "obedience").

That is different than saying Christ gave up his position in the Trinity.

Helen is correct that the deity of Jesus (his position as God) is explicit in Scripture. To deny that Jesus is God is to deny Jesus, and thus to have no salvation.

I have never said that Jesus is not God. Again, remedial reading courses might be a good idea for you.