Christians should not hate skin colors

[Lees]

@Messy3

Therefore, due to your statements in post #(79), Jesus Christ is still a Jew. The resurrected God/Man is a Jew. Correct?

Lees

 

[Messy3]

@Messy3

Therefore, due to your statements in post #(79), Jesus Christ is still a Jew. The resurrected God/Man is a Jew. Correct?

Lees

Yes

 

[Albion]

Well, that is the point of what I said. In (Luke 24:16) (24:31) the disciples didn't recognize Jesus because their eyes were affected.

Well, it was not because their eyes were affected but because Christ's image had changed. You apparently think this amounts to the same thing, but it doesn't.

It wasn't because Jesus was in another body different then the body He bore on earth.

That's right. It was the same body but glorified.

 

[Lamb]

I agree, and have never said otherwise.

Lees

So since they come from Adam and Eve, we shouldn't hate anyone based on the color of their skin.

 

[Lees]

So since they come from Adam and Eve, we shouldn't hate anyone based on the color of their skin.

I have never said we should hate anyone based on the color of their skin.

Lees

 

[Lees]

Well, it was not because their eyes were affected but because Christ's image had changed. You apparently think this amounts to the same thing, but it doesn't.



That's right. It was the same body but glorified.

It says that "their eyes were holden that they should not know him" (Luke 24:16)

It says "And their eyes were opened, and they knew him" (Luke 24:31)

It says "and he vanished out of their sight."

It doesn't say Christ's image had changed. It said He appeared in another form, different then when He appeared to Mary Magdalene. I'm not saying Christ could not have changed His image if He wanted to. But here the eyes, sight, vision is specifically spelled out.

So, no, I don't believe here that Christ changed His image. I believe the disciples sight and vision was affected.

Even if Christ ever did change his image for whatever reason, means nothing to the Resurrection being the resurrection of His Body that He bore on earth. It would simply mean He changed briefly for a purpose. Doesn't mean He now has a different body then He had on earth.

And that Body that was resurrected was/is Jewish.

Lees

 

[Albion]

It doesn't say Christ's image had changed. It said He appeared in another form, different then when He appeared to Mary Magdalene.

Well then, that proves what we've been trying to tell you.

 

[Messy3]

The races of man must come from Adam.

Lees

There's some influence on how people look.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/09/health/neanderthal-genes-human-health-covid19-scn-wellness/index.html#:~:text=The%20Neanderthal%20genes%20that%20remain,capacity%20to%20tan%2C%20Capra%20said.

The Neanderthal genes that remain in some human DNA today tend to affect the functioning of the immune system and hair and skin traits – such as hair color, tendency toward baldness and the skin’s capacity to tan, Capra said.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/27/world/neanderthal-human-hands-thumb-grip-scn/index.html
“Those two systems – your hair and skin and your immune system – are critical to adaptation to new environments,”

Everyone comes from Adam, but the Neanderthals were cannibals and they were all of a sudden gone, so they may have been the nephilim.

 

[Lamb]

I have never said we should hate anyone based on the color of their skin.

Lees

The topic of the thread... Christians should not hate skin colors. You should have just said...I agree.

 

[Lees]

Well then, that proves what we've been trying to tell you.

No, nothing is said of Christ's image changing.

'we've'? You can't stand on your own words.

Your proof comes only in the form of cherry picking one sentence and ignoring the context from which it is said. In other words, your form is deceptive.

Thus 'you' haven't proved anything.

Lees

 

[Lees]

There's some influence on how people look.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/09/health/neanderthal-genes-human-health-covid19-scn-wellness/index.html#:~:text=The%20Neanderthal%20genes%20that%20remain,capacity%20to%20tan%2C%20Capra%20said.

The Neanderthal genes that remain in some human DNA today tend to affect the functioning of the immune system and hair and skin traits – such as hair color, tendency toward baldness and the skin’s capacity to tan, Capra said.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/27/world/neanderthal-human-hands-thumb-grip-scn/index.html
“Those two systems – your hair and skin and your immune system – are critical to adaptation to new environments,”

Everyone comes from Adam, but the Neanderthals were cannibals and they were all of a sudden gone, so they may have been the nephilim.

The races of man must come from Adam.

They have their origin in (Gen. 9:24-27).

Just like Jesus was of the Jewish race. Just like Jesus is still of the Jewish race. The origin of the races of man come from Adam. And on this side of the flood, they will all be found in Shem, Ham, and Jepheth.

The blessing goes to Shem. Thus the Jewish race comes from Shem. God is faithful to His Word.

Lees

 

[Lees]

The topic of the thread... Christians should not hate skin colors. You should have just said...I agree.

Why?

'Skin colors' means nothing. That's just a color scheme.

What you should have said is 'Christians should not hate a person solely based on the color of their skin'. Which is why I gave the response I did.

Strange isn't it? Christians are not supposed to hate due to race color. But Christians are supposed to love everybody. How perverted our theology has become.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Your proof comes only in the form of cherry picking one sentence and ignoring the context from which it is said. In other words, your form is deceptive.

In other words, you don't care for what the Bible has to say about this.

There is certainly nothing deceptive about Mark 16:12, nor did any "cherry picking" take place.


9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

 

[Lees]

In other words, you don't care for what the Bible has to say about this.

There is certainly nothing deceptive about Mark 16:12, nor did any "cherry picking" take place.


9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.

13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

Your cherry picking concerned my post #(86). Go back and reread.

Of course there is nothing deceptive about (Mark 16:12). What is deceptive is your addressing only one statement and ignoring the rest.

Again, that Jesus 'appears' in another form, 'another' as how He appeared to Mary Magdalene, does not mean that the miracle was Jesus changing Himself, His image, to be different. And, we are told in (Luke 24:16) how exactly the concealing of Himself took place.

"But their eyes were holden that they should not know him." (Lu. 24:16)

And when He revealed Himself, He didn't change His image back to Who He really is.

"And their eyes were opened, and they knew him..."

Important again to note, none of this changes the fact that the same Jesus, the same Body that He had when He walked this earth, is Who was resurrected. And He bears the scars to prove it. (John 20:27)

In other words, these concealed appearances are not proof that the Body of Jesus which was crucified, is not the same as was resurrected. They were but concealed appearances.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Important again to note, none of this changes the fact that the same Jesus, the same Body that He had when He walked this earth, is Who was resurrected. And He bears the scars to prove it. (John 20:27)

In other words, these concealed appearances are not proof that the Body of Jesus which was crucified, is not the same as was resurrected. They were but concealed appearances.

Lees

Based upon this reply, I am of the opinion that you are making too much of almost nothing. Christ clearly appeared different to some of these people, and in at least one verse where the matter is spelled out (Mark 16:12) there is no question but that he had a different look. But on the bigger issue of whether or not his body was the same one as was crucified, buried, and resurrected we agree.

 

[Lees]

Based upon this reply, I am of the opinion that you are making too much of almost nothing. Christ clearly appeared different to some of these people, and in at least one verse where the matter is spelled out (Mark 16:12) there is no question but that he had a different look. But on the bigger issue of whether or not his body was the same one as was crucified, buried, and resurrected we agree.

As Christ appeared to the disciples on the Ammaeus road, he appeared different. But He wasn't different. He doesn't have a different look. He is the same Jesus, same body that walked the earth. Only difference is no blood, and glorified.

The method used in concealing His real Person, and then revealing His real Person, is spelled out in (Luke 24:16) and (Luke 24:31) It is not spelled out in (Mark 16:12). There it just states that He appeared in another form then when he appeared to Mary Magdalene. It doesn't say how it was done.

With Mary Magdalene neither are we told how it was done that He concealed Himself to Her. (John 20:14-15) But we are told how He revealed Himself to her. Through His voice. (John 20:16)

And, no matter how He concealed His apperance at times, they were just a concealment. They didn't reflect what He really looked like. Thus His revealing Himself always goes back to His real look. The same Jesus they knew before.

Sounds good, glad we agree on the resurrection of the Body and Person of Jesus.

Lees

 

[Albion]

As Christ appeared to the disciples on the Ammaeus road, he appeared different. But He wasn't different. He doesn't have a different look. He is the same Jesus, same body that walked the earth. Only difference is no blood, and glorified.

Then how do you account for them not being able to recognize him while they walked together for miles and miles? And what do you think "glorified" means, if it does not allow for any change in appearance?

The method used in concealing His real Person, and then revealing His real Person, is spelled out in (Luke 24:16) and (Luke 24:31) It is not spelled out in (Mark 16:12). There it just states that He appeared in another form then when he appeared to Mary Magdalene. It doesn't say how it was done.

All right. In that case we are confronted with the word of God in Mark 16 saying with more clarity than any of the other verses do that he "appeared in another form." That doesn't square with your theory.

As Christ appeared to the disciples on the Ammaeus road, he appeared different. But He wasn't different. He doesn't have a different look.

I'm sorry, but that's a distinction without a difference.

 

[Messy3]

Ken Gott, an English preacher, once asked: Who is 30 years old here? A guy put up his hand. He asked him to come to the front and he said: in heaven you will all look like him! He was always so funny.

 

[Lees]

Then how do you account for them not being able to recognize him while they walked together for miles and miles? And what do you think "glorified" means, if it does not allow for any change in appearance?



All right. In that case we are confronted with the word of God in Mark 16 saying with more clarity than any of the other verses do that he "appeared in another form." That doesn't square with your theory.



I'm sorry, but that's a distinction without a difference.

I've explained it already multiple times. See posts (86,94,96).

Being glorified is an addition to Christ's appearance. It is not a change in His physical features.

No, we are confronted with several verses in the Word of God that deal with the subject. (Mark 16:9) (John 20:14-16) (Mark 16:12) (Luke 24:16) (Luke 24:31) All are, or should be, used to come to an interpretation. And, perhaps there are others.

No it's not. That Christ somehow appears different in order to conceal His identity, is proof that had he appeared as He really looked they would recognize Him. His concealed appearance is but for a brief moment. How He really looks is eternal. And He looks like He did when He walked this earth.

Lees

 

[Albion]

I've explained it already multiple times. See posts (86,94,96).

Being glorified is an addition to Christ's appearance. It is not a change in His physical features.

The scriptural record refutes that theory.

No, we are confronted with several verses in the Word of God that deal with the subject. (Mark 16:9) (John 20:14-16) (Mark 16:12) (Luke 24:16) (Luke 24:31) All are, or should be, used to come to an interpretation. And, perhaps there are others.

But they do not contradict the one verse that is most specific.