Any geneticists? Question re DNA, Jesus, the Bible

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is creationism.

Hold up.
I thought you were a fan of creationism these days.

[DNA]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You're kidding, right? "The Arabs" "originated" with someone called Ishmael like Achilles originated from the nymph Thetis. This is creationism.

Notice I didn't say Muslims.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by DNA

Notice I didn't say Muslims.

This is no less fictional.

[DNA]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is no less fictional.

http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemo..._index.php?l=4


It has been said that all Arabs trace their origins to Isma'il, the son of Ibrahim; upon them both be peace. However, what is well known to be true is that the 'arab al-Ariba (the original Arabs) came before Isma'il. Among them were the people of Ad, Thamud, Tasm, Jadis, Umaym, Jurhum, and the 'Amaliq, as well as others known only to God. Also, these peoples both came before and were contemporaries of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh). Yet the 'arab al-musta'riba (the Arabized Arabs), the Arabs of the Hijaz, were the descendants of Isma'il, son of Abraham; upon them both be peace. The Jewish people, on the other hand, are descendants of Prophet Ishaaq (pbuh), second son of Prophet Ibrahim (pbuh). Prophet Ishaaq's son Prophet Yaqub (pbuh) is the father of the Jewish people.
(source: The Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Vol. I - Ibn Kathir)

Yes you are right, not all.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Hold up.
I thought you were a fan of creationism these days.

He is. He was approving of the post. WWPD.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am trying to figure out why we should care if people wish to portray Jesus with darker skin. I can't think of a good reason. Help me out here.

I think the question goes to motivation. I confess to sharing oxcoug's frustration at PC-ness run amok.

Other than that, I really don't care.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think the question goes to motivation. I confess to sharing oxcoug's frustration at PC-ness run amok.

Other than that, I really don't care.

The idiocy of this whole discussion is highlighted by the fact that we have no record that Jesus even existed that was not written at least 40 years after his death, and by people who never met the man. The Gospels are demonstrably derivative of the Old Testament and Greco poetic traditions and norms. Truth telling was not the objective or even a value at work.

Tex, I don't see contemporay portrayals of Jesus as semitic in appearance as "PC run amok." That's ridiculous. Rather, it represents an effort to portray as accurately as possible based on the preponderance of the evidence, and a corrective of the patently absurd blue eyed and white skinned Jesus portrayed by Northern Europeans. Why they would give Jesus such an appearance is easy to understand, but has nothing to do with reality.

Jews and Arabs are alike semitic peoples as established by the kinshp of their languages. In other words, semitic peoples are identified as such by the languages they speak. It's not surprising they would share some similar appearances. Linguistic markers are the surest evidence of biological kinshp. Jews and Arabs were alike nomadic peoples in the Sinai and around the Levant until the Jews settled in and around Canaan. Is there any evidence of blond haired blue eyed Jews before they intermarried with Northern Europeans?

I agree with Waters that oxcoug trying to argue for a white Jesus is demonstrably racist. Is this a back door attempt at B of M apologetics? Pathetic.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The idiocy of this whole discussion is highlighted by the fact that we have no record that Jesus even existed that was not written at least 40 years after his death, and by people who never met the man. The Gospels are demonstrably derivative of the Old Testament and Greco poetic traditions and norms. Truth telling was not the objective or even a value at work.

Tex, I don't see contemporay portrayals of Jesus as semitic in appearance as "PC run amok." That's ridiculous. Rather, it represents an effort to portray as accurately as possible based on the preponderance of the evidence, and a corrective of the patently absurd blue eyed and white skinned Jesus portrayed by Northern Europeans. Why they would give Jesus such an appearance is easy to understand, but has nothing to do with reality.

Jews and Arabs are alike semitic peoples as established by the kinshp of their languages. In other words, semitic peoples are identified as such by the languages they speak. It's not surprising they would share some similar appearances. Linguistic markers are the surest evidence of biological kinshp. Jews and Arabs were alike nomadic peoples in the Sinai and around the Levant until the Jews settled in and around Canaan. Is there any evidence of blond haired blue eyed Jews before they intermarried with Northern Europeans?

I agree with Waters that oxcoug trying to argue for a white Jesus is demonstrably racist. Is this a back door attempt at B of M apologetics? Pathetic.

SU, what are the physical characteristics of God? Or have you fallen so far off the beaten path that you don't actually believe in the divinity of Jesus, the existence of God and that Jesus was His literal son?

Maybe God really does look Semitic. That possibility seems just as likely as any other alternative, but I think what God looks like is the overriding issue here, not Mary's genetic composition.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Tex, I don't see contemporay portrayals of Jesus as semitic in appearance as "PC run amok."

For some people it is.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

SU, what are the physical characteristics of God? Or have you fallen so far off the beaten path that you don't actually believe in the divinity of Jesus, the existence of God and that Jesus was His literal son?

I love it when you unleash your dry humor.