Christian and Jewish influences in Tolkien's work?

[Coffeehouse]

Perhaps you should re-watch that segment because the character (the doctor) in this film/series is making a good point, but it is an analogy, as he talks about the vanishing tribes in south-east Africa (which is the southern part of Mozambique, nations of Swaziland and Lesotho and eastern part of South Africa where KwaZulu-Natal now lies). If you're acquainted with the history of the Zulus you would realise that he is in fact speaking of the Mfecane, or the 'Great Spread', which was a long-lasting sociopolitical and ethnic upheaval in the region during the militaristic rule of Shaka Zulu where many tribes dispersed, many migrated and some disappeared altogether leaving the Zulu people in control of large areas of land and people.

Now to the analogy. When the doctor-character in the clip says something like: "In a way Lieutenant, they are the ultimate victims of recent history.
If you favor my comparison, they are the wandering Jews of Africa" he is not speaking literally of wandering Jews in Africa, as he makes clear by stating it is a comparison. His is as much an analogy as that analogy that is often used about Shaka Zulu, the Black Napoleon of Africa.
You'll find that the character is merely describing the Mfecane, or the dispersal of several tribes in the area (also a macro-trend in Africa during the 1700 and 1800s involving large migrations of kingdoms and tribes which left the continent in such a disarray that when Europe decided to take a hold of Africa for real the land was ripe for the picking).

[The Telcontarion]

The whole issue with africa and the jews is that threw out history we have always had relations with africa starting with our failed union with the Egyptians.

Jesus, fleeing king herod fled into egypt to hide among them to avoid capture. Moses married an egyptian woman and so did Solomon.

So when the Edomites/the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, were did most of us flee, Africa. The European jews fled to already established colonies in and about the Iberian peninsula and Eurasia and migrated on into Europe proper: Germany, Scottland, Ireland and England.

Though I have to say, your interpretation of what he said is possibly correct. My own knowldge of the subject is by no means dependant on that video but far more on the videos on black icons, moors (for the most part) were jews, the knights being black jews and the royal families also being originally, jews.

So, start from #405...

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The whole issue with africa and the jews is that threw out history we have always had relations with africa starting with our failed union with the Egyptians.

Jesus, fleeing king herod fled into egypt to hide among them to avoid capture. Moses married an egyptian woman and so did Solomon.

So when the Edomites/the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, were did most of us flee, Africa. The European jews fled to already established colonies in and about the Iberian peninsula and Eurasia and migrated on into Europe proper: Germany, Scottland, Ireland and England.

Do you agree then that the clip you presented does not say what you initially stated it said?

I think also it's important not to confuse Egypt and the rest of Northern Africa (Egypt to the modern-day Moroccan annexed Western Sahara) with Sub-Saharan Africa. When the Romans fought against Carthage, or the British fought against Rommel's army in Libya or when the French had a revolt on their hands in Algeria one rarely speaks of Africa, but North Africa or even the Maghreb. Additionally some would include the northern part of Sudan as a part of North Africa due to its strong Egyptian ties. In terms of culture, identities and language Africa north and south of the Sahara desert are in many ways two separate continents.
When you then write West Africa or western Africa that would be the western arm of Africa south of the Sahara (beginning with Mauritania going southwards).

[Count Comfect]

Tel - Do you actually want me to link to every article I've read that DOESN'T refer to your argument being correct? Because that's a very odd way to do research. I have done a significant amount of academic research and I have never seen anyone cite articles by their lack of evidence for the contrary position.

Strange also is your insistence on links when I have provided full academic citations for several articles. No, they're not clickable links - if you have the JSTOR access you'll need to reach them, since they're behind a paid academic firewall, you can just go into JSTOR and search the titles. I didn't think it useful to provide links where I have provided full citations. Similarly when I cite the OED - that is a citation, I have provided my sources.

Of course the slave trade continued well past the time of Shaka - I was calling it a different period because you were talking about the slave trade c.1492. Slavery in Brazil continued to the late nineteenth century and it is still going on in Sudan. But there is no documented link between the conquering general Shaka Zulu and the slave trade, nor is citing the video (which Coffeehouse has very adequately deconstructed) evidence of such a link.

I never said the Jews changed from black to white in any historical time span, whether 500 years or 2000 years. They did not. They changed from black to white somewhere in the, say, 300,000 years between the differentiation of H. heidelbergensis and H. sapiens. Probably somewhere in the 100,000 years since the most recent H. sapiens incursion into the Levant. My intent in quoting the Song of Songs was to indicate that perhaps your Biblical quotations do not indicate a monopoly on the Bible as support for your position. I have seen no evidence of actual blackness (and I might note that Nasser is no historian, anthropologist, or scholar).

On a more frivolous note, cojones is a common term for balls/nerve; kahuna is a Hawaiian priest, although I guess they were rather courageous.

I do not believe that the Scripture is a valid historical source, nor that it trumps careful investigation of other evidence. Nor do I believe that you are interpreting Scripture correctly, see for example Genesis 11:27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

Ur of the Chaldeans is in northern Mesopotamia. It is not in Africa, nor in Europe.

Genesis 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Canaan is the Levant. This marks a northeast to southwest movement of the forebears of the Israelites (Yisrael, so named from Jacob's struggle with God - the descendants of Jacob and therefore of Abram). In no way does it indicate a European or an African origin.
Genesis 24:3, Abraham's command to his servant: and I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:
4 but thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.
So Jacob's mother also hails from Ur of the Chaldeans, from Mesopotamia.

As for the "lie that the Moors were Muslim Africans and not Black Hebrew Israelites,"
First, what is the term in Spanish for a false Muslim 'convert' to Christianity who retained their Muslim identity? A "morisco." Moor.
Second, what was the section of Northern Africa consisting of Algeria and Morocco called by the Romans? Mauretania. Moor. [for these, see the OED]
Third, there's a reason the (now racist) term "Blackamoor" or "Blackamore" was invented. It was to distinguish black Africans from those traditionally identified as "Moors," the lighter-skinned (but still dark to the Europeans) inhabitants of North Africa, sometimes referred to as "white Moors." Again see the OED. It also was used as a synonym with "Man of Ind" in 1526 - are we therefore to assume that these same "Moors" you identify with your idea of the Israelites are somehow ALSO the people of India? AGAIN see the OED.
If you want to know who a word refers to, see a dictionary. If you want to see how it evolved and who it has referred to in the past, see one with a good etymology. I strongly suggest the Oxford English Dictionary, but any good etymological dictionary will do. And if you want the technical citation, "Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1989), s.v. Moor, blackamoor, blackamorian."
And the Moors were definitely not Jews; hence the SEPARATE expulsions in 1492 of Moors and Jews, and the separate words "morisco" and "marrano" for lapsed converts from each group.

[Count Comfect]

As to Moses's "Egyptian wife" - not true
Exodus, Chapter 2
15: Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.
16: Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.
17: And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.
18: And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day?
19: And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock.
20: And he said unto his daughters, And where is he? why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread.
21: And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.
22: And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.

Check Wikipedia if you want to see where Midian was: here's a hint, it's near modern day Israel. "Midian was a land bordered by the Arabah between Moab and Elat and by the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea. Its East had no borders."

As for the flight of the Jews in 70AD, not true. They were enslaved in the Roman Empire (slaves, mind you, not masters) and spread about there, but not into SubSaharan Africa, to which the empire did not extend. And most of them stuck around at least until Bar Kochba's revolt in 135, when they were again dispersed within the Empire. That's where the Northern African Jews (still there, still culturally distinct from the descendants of the Muslim Moors; there's an active Tunisian group I know), the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim come from, the different areas of dispersion. If you'd like a citation for this, even though I already knew it, check out the Wikipedia on Jewish diaspora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora)

That's not to say there are NO black Jews. Yemeni and Ethiopian Jews would be very hurt to hear that. But the Jewish people as a whole are NOT black and never were. Their origins stem from uncertain roots, but most likely an immigration c.900BC (not an origin there) and then INTERMARRIAGE with the existing local population (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopi...s#DNA_evidence). Nor were they taken as slaves to Europe or Africa, since they remained in Ethiopia and Yemen until returning to Israel under the Law of Return, and some cases some impressive Israeli maneuvers.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Do you agree then that the clip you presented does not say what you initially stated it said?

I think also it's important not to confuse Egypt and the rest of Northern Africa (Egypt to the modern-day Moroccan annexed Western Sahara) with Sub-Saharan Africa. When the Romans fought against Carthage, or the British fought against Rommel's army in Libya or when the French had a revolt on their hands in Algeria one rarely speaks of Africa, but North Africa or even the Maghreb. Additionally some would include the northern part of Sudan as a part of North Africa due to its strong Egyptian ties. In terms of culture, identities and language Africa north and south of the Sahara desert are in many ways two separate continents.
When you then write West Africa or western Africa that would be the western arm of Africa south of the Sahara (beginning with Mauritania going southwards).

I would never confuse Egypt with sub-Saharan Africa. I would not confuse any part of Africa with another.

But why do you say this? If you are suggestion a racial difference then it is completely insane and it was one of the worst lies ever told; which infuriates me to no end. I could show you just one example, of a true Egyptian, his name is St.Maurice. Notice in the article I linked to about St. Maurice at the very top, it shows the coptic image of St. Maurice (I have never seen this image before) as caucasian, yet the original images of the man are all black. This is a key point, as Iconclasm is the main reason why the world is confused about who the real Jews are; the icons left as they were, clearly show that the Israelites were all black.

But I am not sure exactly what you meant. To be sure, all the sons of Ham, Cush (Ethiopians), Mizraim (Egyptians), Phut (West Africans), and Canaan (south africans and the biblical canaanites, in present day palestine, and surrounding areas) were all black people.

The sons of Shem however were also black and so was Jephet, Adam as well.

[Coffeehouse]

I'm pointing it out partly in relation to the claim you laid forward in the Theology thread (which I keep mixing with this one since we're discussing Africa and Jews in both) that Israelis from the 70 AD sack of Jerusalem ended up on a migratory journey to West Africa. I'm wondering if you mean western North Africa or West Africa because the difference makes a world.

Also isn't it fair to state that Ancient Egypt was a mosaic of skin colors? Here came peoples from all over the world, south-eastern Europe, the Semitic lands, Persia, even India and perhaps China, from Iberian Europe and certainly from the lands south of Nubia (from modern-day Sudan to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, northern Kenya). It most likely was the melting pot of the world.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Not having a "properly spelled name" is not a legit reason to not look at the evidence. The documentary clips in the video are from the history channel and the speaker was a anthropologist, that fact makes it scientific and academic Eärniel;most likely peer reviewed.

The improperly spelled name was for me already an indication about the quality of the video. It proved to be correct. I have now wasted a good twenty minutes looking at those shoddy clips and -good god- you call that 'academic proof'?! We certainly have a different definitions of what academic proof should be.

Your 'proof' consists of two guys pointing out several black and white prints of depictions of knights, stating enthousiastically "See! See! He's black! That's the truth, man!"

Yeah, duh, the prints are in BLACK inkt! Reeeeally compelling evidence, that.

They go on to say that lions are Israelite symbols, so 'clearly' any knight with a lion in his shield is an Israelite. That's not proof, that's just ignoring a good part of Medieval heraldry for convenience.

They then go on to say that the Arthur legend 'proves' that Arthur was black because he is called a Christian king and 'everybody knows that the Christians were black'. Right. The less said about that the better.

They go over this twice, each time in each clip, and no, it does not become more 'compelling evidence' the second time around.

The later part -or middle part- starts far more interesting with someone looking vaguely like he knows what he's talking about, starting with a translation from a cuneiform tablet, until he not only breaks out a couple of bible-verses as proof but goes on to call the Cimmerians Israelites without much proof, and from them the Israelites supposedly spread out to well... the whole of Europe. Not a single European tribe is allowed to have an origin seperate of the Israelites. But he cites rather no evidence for this assumption, instead it is presented as reality and look! He has solved the mystery of the Lost Tribes! Hooray!

The books go in conjunction with the video clips, they are not the sole source of evidence for my argument. Presented are two independent sources of information arriving at the same conclusion. To be frank, I don't understand your statement.

No, these are not two independent sources of information. You give a few fragments, a lot of assumptions presented as undeniable truth and absolutely no archaeological evidence whatsover. Heck, even this Wikipedia article has more decent arguments for this hypothesis than the books and the videos combined!

You have to explain that to me, makes no sense.

It should be fairly straightforward, lets see if I can clear it up further. We are dealing with book written centuries after the events they describe. It would be dangerous to just assume that all that information was passed down for centuries correctly and entirely. In what measure do these books rely on other books that have survived? In what degree do we find this information in other sources? In what degree does other archaeological or historical information agree or diverge? That should all be taken into account.

Sounds like them creating their own historical identity to me.

Which in one go, also makes it a rather untrustworthy support for the idea that the Gaels were Israelites.

Obviously if they were jews they did. It is not a fact that they did not have writing, it is stated to be a speculation (most likely a lie).

Oh no, you don't. That sort of language is totally unbefitting a scientific discussion. If you want to maintain any credibility you do not make such bold claims that you cannot back up with evidence.

If the Scythians had a script of their own, this should be painfully easy to prove: show me an artifact with Scythian script. (If possible with a location where it is found, or in which museum collection it resides.)

If no such artefact can be produced, then you can propose that absence of one, does not prove it never existed. You could even also argue most of Scythian artefacts come from burials and that that only gives as a limited view of their society. You know, sensible arguments. You cannot just throw out it is most likely a lie just because you don't like what it would mean for your hypothesis.

Hebrew is a semitic language (falling under African-Asian languages if I recall correctly), the Scythian language was considered part of the Iranian languages under Indo-European languages, which is this way unrelated to Hebrew. In Europe the Gaelic and Germanic languages are also families under Indo-European languages, no relation with Hebrew either.

So even in the unlikely event that the Israelites became Scythians, became Celts, the chances of identifying the latter with Israelites are terribly slim. All the above strongly suggests there is no sound basis to give Futhark (and therefore Tolkien's runes) a Hebrew origin. The changes occured in culture and languages are too profound.

Also, explain me this: Israel was defeated by the Assyrians around 720BC. Around 714BC the Cimmirians are said to migrate into the area, where they bug the other people, and but a few years later they even battle with the Assyrians. Now, if the defeated Israelites are the Cimmirians, how do you explain that within 20 years after their initial defeat, the Israelites have changed their entire culture, language and all, to be suddenly identified as Cimmerians instead, and arrive in numbers great enough to do battle with the Assyrians? And if there was anything Israelitish still left in the Cimmerians, why did they not move back towards their supposed home lands?

Whatever, it is one of the oldest and most often researched things in anthropology.

And yet this is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing. While that may not prove anything at all, I took the liberty of asking two archaeological acquitances (specialised in Middle-eastern areas). Neither of them had heard about it either. One of them is interested enough to look into it further if you can tell him which Israelite tribe has morphed into Scythians.

I never said there weren't other influences, I have said that JRRT's work is heavily influenced by Israelite history and the bible in general. How the present debate came about was by me pointing out that those runes, used by german as well as the gaelic peoples seem to have there origins in hebrew. I then provided evidence to show how that could be.

I dare say Tolkien was more influenced by his Christian upbringing in regard to the themes he chose to weave into his work, but I maintain there are other sources he used more in relation to parallels between Middle-earth history and ours.

And you have not provided any conclusive proof that Hebrew has any influence on Futhark.

While I do believe that there were other influences on the dunedain kingdoms creation, I do not think the roman empire is one of them, I could not do alot with that comparison because it is not true. Besides the thread is "Christian and Jewish influences in Tolkien's work." There are far more similarities with the Kingdoms of Israel than the romans, period.

Oh, don't be too quick to dismiss it so easily. Alcuin has a very interesting post about comparing Gondor to Byzantium here. And in that same thread Gordis makes a good remark concerning Tolkien finding inspiration for Arnor and Gondor in Egypt.

I had never even mentioned dwarves but I have mentioned specifically, the Dunedain.

Not directly, no. But Dwarves are mainly the ones we see using runes in Tolkien's work. And Tolkien's Dwarves are clearly influenced by Scandivian mythology.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

They then go on to say that the Arthur legend 'proves' that Arthur was black because he is called a Christian king and 'everybody knows that the Christians were black'. Right. The less said about that the better.

Mhm lol...

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Not a single European tribe is allowed to have an origin seperate of the Israelites.

Can any of you provide the moment in time in the clip that this is said? Also I can't seem to find that clip.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Hebrew is a semitic language (falling under African-Asian languages if I recall correctly), the Scythian language was considered part of the Iranian languages under Indo-European languages, which is this way unrelated to Hebrew. In Europe the Gaelic and Germanic languages are also families under Indo-European languages, no relation with Hebrew either.

I think Telcontarian, as Eärniel points out, why would the linguistic similarities between, say Norwegians and Swedes, and Hebrew, be next to non-existant if they were of the same people? Given that Israelis spread out from Jerusalem after the sack in 70 AD at an amazing speed, that gives my Norwegian ancestors less than 600-700 years (between 70 AD and the widespread appearance of old Norse tablets and inscriptions in 600-800s AD) to develop an entirely different language, including the development of the rune alphabet.
Thus any influence of your hypothetic all-covering ancient Israeli culture in Europe essentially becomes of no importance since entirely new languages and cultures (Germanic, Roman, Finnish, Hungarian) indeed have performed a severe cut-off from this Israeli heritage. One could perform that illogical mind game or just acknowledge: that there is no evidence that it ever happened.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Oh, don't be too quick to dismiss it so easily. Alcuin has a very interesting post about comparing Gondor to Byzantium here. And in that same thread Gordis makes a good remark concerning Tolkien finding inspiration for Arnor and Gondor in Egypt.

Not directly, no. But Dwarves are mainly the ones we see using runes in Tolkien's work. And Tolkien's Dwarves are clearly influenced by Scandivian mythology.

The influence of Scandinavian mythology can be seen here:
http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=14904

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Can any of you provide the moment in time in the clip that this is said? Also I can't seem to find that clip.

It's in the following clip, part 12.

[Coffeehouse]

Think you forgot to post the link!

[Count Comfect]

Earniel, thanks for the link to the British Israelism wiki. I was struck by one of their examples of "legendary claims" which I think provides an interesting example of the ahistoricism of the general argument.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Galileans or Galatians of the Sea of Galilee region, Israel have a similar tribal name with that of Gaels or Gauls of Western Europe.

This is apparently a correct attribution (my source for this, and most of what follows, is Nicholas Ostler's Empires of the Word (http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Word-L.../dp/0066210860)). However, it is the REASON that it is correct that deserves notice. The reason the Galatians and Gauls are fundamentally from the same root is that the Gauls, as with most Western European peoples, began on the steppes of Eastern Europe before pressure from the East pushed them to invade Europe. One group went West to become the Gauls, overrunning the Romans, Celts, and other previous inhabitants (see: Basques). Another group of these tribal warriors was hired by the Romans to fight in and around Anatolia (a standard Roman trick of co-opting enemies). They were eventually rewarded with land in the north of Judea/south of Anatolia-Syria area. Hence the presence of the Galatians (not an original tribe to the area) just in time for St. Paul. That is to say, the reason there are Gauls and Galatians is because they came from the center and some went west and the others southeast, NOT because they started in the southeast and all went northwest. Galatians never became Gauls, nor vice-versa. Rather, some proto-group (call them the Gaulatians, for the pun) split up to produce Gauls and Galatians.

Semitic languages are indeed Afro-Asiatic, a major grouping of which they are the most northern extent. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asiatic_languages] They are one major branch of the group, highly distinct from the Chadic branch spoken in the area in West Africa (source of most traded slaves in the Atlantic slave trade) or the Niger-Congo languages even more prevalent there (of which the Bantu language family is probably most famous, though it comes from the subgroup Niger-Congo B rather than the Niger-Congo A spoken in West Africa). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger-Congo_languages] Quite simply, there are MAJOR linguistic differences to be overcome if you want to argue that these are all the same peoples. Added to which, you've also lumped in the very different Indo-Iranian [with the Scythians] and European branches of Indo-European languages [another separate group entirely] and the Finno-Ugric languages (yet another family). There are some MASSIVE differences between languages in these groups, not just of vocabulary, but of word and sentence order, conceptualization, word functions, basically everything you can imagine being different between languages (and probably some you can't unless you're multilingual).

As for similarities of shape in letters between runes and the Semitic scripts, it's not surprising that they are in some way similar, as each began by scratching marks onto a surface (rock, wood, clay) with a pointed object. Compare for example the Maya scripts that began with painting and are much more fluid. But if there were direct influence, these two [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/aramaic.htm], [http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/sechard/492runes.htm] would look a lot more alike, rather than simply sharing the fact that yes, they are all simple combinations of straight lines, some of which overlap (but very rarely in reference to the same sound, which is usually the key to telling if they are actually related. You don't take a B and suddenly make it the U sound if you're conserving the same language).

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Also isn't it fair to state that Ancient Egypt was a mosaic of skin colors? Here came peoples from all over the world, south-eastern Europe, the Semitic lands, Persia, even India and perhaps China, from Iberian Europe and certainly from the lands south of Nubia (from modern-day Sudan to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, northern Kenya). It most likely was the melting pot of the world.

So you are saying that the chinese people that were in egypt built the pyramids...that the pharoahs were what? Indians? Egypt was ruled and founded by the children of Mizraim, africans, very similar to the Ethiopians. At the time it was a world power, and many came from all around but it was by no means a melting pot like say america is today or that any of the foreigners had any real power.

This supposition is not rational to the point of me responding is an exercise in wasting time.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

I would never confuse Egypt with sub-Saharan Africa. I would not confuse any part of Africa with another.

But why do you say this? If you are suggestion a racial difference then completely insane and it was one of the worst lies ever told; which infuriates me to no end. I could show you just one example, of a true Egyptian, his name is St.Maurice. Notice in the article I linked to about St. Maurice at the very top, it shows the coptic image of St. Maurice (I have never seen this image before) as caucasian, yet the original images of the man are all black. This a key point, as Iconclasm is the main reason why the world is confused about who the real Jews are; the icons left as they were, clearly show that the Israelites were all black.

But I am not sure exactly what you meant. To be sure, all the sons of Ham, Cush (Ethiopians), Mizraim (Egyptians), Phut (West Africans), and Canaan (south africans and the biblical canaanites, in present day palestine, and surrounding areas).

The sons of Shem however were also black and so was Jephet, Adam as well.

I want to know what you think of the above post. Of St. Maurice, of the black palestinians, of iconoclasm etc. Especially about iconoclasm, which is what this whole thread is about. I don't know were you get chinese and indians, in this.

Anymore ridiculous responses I won't bother to respond, you can claim the Chinese built the pyramids, without citing anything on your own time.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I'm pointing it out partly in relation to the claim you laid forward in the Theology thread (which I keep mixing with this one since we're discussing Africa and Jews in both) that Israelis from the 70 AD sack of Jerusalem ended up on a migratory journey to West Africa. I'm wondering if you mean western North Africa or West Africa because the difference makes a world.

They went south of The Kingdom of Judah entering into Africa from the north east. After which some ended up on western north Africa (then ended up in already established colonies on the Iberian peninsula), west africa proper and even in south africa. Today there are still remnants of people who call themselves Israelites all over africa; north south east and west.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

So you are saying that the chinese people that were in egypt built the pyramids...that the pharoahs were what? Indians?

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Anymore ridiculous responses I won't bother to respond, you can claim the Chinese built the pyramids, without citing anything on your own time.

Okay I have no idea where you got those assertions from. I haven't made them. Telcontarian, this is what I wrote:
"Also isn't it fair to state that Ancient Egypt was a mosaic of skin colors? Here came peoples from all over the world, south-eastern Europe, the Semitic lands, Persia, even India and perhaps China, from Iberian Europe and certainly from the lands south of Nubia (from modern-day Sudan to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, northern Kenya). It most likely was the melting pot of the world."

..How did you translate that into me asserting that the Chinese built the pyramids and that the Indians were the Pharaohs?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Okay I have no idea where you got those assertions from. I haven't made them. Telcontarian, this is what I wrote:
"Also isn't it fair to state that Ancient Egypt was a mosaic of skin colors? Here came peoples from all over the world, south-eastern Europe, the Semitic lands, Persia, even India and perhaps China, from Iberian Europe and certainly from the lands south of Nubia (from modern-day Sudan to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, northern Kenya). It most likely was the melting pot of the world."

..How did you translate that into me asserting that the Chinese built the pyramids and that the Indians were the Pharaohs?

Because it was in response to my post of the racial makeup of Egypt which is black. So it is either you agree or disagree that they are black; I took your reply as a disagreement. That no, in fact the Egyptians were not African but of many different people, isn't that what your post is saying. That a multicultural society in north africa (africa!!!) 5 - 10,000 years ago, under a multicultural pharaoh, created the Egyptian culture and it's achievements. All this by the way, without citing anything or refuting what I said and were.

What else would you have me say to that.

And I am not trying to be difficult, put I wanted you to understand my approach to all this and how I will respond from here on. It is hard enough to have to respond at all, let alone having to come back and clarify what you said because you don't quote me or cite what you are referring too; which I believe would greatly reduce these issues.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Because it was in response to my post of the racial makeup of Egypt which is black. So it is either you agree or disagree that they are black; I took your reply as a disagreement. That no, in fact the Egyptians were not African but of many different people, isn't that what your post is saying. That a multicultural society in north africa (africa!!!) 5 - 10,000 years ago, under a multicultural pharaoh, created the Egyptian culture and it's achievements. All this by the way, without citing anything or refuting what I said and were.

What else would you have me say to that.

And I am not trying to be difficult, put I wanted you to understand my approach to all this and how I will respond from here on. It is hard enough to have to respond at all, let alone having to come back and clarify what you said because you don't quote me or cite what you are referring too; which I believe would greatly reduce these issues.

I understand your position. But I disagree with the notion that a multicultural society could not exist in Egypt, one of the most advanced societies of Antiquity.
Multicultural societies and advances in human development are not as you seem to suggest, mutually exclusive. On the contrary I would argue they are strongly complementary as can be shown in the case of the Chinese civilization, Indian sub-continent civilizations, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantian, Italian city-states, Spain, Portugal and the British Empire.
Certainly Egypt, of all places on Earth, is the ground zero for the interfusion of different skin colors and cultures: from Europe, from the Caucausus, from China, Persia, India and of course Africa.
In any case there are many hieroglyphics depicting peoples with entirely different skin colors: black Nubians coming to brown-skinned Pharaohs, and other more northerly and pale-skinned persons. The archeological evidence is there.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I understand your position. But I disagree with the notion that a multicultural society could not exist in Egypt, one of the most advanced societies of Antiquity.
Multicultural societies and advances in human development are not as you seem to suggest, mutually exclusive. On the contrary I would argue they are strongly complementary as can be shown in the case of the Chinese civilization, Indian sub-continent civilizations, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantian, Italian city-states, Spain, Portugal and the British Empire.
Certainly Egypt, of all places on Earth, is the ground zero for the interfusion of different skin colors and cultures: from Europe, from the Caucausus, from China, Persia, India and of course Africa.
In any case there are many hieroglyphics depicting peoples with entirely different skin colors: black Nubians coming to brown-skinned Pharaohs, and other more northerly and pale-skinned persons. The archeological evidence is there.

Iconoclasm, black palestinians, what do you think.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Iconoclasm, black palestinians, what do you think.

I looked at the wiki entry on Saint Maurice and it seems that he has been known to be a Moor, in fact his name Maurice meaning Moor. How does he relate to your argument concerning Jewdom and Tolkien?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I looked at the wiki entry on Saint Maurice and it seems that he has been known to be a Moor, in fact his name Maurice meaning Moor. How does he relate to your argument concerning Jewdom and Tolkien?

Because you said. "it's important not to confuse Egypt and the rest of Northern Africa (Egypt to the modern-day Moroccan annexed Western Sahara) with Sub-Saharan Africa." To which I replied to with post #66 Which turns out to be a good source of info for the topic of this thread ie iconoclasm. Which is at the root of all my suppositions.

So what do you think about iconoclasm and the black palestinians. I understand that you agree that St. Maurice is a black man (from Egypt, which was the point) but you did not mention the plane example in that same article that showed a caucasoid representation of him which is a false image; a lie. Which ties into the false images of jesus and the disciples being caucasoid as well. Which gives him, a jew and his people a false identity ("covering up the faces of the judges"), which resulted in the jews themselves (my people) forgetting who they are, where they come from. Allowing another group who looks like the false images of the jews, to claim that heritage and every achievement ever made by them. One of which being the original European culture: language, script and religion.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Because you said. "it's important not to confuse Egypt and the rest of Northern Africa (Egypt to the modern-day Moroccan annexed Western Sahara) with Sub-Saharan Africa." To which I replied to with post #66 Which turns out to be a good source of info for the topic of this thread ie iconoclasm. Which is at the root of all my suppositions.

So what do you think about iconoclasm and the black palestinians. I understand that you agree that St. Maurice is a black man (from Egypt, which was the point) but you did not mention the plane example in that same article that showed a caucasoid representation of him which is a false image; a lie. Which ties into the false images of jesus and the disciples being caucasoid as well. Which gives him, a jew and his people a false identity ("covering up the faces of the judges"), which resulted in the jews themselves (my people) forgetting who they are, where they come from. Allowing another group who looks like the false images of the jews, to claim that heritage and every achievement ever made by them. One of which being the original European culture: language, script and religion.

It certainly is possible and even very likely that St. Maurice was black. I think the likelihood of him being black is strengthened by the geographical location in Egypt that his legion took its name from. Having been enrolled in the Roman Thebes legion, which takes its name from Thebes, the Egyptian city halfway between the Mediterranean coast and the Sudanese border (the further south you venture in Egypt the darker the skin), makes it more than plausible that he had roots from the area or even further south.

It makes for a good point if there are many depictions of St. Maurice as a white-skinned Caucasian-looking fellow. But I fail to see how the more than likely black skin color of St. Maurice (being from Thebes, far south in Egypt) makes you so sure everyone else further north in Egypt, even further north in Palestine and the area must be black as well.. There's not automatic logic in that.