Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
King James was a godly person, unlike his roman catholic Mother, "Bloody Mary", who had many true Christians executed for going against unbiblical roman catholic doctrine.He was no homosexual, nor was he black (despite what the racist so-called "black Hebrew Israelites" say), and no lying minion of Satan will EVER be able to deceive me by convincing me otherwise... EVER.
I just noticed I made a serious mistake here. Don't know what made me think that "Bloody Mary" was James' mother. His mother was actually Mary, queen of scots. Not the same Mary.
Originally posted by Blakemore
So king James was white but Jesus was probably black/half cast
There's no way to know exactly for sure (at least till He returns), but Jesus probably has more of a middle eastern to oriental look, not actually black. I never claimed He is white either.
No one alive today knows for sure what He actually looks like but we'll all find out soon enough.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnaeEthneo's trolling
There's no way to know exactly for sure (at least till He returns), but Jesus probably has more of a middle eastern to oriental look, not actually black. I never claimed He is white either.No one alive today knows for sure what He actually looks like but we'll all find out soon enough.
As for proof that He was actually a historical person, I've already had this argument with you and gave you the most obvious evidence of all-- our yearly calendar-- and you chose to reply "nuh uh, that means something else her derp!".
B.C. and A.D. after year numbers are specifically in reference to when Jesus Christ was born. If He never existed then we would not have them. Obviously that was THE most important event in history for us to rearrange our yearly calendars around it. We never did something so profound as that for the pedophilic warmonger Muhammed lol.
Yes yes, I know... you will stupidly claim that's not what B.C. or A.D. means because you're so damn stubborn and so will never admit when you're wrong but I know I am right regardless of what you say.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
As for proof that He was actually a historical person, I've already had this argument with you and gave you the most obvious evidence of all-- our yearly calendar-- and you chose to reply "nuh uh, that means something else her derp!".B.C. and A.D. after year numbers are specifically in reference to when Jesus Christ was born. If He never existed then we would not have them. Obviously that was THE most important event in history for us to rearrange our yearly calendars around it. We never did something so profound as that for the pedophilic warmonger Muhammed lol.
Yes yes, I know... you will stupidly claim that's not what B.C. or A.D. means because you're so damn stubborn and so will never admit when you're wrong but I know I am right regardless of what you say.
BS.
I'm disappointed in you. I didn't think you would lie so blatantly like that.
I'm sorry but wherever you got that bullshit info from they lied to you. 👆 👆
B.C. has always meant "Before Christ" and A.D. has always been transted from latin words that mean "After our Lord" or "In the year of our Lord".
Dude, EVERYONE was using it, not just Christians.
People don't rearrange their calendars over a "legend", ffs lmao.
"Legend," my ass. He was a real, historical person. That is fact. You can argue about whether He was actually divine if you like but there is no doubt He actually existed. That is IRREFUTABLE.
It has only been in modern times where people have been wanting so desperately to change B.C. and A D. to B.C.E. ("before common era"😉 and A C.E. ("after common era"😉 because they are secularists who want to erase all trace of Jesus Christ because they hate Him so much.
They don't like having their retarded atheistic/evolutionary religion which they call "science" challenged by those who believe in the Bible and God.