Does the bible ever declare that being black is a curse from God??

Status
Not open for further replies.

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
RevelationTestament......

I pointed out "multiple" scriptures from the Bible which had the same exact themes to them as the Book of Mormon when it concerned "color" to drstevej and he just ignored them and only addressed "one" which was less symbolic and more literal seeming, completely ignoring the others.

I am well familiar with drstevej from another site. And yes, it is obvious he has some sort of axe to grind as he seems to routinely ignore scriptures. When shown his interpretation is wrong, he just jumps to a different subject or source. Well, I am used to that. People hardly ever admit they are wrong.
Peace Bro
 
Upvote 0

williamgramsmith

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2012
837
7
✟1,043.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Private
Phoebe.... Just because "some" people read "skin color" into the scriptures primarily because of the ban and possible racism itself in society doesn't mean that's actually what the scriptures state.

Do you believe in following the scriptures, or the various interpretations of men?

LDS do both, because both must match. Eventually, false views such as the "black skin was a curse" idea go away. It's not what the scriptures state.

Further, some of your quotes and others above prove the very fact that the "skin" being referred to is ones SPIRIT and Countenance, and not skin color.

Why? Because a Native American didn't really actually become "white" all of a sudden when being raised in the Gospel. Yes, partially due to "modernity" and "righteousness", but not in reality. The same thing occurred in the BOM.

President Kimball's "example" was to prove the very point that the scripture wasn't talking about actual skin color, but ones spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Rescued One

...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
Dec 12, 2002
35,521
6,402
Midwest
✟79,556.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?

1. The Ethiopian didn't have to change his skin, because it was already a nice color.

2. The leopard couldn't change his spots, but that was okay, too.

Wicked people are so depraved, they can't make themselves good. And that is why God steps in and gives a person a new heart.

At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.
Titus 3:3 NIV
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
If you guys are going to insist God is racist, then I guess He is racist against the Gentiles, because He made them wait to enter the house until after Jesus came, and didn't want Him teaching the Gentiles.

Somehow I missed the part where you rail against Him for making you wait.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

skylark1

In awesome wonder
Nov 20, 2003
12,545
250
Visit site
✟14,176.00
Faith
Christian
My point is that there are other references to blackness,

I agree that there are references in the Bible to blackness in which it is used as a metaphor.


and being black in the Bible that can have nothing to do with an alleged disease.

I agree. However, I do not agree that this is the case in Job 30:30.


Further being white has nothing to do with skin color, but purity. The BOM is very plain really about it, and yet drstevej insists it is literally about skin color and racism. It is simply a totally egregious interpretation esp in light of the fact that the Bible has the exact same kind of references to whiteness being purity, and black being sin or impurity, and the fact that in the BOM the "color" changes back to pure and delightsome. I'm sure there will be no change in skin color.

My concern is with the passage from Job.


Lastly, to read Job so literally, doesn't make much sense in light of all the other obvious symbolism that is used.
Job 30:27 My bowels boiled, and rested not: the days of affliction prevented me.
Job 30:28 I went mourning without the sun: I stood up, and I cried in the congregation.
Job 30:29 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
Job 30:30 My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.
Job 30:31 My harp also is turned to mourning, and my organ into the voice of them that weep.

There is metaphor. However, that doesn't mean that it is all metaphor. Especially since it has already been stated in Job 2:7 that his entire body was covered with boils. Job 2:8 tells of him scraping his skin with pot shards. Jobe 7:5 tells of his body being covered with worms and dust, cracking and breaking.

This commentary summarizes his disease:
So went Satan forth - Job 1:12.

And smote Job with sore boils - The English word boil denotes the well-known turnout upon the flesh, accompanied with severe inflammation; a sore angry swelling. "Webster." The Hebrew word, however, is in the singular number שׁחין shechı̂yn, and should have been so rendered in our translation. Dr. Good renders it "a burning ulceration." The Vulgate translates it, "ulcere pessimo." The Septuagint, ἕλκει πονηρῶ helkei ponērō - "with a foul ulcer." The Hebrew word שׁחין shechı̂yn means a burning sore; an inflamed ulcer, a bile. "Gesenius." It is derived from שׁכן shâkan, an obsolete root, retained in Arabic, and meaning to be hot or inflamed. It is translated "bile" or "boil," in Exo 9:9-11; Lev 13:18; Kg2 20:7;: Isa 28:21, (see the notes on that place), Lev 13:19-20; Job 2:7; and "botch," Deu 28:27, Deu 28:35. The word does not occur elsewhere in the Scriptures. In Deu 28:27, it means "the botch of Egypt," some species of leprosy, undoubtedly, which prevailed there.

In regard to the disease of Job, we may learn some of its characteristics, not only from the usual meaning of the word, but from the circumstances mentioned in the book itself. It was such that he took a potsherd to scrape himself with, Job 2:8; such as to make his nights restless, and full of tossings to and fro and to clothe his flesh with clods of dust, and with worms, and to break his flesh, or to constitute a running sore or ulcer, Job 7:4-5; such as to make him bite his flesh for pain, Job 13:14, and to make him like a rotten thing, or a garment that is moth eaten, Job 13:28; such that his face was foul with weeping, Job 16:16, and such as to fill him with wrinkles, and to make his flesh lean, Job 16:8; such as to make his breath corrupt, Job 17:1, and his bones cleave to his skin, Job 19:20, Job 19:26; such as to pierce his bones with pain in the night, Job 30:17, and to make his skin black, and to burn up his bones with heat, Job 30:30.

It has been commonly supposed that the disease of Job was a species of black leprosy commonly called "elephantiasis," which prevails much in Egypt. This disease received its name from ἐλέφας elefas, "an elephant," from the swelling produced by it, causing a resemblance to that animal in the limbs; or because it rendered the skin like that of the elephant, scabtons and dark colored. It is called by the Arabs judhām (Dr. Good), and is said to produce in the countenance a grim, distorted, and "lion-like" set of features, and hence has been called by some "Leontiasis." It is known as the black leprosy, to distinguish it from a more common disorder called "white leprosy" - an affection which the Greeks call "Leuce," or "whiteness." The disease of Job seems to have been a universal ulcer; producing an eruption over his entire person, and attended with violent pain, and constant restlessness. A universal bile or groups of biles ever the body would accord with the account of the disease in the various parts of the book. In the elephantiasis the skin is covered with incrustations like those of an elephant. It is a chronic and contagious disease, marked by a thickening of the legs, with a loss of hair and feeling, a swelling of the face, and a hoarse nasal voice. It affects the whole body; the bones as well as the skin are covered with spots and tumors, at first red, but afterward black. "Coxe, Ency. Webster." It should be added that the leprosy in all its forms was regarded as contagious, and of course involved the necessity of a separation from society; and all the circumstances attending this calamity were such as deeply to humble a man of the former rank and dignity of Job.​


Job is like the Song of Solomon ... full of symbolism.
I stand by my interpretation because he shows he is rejected of men, and is telling how this affects him:
Job 30:8 They were children of fools, yea, children of base men: they were viler than the earth.
Job 30:9 And now am I their song, yea, I am their byword.
Job 30:10 They abhor me, they flee far from me, and spare not to spit in my face.
Job 30:11 Because he hath loosed my cord, and afflicted me, they have also let loose the bridle before me.

I think that they abhorred him and fled from him because of his terrible disease. A disease that caused him to say that his skin was black.

There is metaphor in the Bible, but when a passage can be explained clearly without it then I don't think that we need to look for an alternate meaning.
 
Upvote 0

Ran77

Senior Contributor
Mar 18, 2004
17,177
270
Arizona
✟36,652.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
If you guys are going to insist God is racist, then I guess He is racist against the Gentiles, because He made them wait to enter the house until after Jesus came, and didn't want Him teaching the Gentiles.

Somehow I missed the part where you rail against Him for making you wait.


Maybe this applies as well.


Acts 16: 6

6. Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,


It seems that God, for whatever reason, has withheld the Gospel from one group of people, or another, until He deemed it was time for them to be taught it. Or in this case for them to be given the priesthood.

In the Old Testament the priesthood was far more restrictive. And yet somehow that isn't a problem. The same people who can accept that only certain segments of the Jewish population could have the priesthood are having difficulty with the concept that, for a season, it was withheld from the blacks.

Most likely this is the same group of people who attend churches who did not ordain black ministers during the same period of time. Go figure.


On a personal note, I am glad that the restriction was lifted and that we now have many wonderful members and priesthood holders of all races and colors.


:)
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I agree that there are references in the Bible to blackness in which it is used as a metaphor.

I agree. However, I do not agree that this is the case in Job 30:30.

My concern is with the passage from Job.

There is metaphor. However, that doesn't mean that it is all metaphor. Especially since it has already been stated in Job 2:7 that his entire body was covered with boils. Job 2:8 tells of him scraping his skin with pot shards. Jobe 7:5 tells of his body being covered with worms and dust, cracking and breaking.

This commentary summarizes his disease:
So went Satan forth - Job 1:12.

And smote Job with sore boils - The English word boil denotes the well-known turnout upon the flesh, accompanied with severe inflammation; a sore angry swelling. "Webster." The Hebrew word, however, is in the singular number שׁחין shechı̂yn, and should have been so rendered in our translation. Dr. Good renders it "a burning ulceration." The Vulgate translates it, "ulcere pessimo." The Septuagint, ἕλκει πονηρῶ helkei ponērō - "with a foul ulcer." The Hebrew word שׁחין shechı̂yn means a burning sore; an inflamed ulcer, a bile. "Gesenius." It is derived from שׁכן shâkan, an obsolete root, retained in Arabic, and meaning to be hot or inflamed. It is translated "bile" or "boil," in Exo 9:9-11; Lev 13:18; Kg2 20:7;: Isa 28:21, (see the notes on that place), Lev 13:19-20; Job 2:7; and "botch," Deu 28:27, Deu 28:35. The word does not occur elsewhere in the Scriptures. In Deu 28:27, it means "the botch of Egypt," some species of leprosy, undoubtedly, which prevailed there.

In regard to the disease of Job, we may learn some of its characteristics, not only from the usual meaning of the word, but from the circumstances mentioned in the book itself. It was such that he took a potsherd to scrape himself with, Job 2:8; such as to make his nights restless, and full of tossings to and fro and to clothe his flesh with clods of dust, and with worms, and to break his flesh, or to constitute a running sore or ulcer, Job 7:4-5; such as to make him bite his flesh for pain, Job 13:14, and to make him like a rotten thing, or a garment that is moth eaten, Job 13:28; such that his face was foul with weeping, Job 16:16, and such as to fill him with wrinkles, and to make his flesh lean, Job 16:8; such as to make his breath corrupt, Job 17:1, and his bones cleave to his skin, Job 19:20, Job 19:26; such as to pierce his bones with pain in the night, Job 30:17, and to make his skin black, and to burn up his bones with heat, Job 30:30.

It has been commonly supposed that the disease of Job was a species of black leprosy commonly called "elephantiasis," which prevails much in Egypt. This disease received its name from ἐλέφας elefas, "an elephant," from the swelling produced by it, causing a resemblance to that animal in the limbs; or because it rendered the skin like that of the elephant, scabtons and dark colored. It is called by the Arabs judhām (Dr. Good), and is said to produce in the countenance a grim, distorted, and "lion-like" set of features, and hence has been called by some "Leontiasis." It is known as the black leprosy, to distinguish it from a more common disorder called "white leprosy" - an affection which the Greeks call "Leuce," or "whiteness." The disease of Job seems to have been a universal ulcer; producing an eruption over his entire person, and attended with violent pain, and constant restlessness. A universal bile or groups of biles ever the body would accord with the account of the disease in the various parts of the book. In the elephantiasis the skin is covered with incrustations like those of an elephant. It is a chronic and contagious disease, marked by a thickening of the legs, with a loss of hair and feeling, a swelling of the face, and a hoarse nasal voice. It affects the whole body; the bones as well as the skin are covered with spots and tumors, at first red, but afterward black. "Coxe, Ency. Webster." It should be added that the leprosy in all its forms was regarded as contagious, and of course involved the necessity of a separation from society; and all the circumstances attending this calamity were such as deeply to humble a man of the former rank and dignity of Job.​




I think that they abhorred him and fled from him because of his terrible disease. A disease that caused him to say that his skin was black.

There is metaphor in the Bible, but when a passage can be explained clearly without it then I don't think that we need to look for an alternate meaning.
Hi Skylark
I believe I have failed to properly greet you, so nice to meet you.
I am not saying that the more literal interpretation of a disease making Job's skin black is not possible or not correct. I have my doubts about that given the highly symbolic language of Job and Song of Solomon, etc. Having experienced similar feelings to Job, I think, I believe I can somewhat identify with his feelings where it seems everyone avoids you or hates you, or runs from you - you feel unclean, like there is something wrong with you, like you are dirty - in scriptural terminology - like your skin is black - a skin of satan that surrounds you. It has nothing to do with actual skin color in that context - see my Song of Solomon reference as well. The plain fact is that both the Bible and the BOM use whiteness in reference to purity, and blackness in reference to sin, lack of light, spiritual darkness, etc. Do you agree that the Bible uses the terminology this way?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

skylark1

In awesome wonder
Nov 20, 2003
12,545
250
Visit site
✟14,176.00
Faith
Christian
Hi Skylark
I believe I have failed to properly greet you, so nice to meet you.

As I have you. Welcome to the forum. :)


I am not saying that the more literal interpretation of a disease making Job's skin black is not possible or not correct.

I appreciate you clarifying this, as I did not understand tha you were saying this in your other posts.



I have my doubts about that given the highly symbolic language of Job and Song of Solomon, etc. Having experienced similar feelings to Job, I think, I believe I can somewhat identify with his feelings where it seems everyone avoids you or hates you, or runs from you - you feel unclean, like there is something wrong with you, like you are dirty - in scriptural terminology - like your skin is black - a skin of satan that surrounds you. It has nothing to do with actual skin color in that context - see my Song of Solomon reference as well. The plain fact is that both the Bible and the BOM use whiteness in reference to purity, and blackness in reference to sin, lack of light, spiritual darkness, etc. Do you agree that the Bible uses the terminology this way?

I think that I already answered this in my last post, I wrote:
There is metaphor. However, that doesn't mean that it is all metaphor.​

And:
There is metaphor in the Bible, but when a passage can be explained clearly without it then I don't think that we need to look for an alternate meaning.​

There are times in the Bible that black is used as a metaphor. However, I do believe that in Job 30:30, when it is mentioned that Job's skin is black, that it is not a metaphor but a description of how his disease has affected his skin.
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Maybe this applies as well.


Acts 16: 6

6. Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,


It seems that God, for whatever reason, has withheld the Gospel from one group of people, or another, until He deemed it was time for them to be taught it. Or in this case for them to be given the priesthood.

In the Old Testament the priesthood was far more restrictive. And yet somehow that isn't a problem. The same people who can accept that only certain segments of the Jewish population could have the priesthood are having difficulty with the concept that, for a season, it was withheld from the blacks.

Most likely this is the same group of people who attend churches who did not ordain black ministers during the same period of time. Go figure.


On a personal note, I am glad that the restriction was lifted and that we now have many wonderful members and priesthood holders of all races and colors.

:)
It is possible that those of color may become judges of Israel with Christ. It seems those who receive the gospel seem to come to view themselves as having all the truth - we must carefully guard against such tendencies. The Jews let it become a mighty stumbling block.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. They certainly have validity.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

peebly63

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2013
1,401
15
✟1,639.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Maybe this applies as well.


Acts 16: 6

6. Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,


It seems that God, for whatever reason, has withheld the Gospel from one group of people, or another, until He deemed it was time for them to be taught it. Or in this case for them to be given the priesthood.

In the Old Testament the priesthood was far more restrictive. And yet somehow that isn't a problem. The same people who can accept that only certain segments of the Jewish population could have the priesthood are having difficulty with the concept that, for a season, it was withheld from the blacks.

Most likely this is the same group of people who attend churches who did not ordain black ministers during the same period of time. Go figure.


On a personal note, I am glad that the restriction was lifted and that we now have many wonderful members and priesthood holders of all races and colors.


:)

you are going have to get your stories straight guys, one claimed blacks were always allowed, one claimed God told them to blacks, your own president admitted he did not even know why blacks were banned...

now someone is lying...

and you would have thought your president knew why God banned blacks and why it was over turned...lol
 
Upvote 0

fatboys

Senior Veteran
Nov 18, 2003
9,231
280
70
✟53,575.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
you are going have to get your stories straight guys, one claimed blacks were always allowed, one claimed God told them to blacks, your own president admitted he did not even know why blacks were banned...

now someone is lying...

and you would have thought your president knew why God banned blacks and why it was over turned...lol

Are you playing a game here? We have explained that there are black races that are not of the lineage of Cain. They were always allowed to hold the priesthood. Example Aborigines. Got it now?
 
Upvote 0

peebly63

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2013
1,401
15
✟1,639.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Are you playing a game here? We have explained that there are black races that are not of the lineage of Cain. They were always allowed to hold the priesthood. Example Aborigines. Got it now?

I think you are the ones playing games, I posted part of an interview with one of your presidents who was asked why no "people of colour" held the priesthood prior to 1978...

his answer was "he didn't know why it was", so he knew none had been but he didn't know why that was so...

it was clear by his answer that he did not deny it, so are you saying your president was wrong??
 
Upvote 0

x141

...
Sep 25, 2011
5,138
466
Where you are ...
Visit site
✟25,111.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think you are the ones playing games, I posted part of an interview with one of your presidents who was asked why no "people of colour" held the priesthood prior to 1978...

his answer was "he didn't know why it was", so he knew none had been but he didn't know why that was so...

it was clear by his answer that he did not deny it, so are you saying your president was wrong??

The reason why is the same reason the earth became filled with violence, and what causes us not to enter in now.
 
Upvote 0

williamgramsmith

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2012
837
7
✟1,043.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Private
I think you are the ones playing games, I posted part of an interview with one of your presidents who was asked why no "people of colour" held the priesthood prior to 1978...

his answer was "he didn't know why it was", so he knew none had been but he didn't know why that was so...

it was clear by his answer that he did not deny it, so are you saying your president was wrong??

Peebly.... It's not that complicated.

Most leaders of the Church are not "trained Church/Historical scholars", nor are they trained Apologists. They are Prophets of the Lord, called to preach the Gospel of Christ, the Word of God.

He didn't answer according to what we have told you because he doesn't deal with people like you on a daily basis. For them the "race" issue is FAR off their radar. In other words, someone in the Church, including the Prophet not having a highly detailed LIST of every single factual tidbit of information to every HISTORICAL nuance in Church history doesn't mean much.

Ask him something about the scriptures and God and he will blow your socks off.

A simple question, he answered simply.... He wasn't giving a THESIS on the historical background of the issue. Get over yourself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

peebly63

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2013
1,401
15
✟1,639.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Peebly.... It's not that complicated.

Most leaders of the Church are not "trained Church/Historical scholars", nor are they trained Apologists. They are Prophets of the Lord, called to preach the Gospel of Christ, the Word of God.

He didn't answer according to what we have told you because he doesn't deal with people like you on a daily basis. For them the "race" issue is FAR off their radar. In other words, someone in the Church, including the Prophet not having a highly detailed LIST of every single factual tidbit of information to every HISTORICAL nuance in Church history doesn't mean much.

Ask him something about the scriptures and God and he will blow your socks off.

A simple question, he answered simply.... He wasn't giving a THESIS on the historical background of the issue. Get over yourself.

my padawan, this was not a difficult question for what was a president of the LDS, it was a tv interview so he would have known to a certain degree what was coming, he knew what the question was about as his answer affirmed that no blacks had held the priesthood before 1978, he simply stated he did not know why blacks had not received the priesthood prior to that time...

it is not about not understanding, he understood quite clearly but what he did not know was why no blacks held the priesthood...

Again ...what sort of president of a religion, the one hearing from god does not know what his religion stands for and is doing...
 
Upvote 0

williamgramsmith

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2012
837
7
✟1,043.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Private
The kind that don't live their lives being race-baiters, who are liberals having "racism" on the brain etc.

Like I said, he was asked a simple question and he gave a simple answer.
It's not that he "doesn't know" about the ban, that it was based on LINEAGE not skin color. Even Official Declaration 2 indicates the Lineage aspect, so of course he knows.
Further, since most blacks in America are African blacks, and he was interviewed by an American, he answered according to what people were thinking. Again, simple answer.

Would we have "preferred" he was more "detailed" on the subject like we are, so people like you aren't asking people like you questions, being contrarian just to be contrarian? Sure!

It's like this.... Let me tell you a little secret about life. When a person doesn't see or get all the information from one source that they would like, that DOES NOT MEAN that somehow other information "doesn't exist" elsewhere. In other words, just because the Prophet didn't mention what we have been telling you, that he wasn't as detailed in his answer, doesn't mean those facts and history doesn't exist.

The omission of fact is not the same as the non-existence of fact. Any BASIC intellectual person understands this truth.

Further, there are PLENTY of LDS statements which directly state the ban was according to LINEAGE, period. You are just being contrary to simply be contrary.
 
Upvote 0

fatboys

Senior Veteran
Nov 18, 2003
9,231
280
70
✟53,575.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
my padawan, this was not a difficult question for what was a president of the LDS, it was a tv interview so he would have known to a certain degree what was coming, he knew what the question was about as his answer affirmed that no blacks had held the priesthood before 1978, he simply stated he did not know why blacks had not received the priesthood prior to that time...

it is not about not understanding, he understood quite clearly but what he did not know was why no blacks held the priesthood...

Again ...what sort of president of a religion, the one hearing from god does not know what his religion stands for and is doing...

The person who interviewed him meant those of color who were black and from the lineage of Cain. That was what the interviewer wanted to know because of the controversy over the those who the ban was against. Again, this is stupid to try and explain this over and over again. Blacks who were not of the negro race could hold the priesthood. Got it.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The person who interviewed him meant those of color who were black and from the lineage of Cain. That was what the interviewer wanted to know because of the controversy over the those who the ban was against. Again, this is stupid to try and explain this over and over again. Blacks who were not of the negro race could hold the priesthood. Got it.



It doesn't get any clearer with explanations--Blacks who were not of the negro race could hold the priesthood--How can you be black and not of the negro race????--Which means no negro could be a priest.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.