why do early "church fathers" say nothing racial

[learningaboutCI]

I have a question. The basic contention of CI is that the Scriptures tell a racial history, that the OT Israelites understood this even if they sometimes ignored it, and that Jesus and the apostles understood this topic. For example, in the NT, mixed-race people are referred to as 'clouds without water' or 'broken cisterns', while sexual mixing with other races is an example of (if not the main use of the term) "adultery". The genealogies of the Bible, and the focus on the Israelites who have a specific lineage, are given as more evidence that the Bible and Christianity are about more than "spiritual conversion".

The early church fathers were Christians who wrote about heresies and other problems. They were sort of like the apostles, but they wrote in later centuries. Like the apostles, their task was to explain, keep people in line by arguing, and basically do whatever it took to ensure a good understanding of what Jesus had actually done and said, and how the people were to carry on. Since the apostles, and the 'church' generally over centuries, were chasing down Israelites who had wandered hither and yon, and since encounters with other races were not new to the Israelites, I would expect to find exhortations about separation. I would also expect to find contrasts drawn for rhetorical purposes, particularly since this topic is a really big deal. Such contrasts would serve as excellent springboards for good rhetoric: "Don't be like the beasts." That sort of thing.

Another way to look at the problem is to consult the 'list of heresies'. They all seem to relate to aspects of theology, while none of them have a racial character. There's no heresy for "belief that all the races are equal in the eyes of God", named after some slob or other. It may be that racial mixing lies behind one or more heresies, but given the level of detail to which theological inquisitions were carried, one would think that at some point, on such an important doctrine as the racial separateness of Israel, some clarification would be in order, and the correct form discovered for expressing that idea. Here is a list of heresies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... n_heresies

Why isn't racial awareness more evident in the first centuries of church activity?

[Filidh]

because until the era of the french revolution, only aryans were considered man. the other races were not races of man, they were simply 'the otherbeings'.

the notion of a single humanity with different races is a socialconstruct given to us by the enemy.

the notion of a 'hu'-man, a man with hugh, a monster, was developed by the enemy into the socialconstruct known to us today as 'humanity' or 'the human race'.

there is the race of man, which is aryan, and there is the mongrel horde, which is all of the other abominations that walk on two legs and speak.

thus, the racial issue wasn't talked about because it was taken as selfevident. it would be like wondering why geography books don't go on and on about how water is blue. it's so obvious that it's unspokenly selfevident of itself.

the rabbit hole goes far deeper than many realize.

[bahr]

I think Filidh is absolutely right. An evidence of this is the catholic church in the 16th century when, after the "discovery" of America, they had to organize a meeting to discuss something which was a very serious matter, and even a key matter at the time: "Are these beings in America (the "indians") men or not?". The dispute was very bitter, but finally, of course, the answer was "yes, they are", because they couldn't simply loot these vast territories without a "christian" pretense. Since then, the catholic institution is officially universalist in the modern sense of the word and has flooded the world with this false gospel.

[Lang]

There's no heresy for "belief that all the races are equal in the eyes of God", named after some slob or other.

Give a look at what I said in this thread: http://forum.christogenea.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5357&hilit=sin+against+holy+spirit

And later answer here what you think. If thats correct, race mixing is the top heresy.

[Kentucky]

Why isn't racial awareness more evident in the first centuries of church activity?

We sometimes forget that the first 1st century above ground church was not in the Mediterranean, but England, specifically Glastonbury. How could racial awareness be more evident if there were no other races in the land? The so called "church fathers" are sometimes confused with the Disciples and Apostles, however these church fathers came after they were dead and taught everything and anything. There was also a terrible persecution of Christians (who were White) in the Roman realms. It wasn't until Constantine that the persecutions subsided, however with the new found freedom also came a tolerance of all other religions as well with the Edict of Toleration in 313AD, which set the precedence for institutional universalism in the name of Christianity. The RCC has ever since despoiled the racial message of the Good News. When we read of tribulation(s) in the New Testament, it is the history of our race under divine judgement for the last 2000 years. Christian Identity is a return to the original theme of the Gospels, which churchianity has, for the most part, decimated.

Mark

[learningaboutCI]

Thank you for the above.

Isn't there supposed to be a period of forgetting as well? Would that figure in?

[Kentucky]

Isn't there supposed to be a period of forgetting as well? Would that figure in?

The name Manasseh means forgetful and the consensus in CI is that the USA is identified as such. Perhaps 'the time of Jacob's trouble' would be such a period of time whereby we become completely lost and apostate. Which is why God brought forth the Christian Identity message at this point in time.

Mark

[wmfinck]

The ancient Greeks knew about and mentioned pygmies at least as far back as the time of Hesiod. Diodorus Siculus described wooly-headed black-skinned tribes of Ethiopia as utter savages. Nobody in Christendom in its early centuries would have dreamed of the idea of bringing such beasts back to Athens and attempting to civilize them.

The early Christian writers did make several subtle racial statements. Among these are Tertullian and Justin Martyr. The former talked about a breed of evil people, and the latter stated that the rebellious angels were trapped in the bodies of beasts (how appropriate, Jude's "chains of darkness".)

However because people of the time were naturally racist, meaning that they favored their own tribe over all others and did not conceive of spoiling their blood by bastardizing themselves, it seems that such sentiments were taken for granted. They did not need to be overtly racist, because for the most part they did not have a race problem. While there were pockets of arabs at the fringes of society, Leroy and Julio were not chasing blondes around the streets of Sparta.

[learningaboutCI]

Thank you for that. It reminds me of the argument about why the early Colonial wills don't typically mention guns (an argument for gun control I've heard). The response to the argument is that gun ownership was taken for granted, hence no need to mention them. In other words, to understand a body of writing you have to consider the assumptions of the writers. It still strikes me as a mild paradox, that the Scriptures are full of warnings about mixing, but the early Christian writers don't make much of it. But I guess the answer simply is that they were writing to other Christians, and as a body of people they had no interest in trying to civilize Kentrelle and Latisha.

[wmfinck]

Exactly.