No.
YOUR "understanding" of what was literally common sense is what is lacking. The Bible is the history of the first White man Adam and his descendants, Adamites. Moses or the prophets didn't bother to write about asians, negroes or other races simply because they were of no concern to the white Adamites. The Bible is written by and for White people. However you are wrong in that it does mention race and even more so, race mixing. Deuteronomy 23:2
2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
The word bastard here is translated from the paleo-Hebrew word mamzer, Strong's Concordance tells us it's original meaning;
4464 mamzer mam-zare' from an unused root meaning to alienate; a mongrel
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mongrel
mongrel noun
a dog whose parents are of different breeds
used to describe something of mixed origin
So a bastard that nowadays is someone born out of wedlock is not what wont get into Gods congregation, it is literally racemixers. So yes, race is very relevant even 4000 years ago when Deuterenomy was written. And your assertion that race wasn't relevant in medieval Europe is simply false, where were all the niggers and non-Whites before the jews started bringing slaves into Europe? Common sense.
You should read the parables of Jesus, specifically the one about the fishnet, wheats and tares..
Matthew 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Do you believe Jesus Christ was literally saying not to teach the gospel to animals? Or was non-Adamites/Whites not considered humans (like the anthropologists of later days would affirm with "science")?
AGAIN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimis_Deus
>In Sublimis Deus, Paul III unequivocally declares the indigenous peoples of the Americas to be rational beings with souls, denouncing any idea to the contrary as directly inspired by the "enemy of the human race" (Satan). He goes on to condemn their reduction to slavery in the strongest terms, declaring it null and void for any people known as well as any that could be discovered in the future, entitles their right to liberty and property, and concludes with a call for their evangelization.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/The-history-of-the-idea-of-race
>Race as a categorizing term referring to human beings was first used in the English language in the late 16th century.
https://www.biblestudy.org/question/races.html
>The word translated "race" in Romans 9:3 comes from the Greek word suggenes (Strong's Concordance Number #G4773). The word means a relative (by blood) and by extension a fellow countryman. Thayer's Greek Definitions agrees with this assessment.
What is it you don't understand?
It's pretty clear once you remove your ideological blinders
The Vatican has been comped since it's creation, what some universalist Pope says about squatniggers is completely irrelevant to the topic about slavery in the Bible as a whole.
Semantics, if the word "race" was used or not is also a retarded argument, non-Whites were considered animals en large.
Medieval western europe was catholic and catholic only. And again, the word race didn't even exist in the english language before the late 16th century.
It's not "semantics" it's facts
non-Whites were considered animals en large.
Nope
It simply isn't true, arabs/muslims WERE NOT considered as animals, never have been, you're peddling fiction here nothing more
(post is archived)