The physical description of Jesus...

[Ol’Otis]

Where do people make up this dumb crap?

Book of Mark is dated to 60.
Books of Luke and Matthew are dated to 70.
Writings of Paul are dating from 50-62.
James was written about 55.
The Didache was written somewhere around the 70s or so.
Hebrews was written around 80.
The apocraphal Gospel of Thomas was written around 80-90
Book of Acts dated to 90.
John is dated to 90.
The bishop Clement wrote about Jesus in the 90s.
The Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus in the 90s.
The book of John quoted right here is dated to 100.
The bishop Ignatius writes about Jesus in 7 letters to various churches dated around 107.
The Roman ruler Pliny the Younger mentions Jesus around 112.
The Roman historian Tactitus mentions Jesus in 115.
The Roman historian Claudius mentions Jesus in 115.
The bishop Polycarp wrote about Jesus in the 120s.
By when you get into the 100s the writers are getting too many to count...here's a hundred or so that predate your "200 years" claim: Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Scholars across the board - athiest, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc. - all agree that Jesus existed. Of course they disagree on whether he was the prophet of God, naturally. But there's no doubt he was a real person. You're getting into crazy-fool land when you get the guys who think Jesus was a myth - none of them are serious academics.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is ur source?

 

[Michael9100]

Where in the bible?

The markers of his people in the latter days.... There are a plethora of scriptures that point to who his people are due to their condition....


If you you're talking about race: Acts 13 1, Acts 21 38....

 

[Dominoes]

Jesus wasn't black, he was arab.


Don't dishonor our ancestors breh, western Abrahamic religion was no where near Africa.

Judaism is an African-Egyptian religion. According to the story, Moses received the 10 commandments in Africa. Moses and the Hebrews looked just like the Egyptians; best way to tell them apart was their clothing.

Were u getting black from


Jesus was an Israelite Jew wasn't he?

GTFO with that he was black

He prolly looked like Osama bin Ladin

Jesus had to hide in Egypt to avoid getting killed by King Herod. Jesus and family we're able to blend in with the native Africans because they we're similar in appearance

 

[Beck.er.]

arabs are from eastern european decent

So not, say...the Arabian Peninsula?

More like Bulgaria and Ukraine?

 

[Fatboi1]

If the Ancient Egyptians were Black, he(Jesus) would've had to look similar to them. People are applying modern day demographics to back then.

 

[KOohbt]

Jesus didn't exist so I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[Son of Darkness]

The markers of his people in the latter days.... There are a plethora of scriptures that point to who his people are due to their condition....


If you you're talking about race: Acts 13 1, Acts 21 38....

I don't see anything in those verses that suggest that the ancient Jews were black.

Help me out?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Wikipedia is ur source?

Wikipedia is a strong source. Anti-wikipedia mocking is 2005, breh. And, in case you didn't know, wikipedia links to all the other sources.

Do your own research. Serious scholars/historians of every background say Jesus was historical.

There is "near universal consensus" among scholars that Jesus existed historically,[3][4][5][nb 1][nb 2][nb 3][nb 4] although biblical scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the Gospels.[nb 5][11][nb 6][2]:168–173 While scholars have sometimes criticized Jesus scholarship for religious bias and lack ofmethodological soundness,[nb 7] with very few exceptions, such critics do support the historicity of Jesus, and reject the theory that Jesus never existed, known as the Christ myth theory.[14][nb 8][16][17][18]

And the fact that Jesus was written about before 200 is WAY beyond dispute. As I said, there's literally hundreds of writings that date well before that time, and no one disputes that. The guy who said that was confused and had no idea what he was talking about.

Of course, exactly who Jesus was and what he did are disputed (natural, considering that basically everyone would be Christians if there was widespread agreement on that front), but a lot of the basic details of his life are agreed upon even by athiest and Jewish scholars.

There is widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings,[2] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[2][11][54][55]

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[54] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."[54] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassmentChristians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[70] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent.[71][72][73] Based on this criterion, given that John baptised for the remission of sins, and Jesus was viewed as without sin, the invention of this story would have served no purpose, and would have been an embarrassment given that it positioned John above Jesus.[71][73][74]

Amy-Jill Levine has summarized the situation by stating that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life" in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and over a period of one to three years debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who officiated 26–36 AD.[75] There is much in dispute as to his previous life, childhood, family and place of residence, of which the canonical gospels are almost completely silent.[76][77][78]

Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes. Some assume that there are eight elements about Jesus and his followers that can be viewed as historical facts, namely:[11][79]

• Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
• He called disciples.
• He had a controversy at the Temple.
• Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.[11][79]
• Jesus was a Galilean.
• His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
• After his death his disciples continued.
• Some of his disciples were persecuted.[11][79]

 

[Michael9100]

I don't see anything in those verses that suggest that the ancient Jews were black.

Help me out?

Niger = Black

Ancient Egyptians are black and Israelites look, physically, like Ancient Egyptians......


....also...... leprosy exposes the white skin argument....

 

[Son of Darkness]

Judaism is an African-Egyptian religion. According to the story, Moses received the 10 commandments in Africa. Moses and the Hebrews looked just like the Egyptians; best way to tell them apart was their clothing.

lol are you guys trolling right now?

Judaism is a Middle Eastern religion. African religions mainly involved the worship of the spirits of the dead.

Jesus had to hide in Egypt to avoid getting killed by King Herod. Jesus and family we're able to blend in with the native Africans because they we're similar in appearance

Assumption.

 

[Beck.er.]

Middle east being a part of Africa is a stupid argument since technically it's part of almost completely on the continent of Asia too , which is a part of Europe, which enormous landmass Europe is but a tiny portion of but Europeans decided to designate their own inconsistently delineated 'continent' when they decided they were the focal point of the earth and didn't want to admit they were a tiny dingleberry hanging off the ass of Asia, hence the term Eurasia...everything can vary based on what agenda you're trying to push.

Agree, with some minor adjustments.


ETA proof of dingleberriness:

 

[Son of Darkness]

Niger = Black

Ancient Egyptians are black and Israelites look, physically, like Ancient Egyptians......


....also...... leprosy exposes the white skin argument....

I know where Niger is buddy.

can you point to the part in the bible which states that the ancient Jews were black?

 

[Dominoes]

Where in the middle east breh?

Africa extended into the so-called middle east depending on time period, and whoever was in power during that time period. Do you believe Africans we're always treated as slaves and 2nd class citizens by non-Africans? Do you believe that Africans never left the continent and spread it's influence?

lol are you guys trolling right now?

Judaism is a Middle Eastern religion. African religions mainly involved the worship of the spirits of the dead.



Assumption.

 

[Michael9100]

I know where Niger is buddy.

No... Niger as in the description of something or someone really dark..... Not the country....

 

[Son of Darkness]

No... Niger as in the description of something or someone really dark..... Not the country....

Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. Acts 13:1

Help me out here. Where does it say Simeon was a Jew?