Jeez, dude. What in the world are you talking about? I never said JESUS was black. But, Moses' wife and father-in-law sure the hell probably were. I doubt many white people were living in Ethiopia, Africa in 1300 B.C. Moses was a Hebrew living in Egypt along the Nile. Don't you think he was brown? Or would you like to white-wash him, too? Now, we're back to the subject of the thread. As I stated, Jesus probably looked like most native Judeans living in the land of Israel (or Palestine as Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed it). My best guess is that he was some shade of brown with somewhat curly hair. What do you think, in all honesty? What is it that you are trying to refute here?
The classics and comparative religion professors I had used to laugh at and make fun of the data in the "Old Testament". The numbers are all absurdly inflated beyond rationality. Methuselah living to 969 years, armies of several hundred thousands meeting each other (when reliable historical sources of that era indicate that the largest, epic battles would consist of several hundred to 5 to 10 thousand), Israelite being lost in the desert for 40 years, etc. Each of these professors went out of their way to make it a point that all of the books were essentially worthless because of their high inherent unreliability. They do tell a story not told elsewhere. But so does Gilgamesh. Whatever "fact" underlies the storytelling and legend is impossible to determine without extensive, extensive corroboration. Certainly, none of them would describe events in the Old Testament as fact without another, more rational source to support it.
Maybe we're both misunderstanding eachother here. Certainly most info. we find written about the Roman Empire is NOT found within the Bible. There, of course, were PLENTY of Roman historians for that. However, information and a look into the Roman Empire's expansion into the Middle East, specifically its control of the Judean Region and Jerusalem can be found in the New Testament, particularly from a Jewish point of view. Josephus, along with the other Roman historians, are obviously writing from a Roman point of view. What is your argument here. Do you not think that letters written by men named Paul and John to churches throughout Greece, Turkey, the Mediterranean and Judea are not "legitimate" sources of info? This falls more within the framework of modern history and their writings are considered to be, by most historians, to be actual recorded logs of their travels and experiences trying to spread the news to both Jews and Gentiles. Whether or not you agree with "the news" is really not the point. Are they not contemporaries of a Roman historian names Josephus? Do you lend more credence to the Roman and not the Jew?
He was typically what most Americans would describe as "Middle Eastern". Because of extensive taboos in Egyptian culture against black Africans, his wife wouldn't have been a black African (not unlike the way Muslim Sudanese view the blacker Sudanese these days). She would have been Egyptian, which looks quite a bit like Egyptians of today which would make them ethnically Copts.
First, at that point John and Paul weren't Jews anymore, they were Christians. So I guess I choose the Jew Josephus over the Christians. And in any case, those letters should be viewed about like Sinners in the Hand of An Angry God - indicative of the thought processes of a specific point of view, perhaps helping the historian to understand the mindset, but not historical documents or airtight records that could be considered documented history, like the works of Josephus. Jonathan Edwards was a great preacher and a hell of a writer, but his goal was to spew fire and brimstone and scare people into believing in Jesus, not provide an accurate retelling of life in New England.
Wait a second. Are you speaking of Jesus or Moses here? You responded to a description of what I thought Jesus might look like, but it sounds like what you think Moses' wife might have looked like.
This is yet another bizarre, rambling rant. I'm still trying to understand what the hell it has to do with anything at all. I understand what I'm "refuting" but you seem to have trouble even following yourself from the beginning of one post to its end. Really. Meth is a hell of a drug. And I really love the idea that you believe that Methuselah really lived 900+ years. I have to mention that. The fact that you think I should have to provide proof that he didn't live that long is more than a bit amusing to me.
Contemporaries, Jews and Roman citizens who shed light onto what was occuring during their time period. Alright. What's the argument? I really don't see any debate here. Here is what Josephus say in his Testimonium Flavianum... "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
You're frustrated at this point and are not addressing anything relevant at all. Did I say anything about Methuselah living 900 years or Jesus being black? There is really no need for personal attacks. I've been cordial and so should you. Meth? Come on. There is absolutely no need for that. Why not address the post instead of completely losing it? I asked you some very legitimate questions.
Well, lets see, shall we? Yep, I think you did. Next question? I tell you what, if you don't go into bizarre, unrelated ramblings about Cortez and the Great Wall, I won't assume you are on drugs. Ok?
No. Try reading again in context. I never said Methusaleh was 900+ years old and I think you really know that. Bizarre and unrelated? These questions were COMPLETELY in context and related to our discussion. I think I proved my point and I think you know that, too. Good night.
There were several historians, after the time of Jesus, who wrote things such as, "there were tales of a man" or "and they said a man" or something similar. Unfortunately the Roman historians and records from the time of Jesus mention several "Messiahs" but fail to mention anything about Jesus at all. There are some historians who claim that Jesus was actually a fictional character made up of traits and stories from several of these other Messiahs. It was quite the fad at the time to be the son of God. Decades after the supposed crucifixion (or curcifiction depending upon your personal beliefs) some folks start writing all kinds of interesting claims about a man named Jesus. In my mind it is not a coincidence that the source for the Muslim, Jewish, Christian religions (as well as Santa Clause) all come from Turkey. The problem with religion is that those who decide to follow a specific faith are much more interested in justification of their faith than seeking truth. The Mormon religion with its disappearing gold plates is a prime example of a product of man being bought and sold as a work of God. God has better things to do than to pass out custom engraved dinner plates to humans.
Wow. Turkey. You should really think about publishing this info. What is God so busy doing? Speaking of...I have better things to do and should start getting busy. Justify- To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid. Truth- the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality. Kind of sounds like the same thing to me. Seeking truth and justification.
It should be noted that most historians agree this and some other of his passages were altered by Christians in the decades and/or centuries after. Josephus was a Jew. Yes, he became a Roman citizen but he always identified himself as a Jew. He was considered by contemporaries as a Jewish apologist - the leading historian and intellectual for promoting and defending Jewish history. As such, he never would have called Jesus "the Christ" and told of his miraculous resurrection. Sorry, but these are basic issues that you are ignoring while throwing out information. Oh, and we know that roughly 20k people (peak number, not consistent) were involved in the building of the pyramids. We also know that they were mostly volunteer and not slave armies. We know this from Mark Lehner's excavations and research at Giza. We also know exactly how they built them - what technology they used, etc. from Egyptian records and visual culture.
