Jesus Is Black!

PRO's round 4 argument was copied and pasted from a single website almost entirely. Unless he is truly the author, Alex Darkwah, he should refrain from quoting the website as though it's in his own words. For your convenience, I'll organize PRO's scarce points: 1. PRO claims that Egyptians (or at least most of Egypt) descended from recent sub-Saharan ancestry. This is irrelevant. Jesus' ancestors did not come from Egypt. Even if they had, by PRO's admission it wouldn't matter due to incremental changes every generation. The genealogy of Jesus had become Caucasian dozens of generations before his birth. 2. PRO claims that no European tribes were enslaved in Egypt and to consider Egyptians Caucasoid is "totally absurd". No claims have ever been made to suggest Jesus was European, and PRO continues to make assertions that show ignorance on this topic. 3. PRO asserts that because statues have missing noses, it was a conspiratorial attempt to hide the fact that the statues were of black people. This is a case of cherry picking facts. ALL statues extremities are fragile, and noses and fingers are easily broken off. Even subtracting vandalism, theft, war, and disasters, these damages come naturally with time even in the most ideal storage conditions available in ancient times. Considering North Africa and the Middle East haven't exactly been what we'd call calm and tranquil for a few thousand years makes this an incredibly liberal hypothetical. Speaking of noses... The Nasothek: http://en.wikipedia.org... was specifically designed to replace such common maladies of ancient statues. The picture in the link is essentially a nose museum. Romans and Greeks, whom PRO considers a hostile white power against the black Jesus, also have several missing noses, fingers, arms, and extremities missing from their works. Are we to believe that someone chopped them off in a feeble attempt to conceal their appearance? This claim has nothing to do with Jesus, but PRO was wrong nonetheless about the supposed racist acts of early explorers. 4. "No archaeological record exists of Israel or the Hebrew people prior to the thirteenth century BC?" No archeological evidence of several ethnicities and nations would exist prior to the 1300BCE, either. I'm not sure what point this makes. 5. "No extra-biblical evidence linking any specific Semitic tribes to the Hebrew people exist either?" Hebrew is synonymous with "Semitic Israelite" 6. "Why did the so-called "ten lost tribes" disappear from history without an archaeological trace of their prior existence?" Because this is one of the many points that Biblical and Secular history diverge. This story is mythical and only exists within holy texts and other Apocrypha. Regardless of how factual we believe this story to be is irrelevant, however, as the Bible and secular history both clearly state the origin of Jesus and his ancestors. 7. Judaism is the African way of life. The practices of Shabbat, Yom Kippur, Cholent, Mikvah, circumcision, Hanukkah, Kippahs, and dietary observations do not originate from Africa, and are not respected by any African unless adopting the Jewish lifestyle. To suggest the opposite is laughably contradictory to our understanding of societal, religious, and geological histories. 8.The word Israel itself is an Akan word (Ghana). PRO suggests (without sources) that because the name of a place is a certain dialect, than a specific person born there must therefore be the ethnicity reflecting the dialect. I was born in Texas, which must mean I'm of Caddo descent. I'm Native American and this whole time I thought my family was from Ireland! PRO ignores all my points, cites no sources, and pulls all information from one obviously biased (and frankly racist) website. PRO's own logic defeats his claims, and he makes erroneous, unprovable, or outrageous declarations out of either willful ignorance or deceit.