>Now you have the indigenous people are
>still there but marginalized out of the power structure. I
>pointed to Zewari’s post to say there are still Africans in
>the region today.

Then why were you arguing that the populations there now aren't the original populations? Seems contradictory.

>They stretched from the Levant out east toward Pakistan and
>Afghanistan area and north into Asia Minor. Persia made it to
>parts of Greece.

OK, but keep in mind those empires conquered Afghanistan and Pakistan, not the other way around, so Afghans and Punjabis weren't moving into the Levant as conquerers and setting up shop there.

>Like you said it is unlikely that they breed the indigenous
>peoples out of existence. So this leaves a possibility that
>jesus was born of the indigenous population of the area who
>were are African.

Whoa - where are you getting the indigenous population being African from?

> As far as the chart show very little
>intermixing of genes, which you point to as scientific proof.
>That can explained where the indigenous peoples allowed others
>to practice their ways and traditions but not intermarry. Now
>as time goes by those in power make the rules. Turn a
>negative into a positive. It is we who do not intermarry with
>them (meaning the indigenous).

But then there would be 2 seperate and distinct populations left in the region, just like the Ashkenazis being seperate from North Europeans. But the study shows the opposite, that the populations there are all closely related.

>Seriously how long does it take to convince a people they are
>something they truly are not? How many generations? How long
>did it take to convince the Rawandans that they are two
>separate tribes of people?

But the Rwandans were the ones who were colonized; the Belgians didn't go into Rwanda and start calling *themselves* two seperate tribes of people.

>Supporting evidence in the maps provided showing the empires
>that occupied the area in the centuries leading up to the time
>of jesus’s birth.

That doesn't prove anything about populations migrating.

>It is an illusion. The circles tell the mind that there is a
>seperation. Which will tend to overrule the visual distance.

No it's not. And it's not a "seperation", it just highlights a population cluster. As I said it is a sliding scale, but there are still distinct clusters nonetheless.

>http://www.skytopia.com/project/illusion/illusion.html see
>the “checker shadow illusion”. The circles in the chart are
>not to that extreme but creates the illusion all the same.

I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. It's just a circle, taking it away doesn't do anything to disprove the population cluster.

>We both agree that according to the charts the Greeks and
>Turks are close genetically. Why is not possible that the
>modern day Arabs did not come from the Asia Minor area?
>Taking into account that once there, adopted the traditions of
>the indigenous peoples and for centuries breeding only with
>those who follow those traditions.

Because besides the fact that there is zero historical or archeological evidence which even hints at this, if it were true then the Saudis would be closer to the Turks on that chart than to the Ashkenazi Jews, Syrians, Palestinians and Lebanese.

>Not enough German, Austrian, and Russian converts to affect
>the population.

That still doesn't explain why they're closer to the Greeks.

>I do find it interesting that during the Nazi
>era they had to pin stars on them to tell who was jewish and
>who wasn’t.

There was intermixing though - keep in mind this study only follows paternal descent.

>Just because the shortest distance between two points is a
>straight line does not make it the correct route.

Occam's razor doesn't actually say the simplest answer is the best; it says you shouldn't make unnecessary assumptions. Speaking of which...

>O.K. You have to allow for some intermixing. Now if you were
>going to take over something what would be the best way? Get
>in at the top. The Cohaine is the priesthood of Judaism
>correct?. The Pharisee who are the law interpreters. He
>makes the laws rule. Isn’t likely that is how they gained
>control? Interbreed with original priesthood, claim heritage,
>marginalize the originals out of power position. Only breed
>with non- indigenous giving more of your people claim to these
>positions. Appointing non-indigenous to other positions of
>power and so on and so forth.

... this is what I'm talking about by unnecessary assumptions.

>It’s likely the Lemba’s are of
>the original Tribes of Israel.

The ones with the Conahim genetic markers apparently are.

>Did you see the pictures on
>the web site? Who do you think more closely resembles the
>description of skin like burnt brass and hair like lambs wool?
> The Lembas or todays jews? From that description what group
>would you say jesus was descended from?

So you are gonna base an empirical assessment of his ethnicity on a second-hand at best anecdotal description? And what does that description prove anyway? Israel's a desert climate and JC walked around in sandals all day - how's he NOT gonna have feet like burnt brass?

My grandfather worked construction jobs, he'd work outside all day in the summer with his shirt off and when he'd come home my mom said his back looked like bronze... and he was Irish, straight from the bog. Give him a Jewish afro for the hair like wool, and I guess he could've fit that description of Jesus too. Which is funny, cuz he was whiter than Jim Caviezel.

>Why do you think todays jews are quick to let “converts” know
>they are true jews?

So they don't convert to Judaism just for the jokes like Tim Whatley.

>They know how they got to where they are
>and are not going to let it happen to them. We’s here now and
>we’s here to stay.

Yeah, they've been really fortunate with the pogroms and holocausts and all that.


------------------------------------------------------------
Now you know - and knowing is half the battle!