>>The argument is: The people who are in the region today that
>>are called jews and arabs as shown on news casts and such,
>>olive tone skin soft curly to straight hair, are not the
>>original population of the area.

>Yeah, that's what I said.

Then what are we debating about? The refute to jesus being African is that these people ARE the original population of the area. Thus he looked like them.

>No, you were talking about Afghans and Pakistanis and wondering if >the modern-day Jews originated there because of the empires and >invasions of the era, I'm saying you do realize the people from >those areas GOT conquered, they weren't the ones doing the >invading and moving around.

What happened was. You asked if they are not indigenous peoples then where did they come from. I offered those regions and you explained how that couldn’t be. Being that the Persian invaded into that area as oppose to the other way around. Fine, we’ll move on.

>>40th what are you doing man? I thought you were above this
>>kind of stuff. The title of the post is: "Why Can't People
>>Accept that Jesus was African?" African meaning black like
>>the people of the continent Africa.

>Doing what? You are saying the indigenous population of the Levant >was African, I'm asking where are you getting this from? Or are you >just posing it as a possibility?

Yes, I am posing it at a possibility. Before you go into no evidence to support this. Know that the Egyptian empire 1450 B.C. stretched Into the Levant.

>>This study does not show the opposite. Did they sample ALL
>>the people of these areas meaning black arabs, or just the
>>folk who are assume indigenous to the area?

>How many black arabs are in the areas they sampled though? I know >about the black populations near Basra in Iraq and Mecca in Saudi >Arabia, but how many are in Palestine, Lebanon and Syria? I >remember there was a black Palestinian in the Olympics, but over >the past 5 years I've seen tons of palestinians on the news and >that's the only black Palestinian I've seen. I've seen tons of >Lebanese people too, never saw a black one. So I don't know how >many there are to sample in these areas anyway.

Same with Egypt but we ALL KNOW they are there.

>>The agenda of the
>>study was to see if the people we know as Jews today are a
>>product intermixing and conversion. Now if you go into the
>>study under the assumption that the olive toned people of the
>>region today would have been the people that the Jews of today
>>would have intermixed with for conversion then there is a flaw
>>in the study. Do you see what I’m saying?

>No, I don't see what you're saying... the study was to see how much >intermixing there was between European Jews and the surrounding >European populations they lived among, not Jews and olive-toned >people of the Levant today.

Come on. You know this study was put together to justify the European Jews grant of the state of Israel. Showing they are still very strongly linked genetically to the peoples of the region thus proving it is rightfully their homeland.

Quote from the article with the chart:

“The analysis provides genetic witness that these communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries.
Another finding, paradoxical but unsurprising, is that by the yardstick of the Y chromosome, the world's Jewish communities closely resemble not only each other but also Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, suggesting that all are descended from a common ancestral population that inhabited the Middle East some four thousand years ago.
Dr. Lawrence H. Schiffman, chairman of the department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, said the study fit with historical evidence that Jews originated in the Near East and with biblical evidence suggesting that there were a variety of families and types in the original population. He said the finding would cause "a lot of discussion of the relationship of scientific evidence to the manner in which we evaluate long-held academic and personal religious positions," like the question of who is a Jew.
The study, reported in today's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was conducted by Dr. Michael F. Hammer of the University of Arizona with colleagues in the United States, Italy, Israel, England and South Africa. The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism.”
>>If you assume that
>>people who look like Arafat are the people that would have
>>been intermixed with when in reality they are all the same
>>people who did not originate in the area then the study is
>>flawed.

>Occam's razor - you are making an assumption based on nothing, >therefore it has no place in a scientific study.

It’s based on what was written in the article that went along with the chart.

>>Look at where the lemba’s ended up. But the
>>study doesn’t consider them indigenous to the area.

>All the study says is that the Lemba group was located halfway >between the Jewish cluster and sub-Saharan African cluster. So by >that logic the study doesn't consider them indigenous to sub->Saharan Africa either.

That logic only applies if the studies intent is to show that the European Jews are more closely genetically related to the peoples of that area, and those people are the original people of that entire area.

>>It doesn’t disprove either which is the point. What it does
>>prove is room to doubt.

>Not really. There is no evidence of mass migrations from other >regions of those empires into the Levant.

I-N-V-A-S-I-O-N-S.

>>How many people can tell the
>>difference between an Iranian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Saudi Arabian,
>>Palestinian, Turk, Afghani, and Kuwaiti, just by looking at
>>them? I can’t. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t those who
>>can, but that covers a wide area and thee all look similar.
>>Someone is moving from somewhere. The question is from
>>where?

>I can't tell the difference between a person from Iceland and >Finland either, that don't mean they're the same people.

Doesn’t mean they are not either.

>>This I took from the above link starting at the second
>>sentence. Could that explain it?

>That explains that there are populations in Saudi Arabia that have >links to other places, it doesn't suggest that the Arabs that >claim descent from the original Arab tribes migrated from those >areas.

50%? It might not prove but it sure creates room for doubt.

>>Another angle that is not being looked at is the Hebrews being
>>nomadic for a period of time as well. After being enslaved in
>>Egypt for hundreds of years. Mosheh leading the Hebrews out
>>of Egypt, after living in the palace of Egyptian Pharaoh as
>>his grandson, to Canaan where they established the Jewish
>>state.

>You do realize that there is no historical or archaeological >evidence for the Exodus, right?

To state NO historical or archaeological evidence is incorrect. Little maybe but none is incorrect. See Ipuwar Papyrus.

>>Now here come the historic references for invasion
>>that you seek. The Assyrians invade Judah around 701 B.C.
>>The Assyrians are from the Asia Minor area (present day
>>Turkey) and Syria.

>The Assyrians were from Northern Iraq and Syria, not Asia Minor

Not necessarily true. The Assyrian ruler Adad-nirari III invaded Syria in 806 B.C. You can’t invade into your point of origin. He died around 783 B.C.

Then Tiglath-pileser III became king of Assyria in 745 B.C. Tiglath-pileser III conquered the Syrian allies of Urartu at Arpad and the Medes on the Iranian plateau, declaring that he "smashed them like pots." Then he turned their lands into Assyrian provinces, reorganized the army by replacing conscription with permanent contingents from around the empire, and broke the power of the lords by reforming the administration into smaller districts directly accountable to the king. Massive deportations were used to break up regional loyalties. In 744 BC 65,000 Iranians were displaced, and later 154,000 were moved. 30,000 Syrians were sent to the Zagros mountains, while 18,000 Aramaeans from the Tigris area went to northern Syria. Such policies increased the hatred of Assyria, and thus rebellions would continue in the years ahead anyway.

I’m getting this from : http://www.san.beck.org/EC6-Assyria.html

After this paragraph it goes into how his son went on to deport 27,290 Israelites.

>OK, first of all you said "All the chart proves is once in this >area the people tent to breed amongst themselves for thousands of >years. No more no less." What I said was if that was the case then >why weren't the Askenazi closer to northern Europeans, meaning they >didn't intermix with the Northern Europeans very much (at least on >the paternal side).

You mean didn’t intermix much on the maternal side. To intermix on the paternal would still pass the “marked Y-chromosome” on while mixing on the maternal side would introduce new Y-chromosome.

>As for the Greeks, the majority of Greece was never conquered by >the Persians. The Macedonians conquering Persia doesn't matter >here because it was mostly Greek and Macedonian male soldiers >going into Asia Minor & Persia, so if you are suggesting the Jews >originate in Asia Minor or Persia that's irrelevant to this study >because it wasn't Persian/Asia Minor males going into Greece, so >there wouldn't be an inflow of male Y-chromosomes from Persia/Asia >Minor into Greece.

This is flawed. First the Persians don’t need to conquer the majority of Greece to introduce their Y. The Conquered Macedonia which in turn conquered all of Greece before beginning the Macedonian Empire.

>>First off bronze is not BURNT brass. Secondly, Jewish afro??
>>What? Like Gene Wilder’s? Have you ever touched wool? That
>>stuff is think and course. Sweaters made from the stuff
>>scratch and itch the skin.

>First off, bronze is darker than brass. Second off, how burnt was >the brass? Just singed? seared? charred? scorched? Third, yeah >Jewish afro - and if Gene Wilder has the most extreme Jewfro you've >seen, you must not have seen many. Fourth, isn't it lamb's wool? >Isn't lamb's wool softer than sheep's wool?

Go to a petting zoo then let me know what you discovered. As far as extreme Jewfro everyone has seen those soft ass curly bouncing loches they have hanging from the sides of their hair. Burnt is burnt. Burnt is darker than your grandaddy’s irish skin after a day of working in the sun with his shirt. Now that I think about it. Irish folk are know for going straight red from being in the sun too long. I think you are making shit up. And I am talking Irish folk I know straight off the boat from Ireland.

>>I have yet to see a pale jew or
>>arab with tight curled hair that water beads on. Now my tight
>>wooly fro is hair of a different texture.

I have to take this back. Because Sammy Davis Jr. shit was tight and so is Whoopi’s

>So water beads on wool? So I can walk out in the rain in a wool >sweater and it won't get soaked, the water will just bead up on the >wool?

Have you ever seen a black persons afro when wet? In the sun the beads of water caught in the tight curls make it look bejeweled. It’s still soaked and the scalp is still wet. Not the same on white folk with a loosely curled fro. That shit lay down and curl up at the end. Take some water with you on your trip to the petting zoo. You’ll see.

>LOL - you're missing my point: it's merely an anecdotal >description, and a second-hand one at that... it's pretty >meaningless to try to use as empirical evidence to prove what he >actually looked like.

Not missing the point. What in the book called “God’s Word” isn’t second hand?



---------------------------
"...you cats are undercover like GAY rappers dealing with MYSTERY." -Talib Kweli This means you, from Reflection Eternal

"I don't blame Tiger Woods, but I overstand the mental poison that's even worse than drugs" -nas poison