>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.

You first said that the people in the region now aren't the original inhabitants, then you said the original inhabitants are still there but marginalized out of the power structure. I was trying to clarify what your argument is exactly.

>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.

OK. But the Egyptians didn't colonize the area, they just conquered it and exacted tribute. And either way there were people there already, so the Egyptians wouldn't be the indigenous population there, would they?

>Same with Egypt but we ALL KNOW they are there.

It's not the same though: we know that there are indigenous black populations in Egypt, but we don't likewise know that the black populations in the levant are indigenous, particularly with the prevalence the slave trade had in the middle east.

>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:

That is not what I was talking about, and anyway those quotes are from the NY Times article, not the study itself. And this is far from the only such genetic population study ever done; the fact that people will politicize this particular one is not the scientists' fault.

Furthermore, if you think "the people who look like Arafat" don't originate in that area either, what do you care if the European Jews claim their land?

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

No it's not. You're basing it on your own assumptions and opinion.

>>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.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

>>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.

M-A-S-S M-I-G-R-A-T-I-O-N-S. As in, populations move in and settle the area, not just armies invade and conquer.

>>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.

Thing is, they're not... but can you tell the difference?

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

50% of what? I didn't see that figure in that link.

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

I checked that out and saw some stuff about plagues in Egypt, I didn't see anything about Moses leading Hebrew slaves out of Egypt to the promised land. So I stand by my statement.

>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.

OK, so they originated in Northern Mesopotamia and then spread into Syria.

>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, and what does any of this have to do with the Assyrians being from Asia Minor?

>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.

No, intermixing on the maternal side has no effect on the Y-chromosome, it's only passed down from the paternal side.

>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.

That is flawed because the Persians didn't conquer Macedonia by invasion, Macedonia submitted without a fight and became a subject state of the Persian empire. You are stuck on this concept of conquest = mass influx of conquerers' genes, when this is very often not the case.

>Go to a petting zoo then let me know what you discovered.

Or I could just go into my closet and feel my wool sweater. Anyway you were talking about sheep's wool, I just asked isn't lamb's wool softer?

>far as extreme Jewfro everyone has seen those soft ass curly
>bouncing loches they have hanging from the sides of their
>hair.

LOL - those are side locks, not Jewfros.

Anyway, this is all irrelevant because I just looked up what the bible passage actually says: "And his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow" ... so it is actually talking about the color of his hair, not it's texture.

> Burnt is burnt. Burnt is darker than your grandaddy’s
>irish skin after a day of working in the sun with his shirt.

Again, the passage actually says: "and his feet like unto burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace" So no, burnt is not burnt, at least not in this case.

>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.

So no Irish people can get a suntan? I'm lying about my grandfather getting a tan working out in the sun all day? Yeah ok, whatever.

>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.

I was being facetious, because this beading water argument's got nothing to do with nothing.

>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.

Again, WTF are you talking about? Where is the passage that says how water beads on his head?

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

Nothing. But you *are* missing the point, because the same passage also says "and his eyes were as a flame of fire... and his countenance as the sun shining in its might." So unless JC was pyrokinetic and radioactive, this is not a literal description of what he actually may have looked like.

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