Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectAt this point I am will to agree to disagree..
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=27708&mesg_id=28160
28160, At this point I am will to agree to disagree..
Posted by Kozmikblak, Fri May-13-05 01:59 AM
>>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.
>
My argument exactly, is that the chart you provided does not lend to clear proof that jesus was not African.

>>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?
>

Next time post the study. It will cut down on a lot of confusion. As far as claiming the land I didn't say I cared one way or the other. I was stating the intent of that article that accompanied the chart in the link you provided.


>>Itís 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.

The people who wrote that article are going on the assumption that the people in the region today were there then. Ergo the studies chart shows the Ashkenazi belong.

>>>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 gave you the link telling how the Assyrians forcably moved populations.

>>50%? It might not prove but it sure creates room for doubt.
>
>50% of what? I didn't see that figure in that link.

Like Prego spaghetti sauce, "It's in there".

>>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 canít 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.
>>
>>Iím 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?

Nothing. It does deal with the moving of populations that you claimed there is no evidence of.

>>You mean didnít intermix much on the maternal side. To
>>intermix on the paternal would still pass the ďmarked
>>Y-chromosomeĒ 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.

That's what I said.

Your words: 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).

I was correcting you. So to be clear. I figured that was what you meant.

>>This is flawed. First the Persians donít 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.

Ain't that something. I'll study up on that.

>>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.

I know they are. I was pointing out hair texture. Which your following statement now shows to be irrelevant.

>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 grandaddyís
>>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.

Depending on the version or interpretation. Some say burnished as you point out. Some say refinished or refined. While still others say as burned in a furnace.

>>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.

I just saying what I have observed with my own eyes on many occasions with peoples and families I know to be Irish. They are very faired skin. Even those with freckles. When they tan they turn red then peel. You said this is by you mothers account so that makes it second hand. I'm not really arguing the getting tanned part just the degree to which his tan darkened to. It's a matter of perspective.

>>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. Itís still soaked and the scalp is still wet.
>
>I was being facetious, because this beading water argument's
>got nothing to do with nothing.

It did when we were arguing texture. Again you rendered that irrelevant
.
>>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. Youíll 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 ďGodís WordĒ
>>isnít 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!


"...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