28161, me too|
Posted by 40thStreetBlack, Sun May-15-05 05:22 PM
>My argument exactly, is that the chart you provided does not
>lend to clear proof that jesus was not African.
I did not provide it as such.
>Next time post the study. It will cut down on a lot of
The article served the purpose of my original post. And the big "The New York Times" logo at the beginning should've cut down any confusion off the bat.
>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.
The article says that Jews and Palestinians are closely related and both descend from a common ancestral Middle Eastern population - I don't see how that justifies the European Jews grant of the state of Israel over the Palestinians.
>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.
I'm talking about your assumption that they don't originate from there. And anyway the study shows the Palestinians belong too, so I still fail to see how this is some Zionist ploy.
>I gave you the link telling how the Assyrians forcably moved
And it says nothing about Assyrians migrating into those areas, it says the deportations were used to consolidate power by breaking up regional loyalties.
>Like Prego spaghetti sauce, "It's in there".
OK, it says half the population in 1950 was nomadic, but nomadic does not equate to originating outside Arabia.
>>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.
1. you said the Assyrians are from the Asia Minor area and Syria, I responded by saying that they were from Northern Iraq and Syria, not Asia Minor, then you responded with this stuff, which is why I asked that.
2. What I claimed was "There is no evidence of mass migrations from other regions of those empires into the Levant." This does not deal with that.
>>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.
No it's not; you said "... while mixing on the maternal side would introduce new Y-chromosome." - mixing on the maternal side would not introduce any new Y-chromosome.
>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.
The most literal translation (Young's Literal Translation) is "and his feet like to fine brass, as in a furnace having been fired" Anyway it doesn't matter because that account in Revelation is a prophetic vision of Christ's second coming, not an eyewitness account of Jesus walking around Judea at the time.
>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.
Yes, alot are like that, but not all.
>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.
That was exactly my point in comparing it to a second hand biblical account full of metaphorical imagery - it's a matter of perspective. Anyway I'm willing to leave it at that.
Now you know - and knowing is half the battle!