Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "What Did Jesus REALLY Look Like? Ethnicity, Hair, Skin, Eyes, Body Type." video.

  1. This guy is a linguist and had given you the exact translation of Daniel, You should do some more studying and get a teacher that can teach you.
    1
  2.  @stlouisstl  Yeah, you read Aramaic, LOL! Tell less bullshit.
    1
  3.  @stlouisstl  Yeah, you are wrong again.
    1
  4. 1st century Egypt was full of Greeks. and Egyptians were north Africans, not black Africans, exactly as they are today.
    1
  5.  @LL-ur4rn  Israelites were not black, they were Semitic. Egyptians were not black, they were north Africans, so darker than south Europeans, and paler than Nilotics, that are paler than Bantu. The Bible is not scientific source.
    1
  6.  @LL-ur4rn  For adaptation and sexual preference. The Bible is not scientific source.
    1
  7.  @LL-ur4rn  Take a text on natural selection and read it. I'll wait. On sexual preference, and many other things, I advise Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies".
    1
  8. He gave you the exact translation of Daniel, and you are still quoting King James version?
    1
  9.  @Jeremiahmillan  There are many contemporary portraits of James, as well as portraits of both of his parents and of several relatives of him. He was not black. It's pretty sad to see black people that consider their own history so uninteresting, that feels compelled to hijack that of other people.
    1
  10.  @Jeremiahmillan  There are many contemporary portraits of Charles II, as well as portraits of both of his parents and of several relatives of him. He was not black. Nor was black any Stewart before him. "Stewart" is a corruption of "steward" (then a high officer), and had been first used by Walter Stewart (1204-1246), 3rd High Steward of Scotland, who was the third member of the family to hold the position. It's pretty sad to see black people that consider their own history so uninteresting, that feels compelled to hijack that of other people.
    1
  11.  @Jeremiahmillan  Bible blabbering is not doing you any favour. Only makes you seem a nut without arguments. You should really study more of real history of black people.
    1
  12. ​ @Jeremiahmillan  The Tanakh (Ebrew bible, eroughly coinciding with the Christian Old Testament), is a collection of fairy tales with some insert of real historical characters, written by a semitic people between 6th and 2nd century BC. Citing it doesn't have more scientific value than citing Conan the Barbarian. Jesus is a character of the New Testament. Documents written in Greek during late 1st century, and it's not about him being the son of some god that the video is about.
    1
  13. There had never been a reign of Solomon. At the age it allegedly existed, Gerusalem was no more than a small village.
    1
  14.  @nnenaagnes4610  Bible is no more historical than a collection of fairy tales. I can say there was no reing of Solomon Because at the time that reign allegedly existed (10th century BC), there was not ANY reign of Israel. Gerusalem was a small village of few hundreds inhabitants without walls. No temple had been built there. That's what archaeology found.
    1
  15. So there are humans that glow in the dark? It must be quite a show.
    1
  16. In the gospels there are two completely different geneaologies of Jesus. None is in the Old Testament, obviously.
    1