I was just wondering whether people go along with the classic portrayals of Jesus, such as in the classic series "Jesus of Nazareth" as a white man with startling blue eyes or whether we are now accepting, christian and non-christians alike, that his ethnicity - if he was born, grew up and lived as the son of a jewish carpenter as the bible tells us - was more likely to be darker skinned and more traitionally jewish. There is also a theory that has done the rounds that he may have been a black man although I know lilttle about the basis of this argument but I offer it up here as an option should people wish to choose it (and hopefully explain the basis behind the theory).

(NB: Those who know me know that I am not a christian believer myself, well not for many years anyway, but I do believe he is an important figure in the history of our race and culture and I maintain a fascination with the man and the phenomena and a great respect for many of his teaching. Just so ya know :) )

jesus was a jew and semetic. he would have dark skin and curly hair.

i ignore those classic images of what christ looks like.

I would think that he would look like Anwar Sadat or maybe Max Klinger.  I doubt that he was
blond and blue eyed

As a historical human being he was obviously semetic.  As "the son of God" he looked like YOU.

Other: He was born in the image of God.

Other: He was born in the image of God.


Wait a second, doesn't Genisus say that God made man in his own image?  So, is God white, black, olive, red, yellow, ... This is a circular argument.  God is material and therefore has an appearacne.  God made man in his own image.  Man has many images, at least in terms of pinmentation.  Christ is the image of God???????????????  Which image???????????????????

That is up to interpretation. For now, I don't want to reveal what skin color Jesus had so as to not offend anyone. But it is known that He was born of the Jewish persuasion.
Wait a second, doesn't Genisus say that God made man in his own image?  So, is God white, black, olive, red, yellow, ... This is a circular argument.  God is material and therefore has an appearacne.  God made man in his own image.  Man has many images, at least in terms of pinmentation.  Christ is the image of God???????????????  Which image???????????????????

Max Klinger.


Well they did wear dresses. ;)

I picked none of the above because no one really knows.  I would lean towards Middle Eastern Jew, though.

He had feet of copper and hair like wool. This depiction is in a biblical scripture. I'll look it up and post it here.

Tanya

Isn't Jewish a religion, not an race?  Wouldn't he look like a person from Israel.  Not all Jews look the same...there are white Jews, black Jews, whatever.

He probably looked like a middle-eastern man. He was probably quite muscular since he was a carpenter. Also, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that he was an attractive man, so he probably looked fairly average.

based on his mother being Mary, all of these are very logical hypothesis. Based on his father was God, the answers are endless in possibilty.

*looks at The Hated's avatar* thats the one! evil white european christ, evil!

*Taking a page from Malcolm X's life*

He was a Black African man. :)

*Taking a page from Malcolm X's life*

He was a Black African man. :)


i can live with that too. in fact i wish he was black, piss off those aryan christians.

i can live with that too. in fact i wish he was black, tick off those aryan christians.


Dude, wouldn't that be hysterical? Those aryan b*stards would be crying like little b*tches. :D

Dude, wouldn't that be hysterical? Those aryan b*stards would be crying like little b*tches. :D

Jesus was probably about 5' 3," and very Semitic looking: swarthy complexion, black hair, pronounced nose, stocky build.  His hair might have been frizzy, but I doubt it would have the African kink.  His work as a carpernter probably built up his muscles, but not like today's "body builders."  On his wanderings he would have reeked of B.O., but so did most people back then.  If he appeared today as then, most people would think he was a crazy bum off the road.

Jesus was probably about 5' 3," and very Semitic looking: swarthy complexion, black hair, pronounced nose, stocky build.  His hair might have been frizzy, but I doubt it would have the African kink.  His work as a carpernter probably built up his muscles, but not like today's "body builders."  On his wanderings he would have reeked of B.O., but so did most people back then.  If he appeared today as then, most people would think he was a crazy bum off the road.


Actually, curly hair was (and still is) a fairly typical Jewish trait.  I always pictured him as dark skinned (like a contemporary Arab), with a large nose and curly hair.  And although Jewish law dictated that men wear beards, it was more then likely not the long flowing beard normally depicted in paintings.  More then likely, he wore a short cropped beard, because of the roman influence.

Here is a site with a picture that comes close to how I picture Jesus.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcfa.htm

Here is one more picture, that I also feels how he probably looked most of the time.  Most of the pictures we see him in, he looks dour and somber.  This is how he probably REALLY looked most of the time.

http://www.otoons.com/politics/images/jesus-laughing.jpg

:)

*looks at The Hated's avatar* thats the one! evil white european christ, evil!


So if Jesus had been white that makes him evil?

No one knows what he really looked like, so people drew pictures of what they thought he looked like, and this happens to be one of the most famous ones.

I use it because, regardless of what Christ looked like, it reminds me of Him, and the love I have for him.

So if Jesus had been white that makes him evil?


no. it's just that classic image has been used by christian white supremacists to prove jesus was white and not jewish. his father was God but his mortal mother was a jew. if God couldn't provide the DNA then it would fall to the mother to supply it.

No one knows what he really looked like, so people drew pictures of what they thought he looked like, and this happens to be one of the most famous ones.



It may be famous, but it is implausible.  He would look much more like Max's description.  He didn't look
like Jeffrey Hunter in "King of Kings".  He was an a jewish arab.  Maybe it is time for people to get it right.

Well whatever he looks like, he's still the man I admire more than anyother.

Well whatever he looks like, he's still the man I admire more than anyother.


As I said above, which was (as usual) ignored, as a human, he looked like an man from the middle east (or west Asia to be more accurate).  As the son of God, he looked like YOU, and I mean whoever you are.  Maybe that was to subtle to get any attention.  Think about it.

As I said above, which was (as usual) ignored, as a human, he looked like an man from the middle east (or west Asia to be more accurate).  As the son of God, he looked like YOU, and I mean whoever you are.  Maybe that was to subtle to get any attention.  Think about it.


What does the love and admiration having nothing to do with what he looks like, possibly have to do with ignoring you?

What does the love and admiration having nothing to do with what he looks like, possibly have to do with ignoring you?


I've done my best to answer the questions you wanted me to answer.....answer this one for me.

I've done my best to answer the questions you wanted me to answer.....answer this one for me.


You just don't get it.  I guess I was to subtle.  My point was that, as a corporial human being, Jusus was obviously a West Asian Jew and looked more or less like any other semetic man.  As the Son of God, each of us can picture him as looking like we do, since we were all "created in God's image".  I am trying to point out the difference between history and faith, Jesus the living human being, and Jesus the son of God.

By the way, do you think (to use your words from another thread) "got it on" with Mary Magdoline?

You just don't get it.  I guess I was to subtle.  My point was that, as a corporial human being, Jusus was obviously a West Asian Jew and looked more or less like any other semetic man.  As the Son of God, each of us can picture him as looking like we do, since we were all "created in God's image".  I am trying to point out the difference between history and faith, Jesus the living human being, and Jesus the son of God.

By the way, do you think (to use your words from another thread) "got it on" with Mary Magdoline?


"Do you think "got it on" with Mary Magdoline?"  I'm sure what your asking here....so before you accuse me of avoiding your question, realize that I'm not avoiding your question, I'm simply asking you to rephrase it.

Yes, I think he & Mary had some good times....after all, he WAS a man ;)


I think so too.  After all, isn't the idea that he was sent here to be human?  I wonder, did they have any kids?  No birth control you know.


"Do you think "got it on" with Mary Magdoline?" I'm sure what your asking here....so before you accuse me of avoiding your question, realize that I'm not avoiding your question, I'm simply asking you to rephrase it.


Well, those were your words in reference to my parents, who did indeed "get it on" to convieve me.  So I think the question is very clear.  Did Jesus have sexual relations with Mary Magdoline? What is your view?  It really doesn't matter, but I am curious.

I think so too.  After all, isn't the idea that he was sent here to be human?  I wonder, did they have any kids?  No birth control you know.

Well, those were your words in reference to my parents, who did indeed "get it on" to convieve me.  So I think the question is very clear.  Did Jesus have sexual relations with Mary Magdoline? What is your view?  It really doesn't matter, but I am curious.



Well you didnt' say did Jesus in your first question.....so That was not clear.

However to answer you question.....I believe based a very well put together hypothesis that Jesus did not have sex with Mary Magdoline.

Why because to have sex before marriage is a sin, according to the Bible. Therefore to say, "Jesus never sinned" and to think that he had sex with Mary, wouldn't justify that statement.  Therefore, no he didn't.

Well you didnt' say did Jesus in your first question.....so That was not clear.

However to answer you question.....I believe based a very well put together hypothesis that Jesus did not have sex with Mary Magdoline.

Why because to have sex before marriage is a sin, according to the Bible. Therefore to say, "Jesus never sinned" and to think that he had sex with Mary, wouldn't justify that statement. Therefore, no he didn't.


Theres no real proof as to whether or not a historical Jesus was married or not. Heck, there is no solid proof of him period.

Theres no real proof as to whether or not a historical Jesus was married or not. Heck, there is no solid proof of him period.




No I guess there isn't. But regardless, I believe in him.

being a heretical christian, i can say the jesus and ms. magdelene had conjugal relations and it's quite possible that they had children....davinci code anyone?

No I guess there isn't. But regardless, I believe in him.


That is your choice to do so.

But my point was that if you look at it from the angle that the Bible is not infallible(which many Christians do not just non-Christians), then the Bible could have easily got it wrong about Mary Magdalene. They might have been married.

It seems like I read something awhile back, about a theory held that they were and that they even had children whose descendants were hidden and persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church in the early days.

Well you didnt' say did Jesus in your first question.....so That was not clear.

However to answer you question.....I believe based a very well put together hypothesis that Jesus did not have sex with Mary Magdoline.

Why because to have sex before marriage is a sin, according to the Bible. Therefore to say, "Jesus never sinned" and to think that he had sex with Mary, wouldn't justify that statement.  Therefore, no he didn't.


An interesting (and direct) answer.  Frankly, I could care less one way or the other, but I do appreciate your giving me a sraightforward answer.  I find it to be a toutology, but that's ok, since we are talking about things that can be neither proved nor disproved.  Thanks (sincerely) for being direct with your answer.  I guess I would add that I hope he DID get it on with Mary.  If he didn't, he missed one of the most exilerating, and most human experiances, and I don't mean just the sex.  As humans, I think we all crave intimate relations that are, in part, phisical, but are also "spiritual" - we call them love (as an aside, Cat and I, I think, share the joy of both the phisical and the spiritual - praise to the Godess)  AS I hope for all people, I hope Jesus found human love.  Othewise, how could God understand it?

An interesting (and direct) answer.  Frankly, I could care less one way or the other, but I do appreciate your giving me a sraightforward answer.  I find it to be a toutology, but that's ok, since we are talking about things that can be neither proved nor disproved.  Thanks (sincerely) for being direct with your answer.  I guess I would add that I hope he DID get it on with Mary.  If he didn't, he missed one of the most exilerating, and most human experiances, and I don't mean just the sex.  As humans, I think we all crave intimate relations that are, in part, phisical, but are also "spiritual" - we call them love (as an aside, Cat and I, I think, share the joy of both the phisical and the spiritual - praise to the Godess)  AS I hope for all people, I hope Jesus found human love.  Othewise, how could God understand it?


well I hope Jesus found human love as well, and based on what I believe about Christ, he was the one, singlehandedly that helped all of us to find love. He showed it to us, how great it was, and I personally thank him for that.

Too bad more people didn't have your view on relationships and sex. It's a very good view.  We all crave intimate relationships, yet for some reason we get to ahead of ourselves, too caught up in the moment, and think that the feeling of orgasam can somehow be more exhilerating than actually loving a woman or a man.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how could God understand it"....because if he is the creator of everything, and I do mean everything, then it'd be inconcievable for him to be ununderstanding.

However as someone most likely will do, point out to me that there is something contridictory to that statement.

Which is very simple when you think about it, so unless I have to, I'll just leave it as is.

So if Jesus had been white that makes him evil?

No one knows what he really looked like, so people drew pictures of what they thought he looked like, and this happens to be one of the most famous ones.

I use it because, regardless of what Christ looked like, it reminds me of Him, and the love I have for him.



He didn't look like a Swede, bud.  And I don't care how many bible comics you read as a kid, the Apostles didn't look like a band of Vikings either.  That's just not the genetic code the humans of the Biblical world carried. Get over it!
::)

Just a point here on the whole Mrs Christ scenario.

In that day and age, the chances of a Jewish Man with a relativley usefull trade like Carpentry not being married by the age of 33 was.. well it was unheard of.

Granted he was a bit busy, but there are about 25 odd years of his life that really aren't documented very well, if at all.

Wonder why  ::)

We have to remember though that He was not believed by the Roman government at the time to be the Messiah, and the Roman government had all the control so therefore most of His life wouldn't have been kept track of.  There is plenty og eyewitnesses though.  I know that it is hard to believe sometimes because it was so long ago, but I still think that it could be pretty true.  I think the fact that he was an unmarried man at the age of 33 would prove that he had other purposes here on earth.

I'm an unmarried man in my 30s - eeeeeeeek. Only kidding  ::)

I think my parents were convinved I had 3 numbers tattooed on my head somewhere but then I was a brat  :D

I think he was an ordinary bloke with a wife.

He didn't look like a Swede, bud.  And I don't care how many bible comics you read as a kid, the Apostles didn't look like a band of Vikings either.  That's just not the genetic code the humans of the Biblical world carried. Get over it!
::)


It's a very ignorant and childish comment, on this topic to tell me to get over it.

I never once claimed Jesus was white, caucasion, European looking or anything of the sort.  He could have been an oreo for all I know about his looks, or he could have been Drew Carey's long lost twin.

Just a point here on the whole Mrs Christ scenario.

In that day and age, the chances of a Jewish Man with a relativley usefull trade like Carpentry not being married by the age of 33 was.. well it was unheard of.

Granted he was a bit busy, but there are about 25 odd years of his life that really aren't documented very well, if at all.

Wonder why  ::)


No one knows what Jesus did for those 25 years, but everyone likes to make there assumptions.

Ever heard of the "Book of Mormom"

It explains how Christ visited the native Americans. 

Did he really visit the native americans?  I didnt know that there were native americans back then

Did he really visit the native americans?  I didnt know that there were native americans back then


Well know one knows for sure if the Book of Mormon is just random thoughts of what Jesus could have done during those 25 years or if they are actual based on true life events.  Like the Bible, it too is followed primarily by faith.

Native Americans back then.....well they weren't known as that.

During the Ice Age...a LONG LONG time ago the Asian Americans followed there food source straight over a froze section into the United States.  Look at a map up by Alaska and see the little tiny bit of ocean(actually good sized in real life) that seperates the USA and Asia.  Well it was once frozen and that's how occording to certain history books  America was first settled by the Indians/native Americans.


So Yes....would be the answer to your question....They were around back then.

OKay thanks,  I knew that they lived somewhere in Asia but wasnt sure the exact time that they would have been around

OKay thanks,  I knew that they lived somewhere in Asia but wasnt sure the exact time that they would have been around


they came over the land bridge between 15000 and 10000 years ago.

book of mormon. hmmm, joseph smith was a nut case, no offence to mormons. but then God is a stretch of the rational mind.

the mormon bible is a bit different i must admit but I guess they believe what they want.  All the mormon people I know are like these good people and stuff that never get into trouble.  Disgusts me

the mormon bible is a bit different i must admit but I guess they believe what they want.  All the mormon people I know are like these good people and stuff that never get into trouble.  Disgusts me


mormons are very moralistic. i know one, he's a good man.

they seem to be very smart to.  That guy that won on Jeopardy so many times, he was mormon I believe.  The ones that go to our school are very smart as well.

they came over the land bridge between 15000 and 10000 years ago.

book of mormon. hmmm, joseph smith was a nut case, no offence to mormons. but then God is a stretch of the rational mind.


A rational mind doesn't come with the departure of faith.

A rational mind doesn't come with the departure of faith.


i agree, i firmly believe in God. faith is in you if you chose to accept regardless of how we fill our minds.

Did he really visit the native americans?  I didnt know that there were native americans back then


They were here just as long as everybody else.

I've always wondered something, if Native Americans come from Asia, how come they don't look like Asian people? I mean, they are a bit Asian looking, but not a LOT.

I am 1/5th, and I don't look Asian at all. Al though, I don't look much Native either.

Any ideas?

I've always wondered something, if Native Americans come from Asia, how come they don't look like Asian people? I mean, they are a bit Asian looking, but not a LOT.

I am 1/5th, and I don't look Asian at all. Al though, I don't look much Native either.

Any ideas?


Good question, but then again a lot of people look different.  People are a lot bigger nowaday's than they used to be.  6'0 tall was a giant back in the day, and a BIG kid weighed 150 pounds.  Where as today 6'0 tall is rather common, and BIG kids are 215 pound 14 year olds.  Why is this?

Why do Greeks usually have very well structured faces?  Cheek bones are apparent, and they have a stern crisp chizzled face. Why is this usually true?

I suppose you probably can find some answers or hypothesis on why Asian Americans lost they're look as they crossed over, but it's probably just a good guess.

I've always wondered something, if Native Americans come from Asia, how come they don't look like Asian people? I mean, they are a bit Asian looking, but not a LOT.

I am 1/5th, and I don't look Asian at all. Al though, I don't look much Native either.

Any ideas?


I don't want to appear antagonistic, but just what do "Asian people" look like, and which ones?  To add a bit of the accursed evolutionary science, if humanity originated in Africa, our ancestors were probably rather dark.  Migrating to cooler parts of the world led to the  evolution of lighter skin, which can better synthesis vitimin D from sun light.  So just maybe, the Asians who settled the Western Hemisphere "evolved" a bit, and lost some of their "Asian" look, whatever that is.

I don't want to appear antagonistic, but just what do "Asian people" look like, and which ones? To add a bit of the accursed evolutionary science, if humanity originated in Africa, our ancestors were probably rather dark. Migrating to cooler parts of the world led to the evolution of lighter skin, which can better synthesis vitimin D from sun light. So just maybe, the Asians who settled the Western Hemisphere "evolved" a bit, and lost some of their "Asian" look, whatever that is.


I understand what you are saying.

Well, I think of an Asian person as either the archetypical Sino person or Niphon..however I know that not all Asians will always fit exactly within this look. A lot of Cambodians for example are more Mexican looking really, Thais too.

So another way to explain it may be that the particular group that migrated to the Americas had a high frequency of whatever genotype is present in those areas of Southeast Asia.

Which brings me to another point. It is not established for sure that Native Americans came here via the Bering land bridge, or nto all of them anyway. There is another theory that holds there were a LOT more Southern pacific islands prior to the end of the ice age, and that they crossed over from Southeast Asia during this period via these islands.

Which could also make sense, especially if you think about what I just said about Cambodian people.

Oh, and out in Washington awhile back they found a 12,000 year old fossil of a skull that appeared to me of Northern European heritage.

AND some researchers think that there could have possibly been some African migrations to the Americas as well. Particularly Mexico. Many think there is evidence of West African influence on the Olmec civilization.

As far as I knew Indians came from India.

anyone remember Christopher Clumsy, when he landed in his boat, he was supposed to have said "This land is India, so these people are Indians"  

Still think he should have been thrown overboard. ;D

Any Indians I know don't look Asian.

As far as I knew Indians came from India.

anyone remember Christopher Clumsy, when he landed in his boat, he was supposed to have said "This land is India, so these people are Indians" 

Still think he should have been thrown overboard. ;D

Any Indians I know don't look Asian.


Hey I don't mind the term Indian at all. American Indian or West Indian are really just as acceptable as Native/Indigenous American.

There is, afterall, an American Indian Movement.

Infact, I prefer the term West Indian. Native American has less character as a term. Just my opinion. Others of full or part Native(like me) ancestry might feel differently.

Infact, I prefer the term West Indian. Native American has less character as a term. Just my opinion. Others of full or part Native(like me) ancestry might feel differently.


I am part Indian, Native, Aboriginal, whichever way a person want to say it. My mother is full Indian. Ususlly I say Native or Aboriginal, but other countries use these terms for other groups of people and I have found that sometimes it could get confusing trying to figure out what group of people each person is talking about.

I am part Indian, Native, Aboriginal, whichever way a person want to say it. My mother is full Indian. Ususlly I say Native or Aboriginal, but other countries use these terms for other groups of people and I have found that sometimes it could get confusing trying to figure out what group of people each person is talking about.


Yeah..doesn't Aboriginal tend to be the preferred term in Canada?

Over in Britain there is a community of us in London believe it or not, and over there the name is West Indian. Which is the one I prefer because I think Native/Aboriginal/Indigenous are kind of dry, and Indian and American Indian can both be misleading because they can both be confused with people from India. I like the term West Indian, because it clearly seperates us from the East Indians.

By the way, I often times feel akward discussing this. I am 1/5th West Indian, and my father looks it much more than I, and I look clearly more European. So I often draw strange reactions when I try to identify myself as West Indian. And a couple of times hostile reactions from people who were half or full blooded. So in most cases if somebody asks my background I just answe "white" despite knowing better. I am not really much on West Indian culture, I was really raised having the identity of being white(as are a lot of people who are part native).

Its complicated and for that reason I tend to stay away from it.

Yeah..doesn't Aboriginal tend to be the preferred term in Canada?

By the way, I often times feel akward discussing this. I am 1/5th West Indian, and my father looks it much more than I, and I look clearly more European. So I often draw strange reactions when I try to identify myself as West Indian. And a couple of times hostile reactions from people who were half or full blooded. So in most cases if somebody asks my background I just answe "white" despite knowing better. I am not really much on West Indian culture, I was really raised having the identity of being white(as are a lot of people who are part native).


Down here some get that negative reaction as well, but that is because it is usually a person that is 1/20 Native, trying to get "Indian Rights". One guy asked me why I was renting a place, he thought that Indians get free houses and free land. Had a good laugh at that one.

Actually, my old biology teacher in high school had a diagram that showed the "evolution" of different races.  Most people equate Asian with Japanese/Chinese/Vietnamese, etc, but forget that there is much more to Asia than those countries.  If you follow the same path that they believe the original settlers of North America took, you can see it better.  If you took pictures of some Chinese people, Mongols, Siberians, Eskimos, then Native Americans, you can definitely see similarities as well as the evolution of skin & eyes as DC pointed out.


You can add the Cossaks(Russia) in with that

My great-great-great grandmother on my dad's side and my great-great grandfather on my mom's side were American Indians.  Not that you'd know I had ANY of their blood in me by looking, unless it's summer and I have a tan 8)  Although, I DID see a picture once of my gggg'ma and I do look quite a bit like her :)


My gggrandmother was American Indian, they say it is where we got the nose.  :)

the amerind peoples are an isolated group when they emigrated over from asia. that's why they don't look like asians, south islanders or even caucasians. when the glaciers melted from the high arctic some 6000 years ago, the inuit people came over from asia. they were asia stock, thats why the inuit look oriental.

as someone already said, they was a skull found in washington, kenniwick man that bore similarities to caucasians. it could be surmised that proto-caucasoids were also apart of the migration through the bering land bridge. even today there is an ethnic group in japan called the ainu that are not oriental but caucasian.

in manitoba, native people perfer to called first nation or aboriginal. i still say i'm half indian, it's just easier to get your point across to someone who doesn't know what an aboroginal is.

the amerind peoples are an isolated group when they emigrated over from asia. that's why they don't look like asians, south islanders or even caucasians. when the glaciers melted from the high arctic some 6000 years ago, the inuit people came over from asia. they were asia stock, thats why the inuit look oriental.

as someone already said, they was a skull found in washington, kenniwick man that bore similarities to caucasians. it could be surmised that proto-caucasoids were also apart of the migration through the bering land bridge. even today there is an ethnic group in japan called the ainu that are not oriental but caucasian.

in manitoba, native people perfer to called first nation or aboriginal. i still say i'm half indian, it's just easier to get your point across to someone who doesn't know what an aboroginal is.


Yup, the Ainu.

Also, as I mentioned, there were believed to have been some African migration as well. Because many archealogists think there was a West African influence on the Olmec civilization.

Yup, the Ainu.

Also, as I mentioned, there were believed to have been some African migration as well. Because many archealogists think there was a West African influence on the Olmec civilization.


yep, i read that one as well. in the last decade bones were discovered in brazil, i believe or somewhere else in south america, that bore striking resemblance to an australian aboriginie. it seems like each year new evidence points to the fact that the far ancient people knew a lot more about ocean travel than was lead to believe. another interesting fact, cocaine found in egyptian mummies.

yep, i read that one as well. in the last decade bones were discovered in brazil, i believe or somewhere else in south america, that bore striking resemblance to an australian aboriginie. it seems like each year new evidence points to the fact that the far ancient people knew a lot more about ocean travel than was lead to believe. another interesting fact, cocaine found in egyptian mummies.


You also have to remember that at one time, everything was thrown together. Pangea..spelling is off on that, but pronunciation is not.

Scientist believe that the Earth's land mass seperated long before the arrival of man, but believe as I've come to find out  is often  just another word for, "don't know".

It's a very ignorant and childish comment, on this topic to tell me to get over it.



Ignorant and childish?  Do you really wanna throw the first stone on that bad boy?
;D

Ignorant and childish?  Do you really wanna throw the first stone on that bad boy?
;D


No, I just don't wanna get hit.

No, I just don't wanna get hit.


Who's doin' the hittin' around here?

Who's doin' the hittin' around here?


It's coming from both directions.