real image of king james not the one that got iconoclasted

http://www.israelitesunite.com/uploads/3/8/7/8/3878623/9318812.jpg?323

jesus-messiah.com/html/black-israelites.html
i was writing a repky and it got deleted. Lost my energy, here is a christan link above.

ea7: jesus-messiah.com/html/black-israelites.html
i was writing a repky and it got deleted. Lost my energy, here is a christan link above.

what am i supposed to do with the link ? wipe my as-s whats the question ? i dont make it a habit to click on virus laden links ya know ? lol

buzugee: real image of king james not the one that got iconoclasted

http://www.israelitesunite.com/uploads/3/8/7/8/3878623/9318812.jpg?323

how can you tell he is black?

....

goldplated:

how can you tell he is black?

you dont know a black man if you see one ?

LoJ: Hello to everyone!

TO buzugee:

All said is false.



Scot doesn't mean black in latin. Unless you've created another latin. Black in latin is CARBO. Scot is of an uncertain origin.



Non sense! How can part of a word be derived from latin and the other one from hebrew In fact, it is true that Ish(a) means man in hebrew. But scot doesn't mean black and it is unlikely that a word be formed from 2 different and and antagonist languages. And by then, Hebrew was a dead language if I guess correctly.



Again this is false! British comes from Britton who are the ancient inhabitants of the place. And Britton comes from Britania that comes from french Bretagne. No wonder, in french UK is called "Grande bretagne".

The only thing that's correct of all you've just said is that the moors were black people. And it is not even entirely correct. There have been many people bearing the name of Moors. So under the umbrella of Moors comes different ethnicity: Some from Nothern Africa, some from Arab countries, some from the berbers.

So it is easy to claim things like that without proofs nor credible elements.

If you were cultivated enough, you'd know that THERE IS NO SUCH THING LIKE RACE. RACE IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION.

"What is expressed without proof can be denied without proof" - Euclide

i will just post one link. and you know what they say ? if a man lies on one issue. you should disregard the rest of his post cuz it is probably all lies. you said british comes from britton and britton from britanis and that from bretagne right ? ok peep this here link loco http://jahtruth.net/britmon.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Britain_mean

http://stevenmcollins.com/WordPress/?p=1113

http://100777.com/node/1753

...

LoJ:

very funny. These conspirationnist websites... is it what you call an element? So is theories from those websites you call research?

Secondly, you are the one to be judged by your principle: You said scot means black, british means covenant men, very amusing!

however, I do not consider you a liar. Just someone who has been excited about learning "innovative revelations" as we all do from time to time. Unfortunately, some of those revelations are just false. Some, not all.

i posted 4 websites and i can keep on posting till i get to 20 websites.

http://100777.com/node/1753

listen, anything i learn i learn from the bible and then match it with history so 100 percent of the time, i am right. you on the other hand just said something that you lied about. there are millions of websites saying british means convenant man. i know how britain got the name. i posted you pictures of the black kings of europe including king james. why did you think holywwood did that movie LAST BLACK KING OF SCOTLAND ? you think they are crazy ?

Back to the topic,is the god of the old testament the satan?

...

LoJ:

When I saw it first , you had only posted on link. It's later on that you edited the text.

Wiki Answers link has given two theories. Yours and mine.

The link of this steven collins is not objective. He is some of those guys believing in British Jews (lost tribe of israel). Same thing with the http://100777.com/node/1753.

So you those British Jewish theories inspired yours?

I will now give my own links:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=British

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Briton&allowed_in_frame=0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_%28placename%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain

http://dictionary.reference.com/etymology/British

More?

brother LOj, you have been caught in a lie once. your posts have no gravity here. we shall give you a day to think about your offence and what you think your punishment should be. then tomorrow we will offer you penance and start taking your posts serious again

...

diluminati: Back to the topic,is the god of the old testament the satan?

thats astoundingly preposterous * posh british accent * the nerve of you dilluminati

LoJ:

Let me tell you one thing: You dislike contradiction. And you mean GOD sent you to this generation?

Men are not interested into mere speeches. If you can control yourself, and you're promt to violence and accusation, you do not worth hearing. So in simple word, I've never lied in this topic. And I never lie at all (yes never). Lying is from the devil.

To get back to the topic, I never said King james was not a Black man. I did say a dime about that. are u sure you're reading correctly?

I said things you said were false. I never treated you as a liar. But as a man mistaken. And I have proven my point:

Black in latin is Carbo

A word (british) can't be derivated from 2 languages. And even if it was to be the case, I have given you serious links of encyclopedia to prove you the real origin of the word Britain, with facts and elements, not a mere link of people exchanging views (WikiAnswers) nor links of pseudo british jews.

I explained to you the complex mixture of ethnicities within the so called "moors". Where is the lie here?

So Now I get your point: You dislike Oyedepo, but you might secretly want people to worship you just like him.

All right then, I'm done with you in this forum.

LoJ

geezz relax. you take me too serious here. listen here if you cant see past the facade, which is me basically just acting crazy on here, then thats your problem young man lol

Why is it astoundingly preposterous? All you have to do is pay attention to the way this Yahweh went about doing things in the OT and BINGO. It really does not take much to arrive at that conclusion if you have your thinking faculties still intact. To say a loving God could do what the bible god was doing on the pages of the OT is what is truly preposterous.

buzugee: thats astoundingly preposterous * posh british accent * the nerve of you dilluminati

Jenwitemi: Why is it astoundingly preposterous? All you have to do is pay attention to the way this Yahweh went about doing things in the OT and BINGO. It really does not take much to arrive at that conclusion if you have your thinking faculties still intact. To say a loving God could do what the bible god was doing on the pages of the OT is what is truly preposterous.

PSALM 47 VS 2 For the LORD most high is terrible I AM SURE YOU NEVER HEARD ME SAY HE WAS ALL LOVE.

Well, there you have it. A loving God can't be terrible. Only an evil god can be terrible.

buzugee: PSALM 47 VS 2 For the LORD most high is terrible I AM SURE YOU NEVER HEARD ME SAY HE WAS ALL LOVE.

Jenwitemi: Well, there you have it. A loving God can't be terrible. Only an evil god can be terrible.

we are made in his image. and we have both hate and love in us, so why do you think he will be different if we are made in his image ? here are a few scriptures on the lord hating
malachi 1 vs 3
romans 9 vs 13
amos 5 vs 15

So, he is imperfect like us, then. Why the hell do we have to play up to him if he is as phocked up as we? What a poo.

buzugee: we are made in his image. and we have both hate and love in us, so why do you think he will be different if we are made in his image ? here are a few scriptures on the lord hating
malachi 1 vs 3
romans 9 vs 13
amos 5 vs 15