NationStates Jolt Archive


Christian Identity posters: please explain John 4:22

Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 08:56
We have been reading a lot from certain posters about how the Jews are not the true Israelites. They tell us that the true Israelites are those descended from the ten "lost tribes" who were taken into Europe as slaves and assimilated with the people there. They tell us that, due to mixing with the neighbouring races (Hamites), those that returned to Israel were cut off from God's eternal covenent, despite having kept the sabbath and the high holy days, despite having kept the laws of clean and unclean thing, despite having restored the temple and the temple sacrifice, and despite having followed the Torah. They tell us that this is because they intermarried with non-Hebrews, despite that the Bible tells us that Jeremiah put an end to this, and despite that Orthodox Jews to this day forbid marriage to non-Jews in keeping with the oath that God demanded through Jeremiah. They tell us that those who intermarried with Europeans (Japhethites), despite having totally forgotten their Hebraism are instead the inheritors of God's covenent. They also tell us, although I am unclear on how, that Jesus, their Messiah and a Judean, was not a Jew.

Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

- John 4:22

To those of you who believe in the above described religious creed, how do you reconcile it to John 4:22?

I promise I will not flame you.
Dettibok
14-09-2004, 09:51
We have been reading a lot from certain posters about how the Jews are not the true Israelites.Sounds like I've been missing some first-class wackyness while away from the forums.

They tell us that this is because they intermarried with non-Hebrews, ... and despite that Orthodox Jews to this day forbid marriage to non-Jews
Is "Hebrew" a synonym for "Jew"?
Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 09:57
Sounds like I've been missing some first-class wackyness while away from the forums.

Is "Hebrew" a synonym for "Jew"?

"Hebrew" comes from an ancient (aramaic?) word meaning "those who crossed", refering to the Euphrates, and was first used to refer to Terah, father of Abraham, and the rest of the family that left Ur with them.

"Jew" was first used during the Babylonian Captivity and refered to the slaves taken from Judea, one of the two kingdoms of the Hebrews, comprised of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.

Certain posters around here insist that the ten tribes from the nation of Israel, the other of the two kingdoms, were totally assimilated into the european races, but they and not those who returned to Israel and who returned to the Torah after the Captivity are the true inheritors of God's covenent with Israel. So their conclusion is that Jews are not the true Hebrews, but rather, Whites are.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 10:51
I never said the original Jews were not also Israelites, I am just saying that some of the lost Sheep whom Yahsha referred to also went north after the captivity by they Ayrans who took them over the Caustaus moutains where they picked the name "Caucausion". A good book is Satan fights for Moscovy - I can't remember the authors name, but in it he has a letter written by some chief Rabbi who himself says "We believe the Modern Jews are descendants of the tribe of Judah and some of Levi, BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT GOES ON TO INCLUDE THE OTHER TRIBES" - or something like that, but I summed it up pretty well.

I am just saying that with over 90% of modern Jews being Kazars, plus the Sheperdim who are another 3-5% - both of which are not from the original Israelites, are not the Jews whom the Bible means you can't go swinging the term Jew to mean "Israelites". In fact you'll find that if a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish wife, she must convert to Judaism (most of the time), the children will be classed as Jews by birthright because it goes through the mother, but in the Bible it always went through the mother and father, because YHWH was against interracial marriage, which was one reason he told the Israelites to remove the Cannites completely (another being that they worshipped Baal, and they would come back to haunt the Israelites at a later time)

Plus when Yahsha had the sign over his head it never said "King of the Jews" but rather "King of the Yudeans"
Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 10:57
It didn't say either, because it wasn't in English.

So who are the true Israelites?
Ankher
14-09-2004, 10:57
I never said the original Jews were not also Israelites, I am just saying that some of the lost Sheep whom Yahsha referred to also went north after the captivity by they Ayrans who took them over the Caustaus moutains where they picked the name "Caucausion". A good book is Satan fights for Moscovy - I can't remember the authors name, but in it he has a letter written by some chief Rabbi who himself says "We believe the Modern Jews are descendants of the tribe of Judah and some of Levi, BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT GOES ON TO INCLUDE THE OTHER TRIBES" - or something like that, but I summed it up pretty well.

I am just saying that with over 90% of modern Jews being Kazars, plus the Sheperdim who are another 3-5% - both of which are not from the original Israelites, are not the Jews whom the Bible means you can't go swinging the term Jew to mean "Israelites". In fact you'll find that if a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish wife, she must convert to Judaism (most of the time), the children will be classed as Jews by birthright because it goes through the mother, but in the Bible it always went through the mother and father, because YHWH was against interracial marriage, which was one reason he told the Israelites to remove the Cannites completely (another being that they worshipped Baal, and they would come back to haunt the Israelites at a later time)

Plus when Yahsha had the sign over his head it never said "King of the Jews" but rather "King of the Yudeans"
WHAT captivity by what Ayrans ?
Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 11:01
Jesus didn't say "salvation is of the Israelites" or "the lost sheep" ... he said it was of the Jews.

So anyway these Israelites were taken north by the Aryans, right? And there they... were assimilated, totally, intermarrying freely until none of their descendents remembered anything about Israel, and they followed in the pagan practices of the Europeans.

So how can they be Hebrews when the Judeans and Levites somehow cannot?
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 11:06
WHAT captivity by what Ayrans ?

Read Bible...
Ankher
14-09-2004, 11:06
Sounds like I've been missing some first-class wackyness while away from the forums.
Is "Hebrew" a synonym for "Jew"?Definitely not. The Hebrews were all the different tribes who came from Mesopotamia to settle in Canaan. They were by no means ethnically or religiously homogenous.
Judah or Yehud is just one tribe in the Israelite Exodus from Egypt, to which after the downfall of Saul the grace of god was allegedly transferred (cf. David).
Ankher
14-09-2004, 11:09
Read Bible...Oh yes. Where are them Ayrans?
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 11:09
Jesus didn't say "salvation is of the Israelites" or "the lost sheep" ... he said it was of the Jews.

So anyway these Israelites were taken north by the Aryans, right? And there they... were assimilated, totally, intermarrying freely until none of their descendents remembered anything about Israel, and they followed in the pagan practices of the Europeans.

So how can they be Hebrews when the Judeans and Levites somehow cannot?

Because most of the Modern "Judeans" and "Levites" are not descendants of Jacob, but of the Kazars(sp)
Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 11:10
Read Bible...

Help us out here: what chapter and verse mentions the Aryans?
Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 11:14
Because most of the Modern "Judeans" and "Levites" are not descendants of Jacob, but of the Kazars(sp)

Why? Because their mothers' mothers' mothers' got raped by non-Jews? Because both parents were not full-blooded Hebrews? (David's grandmother was a Canaanite, b.t.w.) Because sometimes they married converts?

Where is marrying converts forbidden in the Bible?

And that only answers half of my question: how did the other ten tribes, which were totally assimilated (according to you) by Jephethites, come to inherit the covenent? Or if not they, who are the true Hebrews?
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 11:14
Oh yes. Where are them Ayrans?

The Ayrans were the group who took the House of Israel into captivity, the Aryans are believed to have come from the Caustaus Area, depending on where you look, they settled in modern Iran...but also went north into the west of Germany.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 11:20
Why? Because their mothers' mothers' mothers' got raped by non-Jews? Because both parents were not full-blooded Hebrews? (David's grandmother was a Canaanite, b.t.w.) Because sometimes they married converts?

Where is marrying converts forbidden in the Bible?

And that only answers half of my question: how did the other ten tribes, which were totally assimilated (according to you) by Jephethites, come to inherit the covenent? Or if not they, who are the true Hebrews?

The Kazars were not descendants of Shem, Shems line goes to Abraham, and through him...you have Jacob/Israel. And the reason the other ten tribes came to inherit the covenent was because Yahsha told the Apostles to seek out the lost sheep of the house of Israel! If you look at many of the maps, and see where the Apostles walked, many went north...into modern Europe, while some went West...
Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 11:22
The Ayrans were the group who took the House of Israel into captivity, the Aryans are believed to have come from the Caustaus Area, depending on where you look, they settled in modern Iran...but also went north into the west of Germany.

Didn't the Babylonians take the house of Israel into captivity? The Babylonians were a Semetic people, while the Aryans were an Indo-European people. True, the range of their language group includes Iran (Persia), but it was the people of Iraq (Babylonia) who took Israel into captivity. The Persians later conquered them, and sent the Hebrews back to Israel, by the edict of Cyrus.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 11:23
It didn't say either, because it wasn't in English.

So who are the true Israelites?

It said that, but in Hebrew and in the Roman Native Language, but that what was said if it wasn't ****ed up during translation. See when the Bible was translated, the sribes butched it up and came up with the word "Jew" - a word not in scripture. Heck there was no "J" in traditional Hebrew...

With the Israelites, well you had the 12 Tribes, after the exodus of Egypt they came into Israel, after the death of King David the House of Israel split, with the northern Tribes keeping the name Israel - House of Israel, while the Tribes of Benyamin and Yudeah made up - House of Yudeah, with the Levites stuck in the middle...

You can't go and replace "Israel" in the bible for Jew, it doesn't work like that, sadly though it has become so much it is considered..."right"

Read John 1:47-49

Listen I have to get ready for work, so I'll be back later.
Ankher
14-09-2004, 11:28
The Ayrans were the group who took the House of Israel into captivity, the Aryans are believed to have come from the Caustaus Area, depending on where you look, they settled in modern Iran...but also went north into the west of Germany.So you own a Bible different from everybody else's? Or who writes your history books? I am pretty sure there are no Ayrans in the west of Germany, nor ever were.
Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 11:34
The Kazars were not descendants of Shem, Shems line goes to Abraham, and through him...you have Jacob/Israel. And the reason the other ten tribes came to inherit the covenent was because Yahsha told the Apostles to seek out the lost sheep of the house of Israel! If you look at many of the maps, and see where the Apostles walked, many went north...into modern Europe, while some went West...

And some went east and some went south. So? Your post does not answer any of my questions:

1) how does race mixing disqualify the Jews, who kept the sabbath and high holy days and preserved the Torah, and at the same time not apply to slaves who were totally assimilated by the races that they mixed with?

2) how does having a "kazar" (I guess you mean a Khazar Jew) in one's family tree make one not a Hebrew? Or is it your supposition that 95% of all Jews have only Khazar anscestors and no blood ties to Jacob? Because that is statistically so unlikely as to have a near-zero probability.

3) or on the other hand, are you saying that the descendents of a Hebrew who married a Khazar are categorically not Hebrews? Because if so, again, please tell me where the Bible forbids marrying converts or their descendents.
Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 11:36
So you own a Bible different from everybody else's? Or who writes your history books? I am pretty sure there are no Ayrans in the west of Germany, nor ever were.

Before he corrects you, allow me:

Hitler was nuts. The true historical Aryans were not Nordics. They were an indo-european group who inhabited parts of what are now Iran, Afghanistan, and India.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 11:36
Didn't the Babylonians take the house of Israel into captivity? The Babylonians were a Semetic people, while the Aryans were an Indo-European people. True, the range of their language group includes Iran (Persia), but it was the people of Iraq (Babylonia) who took Israel into captivity. The Persians later conquered them, and sent the Hebrews back to Israel, by the edict of Cyrus.

The Babylons were not really Shemites, I had a book around here about it, I'll try and find it later if you want...

Following the Assyrian invasion, the Israel olive tree was broken. The ten tribes in the North had been deported to Assyria, and all that remained were the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with some of the Levites, with King Zedekiah of the House of David, ruling over them from Jerusalem.

Then in 2 Kings 18:13, we have the account of how Sennacherib of Assyria invaded the southern kingdom, capturing and deporting most of the Judah people to Assyria. At this time, they captured 46 fortified cities and deported 200,150 of the men of Judah. Thus we find that the main body of the Israelites went into Assryian captivity, leaving only a relatively small number of the House of David in Jerusalem. By 713 BC only a small remnant of the once powerful nation of Israel remained in Palestine.

About 100 years, later, Nebuchadnezzer, came to Palestine and found the remnants of the two tribes, the YEHUDIM. He captured Jerusalem after a long siege in 604 BC and made it part of the Babylonian Empire. He deported all the important people to Babylon, leaving only the very poorest rest behind. :The Israel olive tree had: almost ceased to exist in Palestine at this point.

Following the destruction and burning of the temple in 585 BC and the complete destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah escaped to Egypt with king Zedekiah's daughters (Jer. 43:5-17) and Israel ceased to exist in Palestine.

In the meantime, the main body of Judah and Israel, living in exile in Assryia, took advantage of the wars which were then raging between Assyria and Babylonia, which resulted in Nebuchadnezzer setting up his world empire. During this period Israel in Assyria regained their freedom and commenced their long trek to the north and west, through the Pass in the Caucasus Mountains, known then as "the Pass of Israel," and into Europe. This is recorded in the historical book of 2 Esdras 13:39-48, which is not accepted by the church crowd as authentic history. (I believe because it contradicts some of their pet theories.) While in Assyria, the Bible account comes to a strange and mysterious close.

From what I understand of the Bible, there are 5 classes of Israelites...

1 - THE TEN TRIBED NATION OF ISRAEL - this was the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

2 - THE TWO TRIBED KINGDOM OF JUDAH, known as the Southern Kingdom, which included Benjamin and some of Levi.

3 - THE HOUSE OF DAVID, which was taken out of the Tribe of Judah and set up as a separate entity to rule over Israel forever.

4 - THE FEW JEWS WHO ARE ISRAELITES. (Remember a vast majority of Jews are not.)

5 - SPIRITUAL ISRAEL. That vast army of people, regardless of race, color or social position, who accept Jesus Christ as Savior and King and who have been called by the Spirit of God into Sonship. Paul said in Gal. 3:29 - "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Sadly many Identity people deny this, which is hypocritical. Anyone can be of Abrahams seed, no race is forbidden.
Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 11:42
. . .

Anyone can be of Abrahams seed, no race is forbidden.

Thanks. How's your foot?

So there is nothing to keep the descendents of Turkish Khazar converts to Judaism (or Hebrewism, if you prefer) from being true Israelites, is there? Of course none of them could sit on the throne of David, unless they had an unbroken paternal line to him. But that does not make them not Hebrews.

Even the Hamorians, after they submitted to circumcizion and conversion in order that their Prince could marry Dinah (who he had raped), were from that moment true Hebrews.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 11:47
And some went east and some went south. So? Your post does not answer any of my questions:

This will be my last post for the night, otherwise I'll be late for work...


1) how does race mixing disqualify the Jews, who kept the sabbath and high holy days and preserved the Torah, and at the same time not apply to slaves who were totally assimilated by the races that they mixed with?

Israel was always going to be assimilated by other races, it was unstoppable, because of their sins. My point is only a very very small margin of modern Jews are descendants of Jacob.


2) how does having a "kazar" (I guess you mean a Khazar Jew) in one's family tree make one not a Hebrew? Or is it your supposition that 95% of all Jews have only Khazar anscestors and no blood ties to Jacob? Because that is statistically so unlikely as to have a near-zero probability.

Because many of the Kazars are still just that, Kazars. The Kazars were told to convert or die, because the King - Khan had 3 of his generals or what ever decide which religion to take on, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. They took Judaism, but the point is, they are descendants of HAM, not SHEM which means they can't be Hebrewlites...which inturn makes them not Israelites.


3) or on the other hand, are you saying that the descendents of a Hebrew who married a Khazar are categorically not Hebrews? Because if so, again, please tell me where the Bible forbids marrying converts or their descendents.

I never meant for my message to sound like that, I'm sorry if it did. The point is, that many of the Khazars are still Khazars, not Hebrews. Because the Judasim requires (obviously not 100% do this) to marry a Jew, either a coverted Jew or a Jew Jew...and with 90% being Khazars there is still a high chance many are still pure Khazars, for close to every Khazar during the converstion period became a follower of Judaism.
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 11:51
Thanks. How's your foot?

So there is nothing to keep the descendents of Turkish Khazar converts to Judaism (or Hebrewism, if you prefer) from being true Israelites, is there? Of course none of them could sit on the throne of David, unless they had an unbroken paternal line to him. But that does not make them not Hebrews.

Even the Hamorians, after they submitted to circumcizion and conversion in order that their Prince could marry Dinah (who he had raped), were from that moment true Hebrews.

My point is, that in the Bible, you cannot replace "Israel" with "Jew", and that most modern Jews are not the Israelites of the OT...which is my entire point. I am not denying that Jews can be saved for anyone who believes in YHWH and Yahsha can be saved...oh and they must be baptized...

They are Israelites and of the Seed of Abraham if they believe in what I just pointed out. And that it is spiritual, and that they are not the Israelites of the OT, but rather Spiritual Israelites.
Booredom
14-09-2004, 11:51
Btw, John 4:22 'salvation is from the Jew' - just means that the Messiah, Jesus would be a Jew. Jesus is the Messiah and brought salvation, to everyone, not just the Jew.
Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 11:56
Btw, John 4:22 'salvation is from the Jew' - just means that the Messiah, Jesus would be a Jew. Jesus is the Messiah and brought salvation, to everyone, not just the Jew.

Which translation are you getting that from?

postscript: That's not what it means; read the context, please. Jesus is talking about the differences between Jews and Sameritans.
Druthulhu
14-09-2004, 12:05
My point is, that in the Bible, you cannot replace "Israel" with "Jew", and that most modern Jews are not the Israelites of the OT...which is my entire point. I am not denying that Jews can be saved for anyone who believes in YHWH and Yahsha can be saved...oh and they must be baptized...

Yet you still do not answer what are at this juncture the pivotal questions:

Does the Bible in any place say that the children of converts are not Hebrews? Much less that the children of blood-Hebrew/converted-Hebrew couples are not Hebrews? And if not, what has the Khazar's intermarrying with Jews got to do with their descendents not being Hebrews?

And since you mention that the Jews are free to receive the blood of Christ and be saved, as is every one, then isn't this just the same as the Europeans, whether they have Israelite blood in their family trees or not? How did the Europeans, having according to you totally assimilated the Israelites, come to be the inheritors of their covenent without any memory of or keeping of the Torah? In your last version of the story, they were not even slaves when they went north into Europe. If God cuts off 95% of the Judeans for intermarrying with the Khazars, why do these people, who according to you willingly did not return to the land of their inheritence and did instead willingly give their sons and daughters in marriage to european Pagans until they had no memory of being Hebrews, not get cut off as well?
Austrealite
14-09-2004, 20:55
Yet you still do not answer what are at this juncture the pivotal questions:

Does the Bible in any place say that the children of converts are not Hebrews? Much less that the children of blood-Hebrew/converted-Hebrew couples are not Hebrews? And if not, what has the Khazar's intermarrying with Jews got to do with their descendents not being Hebrews?

And since you mention that the Jews are free to receive the blood of Christ and be saved, as is every one, then isn't this just the same as the Europeans, whether they have Israelite blood in their family trees or not? How did the Europeans, having according to you totally assimilated the Israelites, come to be the inheritors of their covenent without any memory of or keeping of the Torah? In your last version of the story, they were not even slaves when they went north into Europe. If God cuts off 95% of the Judeans for intermarrying with the Khazars, why do these people, who according to you willingly did not return to the land of their inheritence and did instead willingly give their sons and daughters in marriage to european Pagans until they had no memory of being Hebrews, not get cut off as well?

This wasn't a case of Hebrews marrying the Khazars but a whole Nation converting at the drop of a coin. There was no intermarriage, but the Khazar Leader Khan told his nation to convert, anyone who didn't was killed, it was a political thing.

To the part about the Israelites in Europe, after so many years of captivity (it wasn't a short period) they forgot who they were, hence Yahsha told the Apostles to find the LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL - the Israelites in Europe. If you lived in a Rich country, you would grow up different than if you were in a poor country. The reason the covenent was given to the Israelites is because Yahsha was their Messiah, plain and simple...they would know him as their messiah. If any person from a Non Israelite background accepted this but believed he/she would still be saved, but all are required to believe and be Baptized.
Dettibok
14-09-2004, 23:41
"Hebrew" comes from an ancient (aramaic?) word meaning "those who crossed", refering to the Euphrates, and was first used to refer to Terah, father of Abraham, and the rest of the family that left Ur with them.

"Jew" was first used during the Babylonian Captivity and refered to the slaves taken from Judea, one of the two kingdoms of the Hebrews, comprised of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin.
Ah, thank you. So a "Jew" would be a "Hebrew", but not necessarily the other way around? (Though I would guess that the word "Jew" has changed meaning somewhat over the interviening centuries.)

... Yahsha ...
Would this be an alternate transliteration of "Jesus"? I haven't run across the name before.

My point is only a very very small margin of modern Jews are descendants of Jacob.That would be unlikely. Even with the restrictions on travel and marriage in millenia past, sexual reproduction was quite effective at spreading genes around.
Austrealite
15-09-2004, 05:53
Ah, thank you. So a "Jew" would be a "Hebrew", but not necessarily the other way around? (Though I would guess that the word "Jew" has changed meaning somewhat over the interviening centuries.)

Would this be an alternate transliteration of "Jesus"? I haven't run across the name before.

That would be unlikely. Even with the restrictions on travel and marriage in millenia past, sexual reproduction was quite effective at spreading genes around.

With 90% of modern Jews being Khazars, and I don't mean through breeding but when the entire Khazar kingdom converted, how can they be descendants of Jacob? Considering they are descendants of Ham - Jacob was a descendant of Shem.

And the name Jesus isn't the name of the Messiah - his only name is Yahsha.
Druthulhu
15-09-2004, 06:44
This wasn't a case of Hebrews marrying the Khazars but a whole Nation converting at the drop of a coin. There was no intermarriage, but the Khazar Leader Khan told his nation to convert, anyone who didn't was killed, it was a political thing.

So EVERY european Jew was and is actually a full-blooded turkish Khazar? Do you have ANY evidence to back this up? And a mighty strange thing about the Khan killing all who would not convert, since my sources tell me that there were christian and muslim Khazars as well as jewish ones. Anything at all would do, if you could cite it, although one not from a Christian Identity (et al) site would be preferable.

To the part about the Israelites in Europe, after so many years of captivity (it wasn't a short period) they forgot who they were, hence Yahsha told the Apostles to find the LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL - the Israelites in Europe. If you lived in a Rich country, you would grow up different than if you were in a poor country. The reason the covenent was given to the Israelites is because Yahsha was their Messiah, plain and simple...they would know him as their messiah. If any person from a Non Israelite background accepted this but believed he/she would still be saved, but all are required to believe and be Baptized.

The part I still have a problem with here is the part about the Israelites in Europe being in so many years of captivity. These are your words:

In the meantime, the main body of Judah and Israel, living in exile in Assryia, took advantage of the wars which were then raging between Assyria and Babylonia, which resulted in Nebuchadnezzer setting up his world empire. During this period Israel in Assyria regained their freedom and commenced their long trek to the north and west, through the Pass in the Caucasus Mountains, known then as "the Pass of Israel," and into Europe. This is recorded in the historical book of 2 Esdras 13:39-48, which is not accepted by the church crowd as authentic history. (I believe because it contradicts some of their pet theories.) While in Assyria, the Bible account comes to a strange and mysterious close.

The Israelites who you say "commenced their long trek north and west" had just regained their freedom, according to you. They were free... free to return to Israel and rejoin the Judeans there in the rebuilding of the Temple, but instead, by your account, they went of their own accord into Europe where they intermarried willingly, with Pagans, into total cultural assimilation.

Well it probably was another member if your school, but I had also heard that the Judeans lost their covenent by intermarrying with the hamitic and semitic races around them. It was one of your mates, so I won't ask you to justify why those who married jephethites were exempt from this punishment. But where are the other "White-Israelite" posters right now, I am wondering?

O.K. so we've established: according to your particular version, the Jews did return to the Land and were still Israelites, and it was some time later that they went... where? to be utterly replaced on the eurasian scene by the Khazars, who although having converted had no actual hebrew blood in them. And now the only true Israelites/Hebrews who we know exist are the white races of Europe, who have inherited the eternal covenent between God and Israel soley by dint of having traces of the blood of the lost tribes, who were willingly lost and chose to be assimilated into the Whites.

Is this what you are saying? Or were you mistaken in saying that they had been freed prior to going north and west?
Druthulhu
15-09-2004, 06:57
Ah, thank you. So a "Jew" would be a "Hebrew", but not necessarily the other way around? (Though I would guess that the word "Jew" has changed meaning somewhat over the interviening centuries.)

"Jew" could technically be used today to refer only to a descendent of the tribe of Judah or Benjamin, whose territories made up the nation of Judea. However, due to the long captivity of the other ten tribes, the nation of Israel, which Austrealite was refering to, all but the Levites (who were the priestly caste and had no territory) tended to forget their linea and any that did remain Hebrews are now called Jews (I know that Austrealite will wanna rip on that).

Would this be an alternate transliteration of "Jesus"? I haven't run across the name before.

Jesus' real name, in his language, Hebrew, is Y'shua (or Joshua), but I suspect that Austrealite wants to distance himself from that tongue.

That would be unlikely. Even with the restrictions on travel and marriage in millenia past, sexual reproduction was quite effective at spreading genes around.

Agreed... especuially since a proper Jew could only marry a Jew, though there is nothing biblical to keep the descendents of converts, such as the Khazars, from being Jews (i.e.: Hebrews).
Dettibok
15-09-2004, 17:00
With 90% of modern Jews being Khazars, and I don't mean through breeding but when the entire Khazar kingdom converted, how can they be descendants of Jacob? Considering they are descendants of Ham - Jacob was a descendant of Shem.Ok, you've obviously using a definition of "descendant" that I am unfamiliar with. What exactly do you mean by the word?

Jesus' real name, in his language, Hebrew, is Y'shua (or Joshua), but I suspect that Austrealite wants to distance himself from that tongue.Ah, now that name I would have recognized, despite not seeing that particular spelling of it before.
Druthulhu
18-09-2004, 23:45
Austrealite, have you given up?
Austrealite
20-09-2004, 21:17
So EVERY european Jew was and is actually a full-blooded turkish Khazar? Do you have ANY evidence to back this up? And a mighty strange thing about the Khan killing all who would not convert, since my sources tell me that there were christian and muslim Khazars as well as jewish ones. Anything at all would do, if you could cite it, although one not from a Christian Identity (et al) site would be preferable.

Well many books are good for you to get an understanding of this, most notably off the top of my head would be -

1) The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage - by Koestler, Arthur

2) The Jews of Khazaria - by Brook, Kevin Alan

3) Satan fights for Muscovy - by Gresty, L.Buxton


The part I still have a problem with here is the part about the Israelites in Europe being in so many years of captivity. These are your words:

The Israelites who you say "commenced their long trek north and west" had just regained their freedom, according to you. They were free... free to return to Israel and rejoin the Judeans there in the rebuilding of the Temple, but instead, by your account, they went of their own accord into Europe where they intermarried willingly, with Pagans, into total cultural assimilation.

Well it probably was another member if your school, but I had also heard that the Judeans lost their covenent by intermarrying with the hamitic and semitic races around them. It was one of your mates, so I won't ask you to justify why those who married jephethites were exempt from this punishment. But where are the other "White-Israelite" posters right now, I am wondering?

The reason the Israelites never came back to Israel was that they were never meant to, Yahsha told the Apostles to "SEEK OUT THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL" - And they were meant to become assimilated, one of the sins the Israelites made was not to Remove the Cannites from Israel, and they intermarried with them.

And what is this about "My School"??? And it can't be one of my mates, I don't have any mates that go to this forum...that I know of...


O.K. so we've established: according to your particular version, the Jews did return to the Land and were still Israelites, and it was some time later that they went... where? to be utterly replaced on the eurasian scene by the Khazars, who although having converted had no actual hebrew blood in them. And now the only true Israelites/Hebrews who we know exist are the white races of Europe, who have inherited the eternal covenent between God and Israel soley by dint of having traces of the blood of the lost tribes, who were willingly lost and chose to be assimilated into the Whites.

The 10 Tribes of the House of Israel - were taken north into captivity, there they became Assimilated after so many years in which time they left, they knew not their history, as their parents, grandparents and great grandparents etc - had all been brought up, so the history was lost. The Tribes of Yudea and Benjamin plus the lost sheep of Levi became for the most part Assimilated in Babylon, those who returned and rebuilt Yerusalem were not mainly Israelites.


Is this what you are saying? Or were you mistaken in saying that they had been freed prior to going north and west?

As above
Austrealite
20-09-2004, 21:19
Austrealite, have you given up?

No, some of us just get Busy...
Ashmoria
20-09-2004, 21:28
OK lets cut to the chase. (esp since i dont understand much of what y'all are talking about)

what does this have to do with YOU, austrealite? your sig say "I am an Israylite by Race" does that mean that YOU are one of these lost tribe members that went north??

and, if so, how do you know that you are?
Austrealite
20-09-2004, 21:43
OK lets cut to the chase. (esp since i dont understand much of what y'all are talking about)

what does this have to do with YOU, austrealite? your sig say "I am an Israylite by Race" does that mean that YOU are one of these lost tribe members that went north??

and, if so, how do you know that you are?

Because I am an Anglo-Saxon/Celto-Saxon, my family comes from Scotland, Ireland, and Britain. Which make up Israel...
Ashmoria
20-09-2004, 21:55
Because I am an Anglo-Saxon/Celto-Saxon, my family comes from Scotland, Ireland, and Britain. Which make up Israel...
ahhh OK
thanks for making it clear
Parcheezi
20-09-2004, 22:07
Because I am an Anglo-Saxon/Celto-Saxon, my family comes from Scotland, Ireland, and Britain. Which make up Israel...

My mouth hangs open in disbelief. So, I'm a Jew on both sides? My Irish Catholic grandmother would be appalled. My Rabbinically trained great-grandfather weeps from Poland.
Austrealite
20-09-2004, 22:13
My mouth hangs open in disbelief. So, I'm a Jew on both sides? My Irish Catholic grandmother would be appalled. My Rabbinically trained great-grandfather weeps from Poland.

The Israelites were taken into Captivity by the Ayrians, the modern Jews are not Israelites at all, well 90% roughly.
La Roue de Fortune
20-09-2004, 22:29
It said that, but in Hebrew and in the Roman Native Language, but that what was said if it wasn't ****ed up during translation. See when the Bible was translated, the sribes butched it up and came up with the word "Jew" - a word not in scripture.

It's almost laughable that only one single person merely mentioned in passing what this poster feels is the most pivotal complication in looking at The Bible/Torah in any kind of truthful context.

Do you think it's possible, since the scribes butchered the word Hebrew, maybe they could have gotten other words wrong too? Maybe whole sentences, paragraphs even, entire freaking books! Not to mention the fact that books were translated/transcribed probably several hundred times, by several hundred, if not thousands of people. It's not like some guy had the original text and then put in in English one day. The Bible has been evolving for thousands of years, often taking on the colloquialisms and language patterns of the time. That's why the King James Version has all the "Thou hasts" and "Thy this-and-thats." That's how they talked in King James' Day. Jesus didn't talk like that, neither did David or Solomon or Moses or Abraham.

The other problem with The Bible is that almost all of it existed in a solely oral tradition before different people got the idea they should be writing stuff down. In most cases for several hundred years! Have you ever played "whisper down the lane" or something similar? The idea is that the story changes a little bit based on the person who has to retell it. So I think that it's pretty safe to assume that the stories and concepts were pretty much butchered up before they were even written down.

Then there's the fact that the Early Catholic church decided that some books of the Bible didn't belong and they just got booted. I can't even get into THAT right now.

Pop Quiz: True or False?
There were over sixty accounts of the life of Yeshua the Nazarene carpenter's son written.
Answer: True
SO? Why are there only 4 in The Bible?

I'd like to on about this but I don't have the wherewithal.
Suffice it to say that you have to the read The Bible cautiously, look for the messages behind the concepts, that's what's important.
Parcheezi
20-09-2004, 22:34
The Israelites were taken into Captivity by the Ayrians, the modern Jews are not Israelites at all, well 90% roughly.
I think you are full of the same messianic bullshit as the rest of your "Aryan" brothers. Let's hear it for paternalistic societies!!!PPPPllllTTHHHTTT!!!!
Dettibok
21-09-2004, 00:52
The Israelites were taken into Captivity by the Ayrians, the modern Jews are not Israelites at all, well 90% roughly.You've stated that they're not descendents of Jacob. But you haven't answered my question and defined "descendent". Because if by descendent you mean a biological child, grandchild, great-grandchild, great-great-gandchild, etc..., Druthulhu is quite right in stating that it "is statistically so unlikely as to have a near-zero probability." Unless the descendents of Jacob were wiped out completely, after a few tens of generations they would constitute the majority of the population of Africa/Asia/Europe, and now the Americas as well. Think of it this way: if Jacob had two children, an each had two children, and so on, after 50 generations (less than a thousand years) he would have a quadrillion descendents. Now obviously this didn't happen, and the reason is that his descendents would have started to interbreed, but none the less there was enough travelling in the ancient world to establish his descendents across Africa/Asia/Europe.
Xenophobialand
21-09-2004, 01:21
A few side notes. . .

1) According to the Bible, the 10 tribes were scattered throughout the Assyrian empire. They were never described as "led" anywhere, nor would they have gone. In the North at that time (IIRC about 700 B.C.E.), by going north you would only have gone through a war zone comprised of various Greek and Persian city-states, with some rather vicious nomads like the Scythians thrown in for good measure.

2) Even presupposing the 10 tribes were led elsewhere, tracing your Judaic lineage back to them would be the equivalent of trying to claim the throne of England today because your ancestor was a bastard daughter of Henry VIII. The whole reason why Israel (the larger section comprised of the 10 tribes) split away from Judah was because they had rejected rigid adherence to the Laws of that day, particularly the one's regarding intermarriage with others. That very paganism is why, in the Old Testament, the Assyrians came down and annihilated the Northern Kingdom. In effect, they had renounced the Covenant with God and they reaped the whirlwind. Tracing your lineage from them is pointless because in effect, they weren't Jewish anymore.

3) That being said, Torah was written down in the 600's B.C.E. during the Babylonian Captivity, with many other books being written shortly thereafter when Cyrus of Persia allowed the Jews to return to their homeland. There wouldn't have been much of a time for a "whispering" campaign, as many of the village elders would have remembered many of the things that many of the Books of the Old Testament outside of Torah talk about.
Holy Fro
21-09-2004, 01:29
Pop Quiz: True or False?
There were over sixty accounts of the life of Yeshua the Nazarene carpenter's son written.
Answer: True
SO? Why are there only 4 in The Bible?

I'd like to on about this but I don't have the wherewithal.
Suffice it to say that you have to the read The Bible cautiously, look for the messages behind the concepts, that's what's important.

Please do. I would like to hear that.
La Roue de Fortune
21-09-2004, 04:54
Please do. I would like to hear that.
OK Here goes but it's late, I'm tired and I can't find all the sourcebooks.
First of all, I want to say that that number of "sixty" was somewhat arbitrary, but conservatively so. I believe the number I recently came across was in the eighties. I just wanted to bring it down a little.
If you haven't heard of the Gnostic gospels, I'd be surprised. But if that's the case, the "Gnostic gospels) is a term used to collectively describe various texts that have been circulated, supressed, rediscovered, etc... (basically everything that was written about Jesus a really ;long time ago that isn't Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

The Gnostic gospels were rejected by the Roman Catholic Church.
The story of the suppression of these alternative gospels reads like an adventure novel—book burnings, secret meetings of small sects found out by the authorities, exiles, executions, and so forth.
Ironically, the greatest suppression of early Christian literature began when Constantine became emperor of Rome and declared Christianity the religion of the entire Roman Empire...In 325, Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea where it was decided which texts would become the standards of the Church-those that we now know as the canonical Gospels-and which would be supressed. Those not chosen as standard were attacked-sometimes violently-for many years. Indeed, the bishops at the Council of Nicaea who disagreed with Constantine's choices were exiled on the spot.
-James Carroll, Constantine's Sword (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2001).

And:

In reference to these scriptures:

"...texts of writings known only by title because of some mention by an ancient author, but were thought to have been lost, forgotten, or burned in the creedal wars of the fourth and fifth centuries. Examples are the discovery of the Epistle of Barnabas at St. Catherine's in 1859 and the Didache, or 'Teaching' (of the twelve apostles), in the patriarchal library of Constantinople in 1875. Others have come as complete surprises, such as many of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the ancient library at Qumran and the Coptic-Gnostic library at Nag Hammadi discovered during the 1940's."
Burton L. Mack, [U]The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins[U/] (HarperSanFransisco, 1993).
QahJoh
21-09-2004, 05:09
This wasn't a case of Hebrews marrying the Khazars but a whole Nation converting at the drop of a coin. There was no intermarriage, but the Khazar Leader Khan told his nation to convert, anyone who didn't was killed, it was a political thing.

Prove it. Where's your evidence that this is what happened? I've read of theories that in fact only the monarchy and aristocracy converted, with the rest of the Khazars keeping up their original pagan rites.

Where are you getting your data from?

The reason the covenent was given to the Israelites is because Yahsha was their Messiah, plain and simple...they would know him as their messiah. If any person from a Non Israelite background accepted this but believed he/she would still be saved, but all are required to believe and be Baptized.

So exactly where does a Jew like me fit into your theology?

With 90% of modern Jews being Khazars

Prove it.

Considering they are descendants of Ham - Jacob was a descendant of Shem.

And yet, you allege the existence of "heavenly descendants of Israel"- people who are not descendants of Jacob, but converted to Christianity- or whatever you want to call your religion. And you consider THEM Israelites.

If we accept this theory, that one can obtain religious legitimacy through conversion, then the Jews' ethnic background is irrelevant. Modern Jews, simply by "being Jewish" are simply "heavenly descendants of Israel"- or at least, could make that claim, and therefore, the "Israelite" designation is still legitimate- at least, through their own perspective.

... Hey, it's just as legitimate as your own argument. :)

And the name Jesus isn't the name of the Messiah - his only name is Yahsha.

Bullshit. The actual Hebrew name is "Yehoshua". There are dozens of potential variants- Yeshu, Yasha, Yeshua, etc. Anyone who claims to know Jesus' "actual name" is full of it.
Decisive Action
21-09-2004, 05:33
John 8

39"Abraham is our father," they answered.
"If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would[1] 40 do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does."
"We are not illegitimate children," they protested. "The only Father we have is God himself."

The Children of the Devil

42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

The Claims of Jesus About Himself

48The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51I tell you the truth, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."
52At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death.
Decisive Action
21-09-2004, 05:37
To those of you who believe in the above described religious creed, how do you reconcile it to John 4:22?

I promise I will not flame you.

Examine the passages right before and after it. Salvation comes from the jews means nothing as to who the jews are. Does it? It doesn't say "The real tribe of Israel is not white." We know for a fact that the children of abel are whites (true jews)





John 4

17"I have no husband," she replied.
18Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."
19"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."
21Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
Austrealite
21-09-2004, 05:50
I think you are full of the same messianic bullshit as the rest of your "Aryan" brothers. Let's hear it for paternalistic societies!!!PPPPllllTTHHHTTT!!!!

What "Aryan" brothers? Idiot!

I never said I was Ayran, nor am I Aryan!
Xenophobialand
21-09-2004, 05:54
1) You do realize that the Book of John was written in about 150 A.D., when the Jewish and Christian faith were in a veritable war for conversion in the Near East, don't you. There is a reason why John is so vehemently anti-Jewish while the other Gospels restrict their venom only to the Saduccees and Pharisees, and Jesus has very little to do with it.

Now, if you were to quote the Gospel of Mark, which is the earliest work, or Luke, which is the most extensive and authoritative, then you might be able to earn some credence.

2) Not that Mark of Cain crap again. Look, if Jesus were "white", he would never have been accepted at all by Jewish society, any more than an Irishman or Ethiopian would be welcomed into a Klu Klux Klan meeting. The Jews of the day were xenophobic as a rule (and with good reason, as their region and religion had been on the verge of assimilation into one culture or another for the last 600 years), and had he not been strictly of Jewish lineage (in this, he descends from the House of David), and had that lineage not conferred upon him a traditional Jewish look (and not the look of decidedly unJewish people like Peter O'Toole), he would have been disregarded from the get-go as a barbarian who couldn't possibly know what the hell he was talking about when it came to Jewish law, if not hung by a mob for his arrogance.
QahJoh
21-09-2004, 06:30
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

Let's review. Jesus gets to bad-mouth the Jewish leaders all he wants. When they badmouth him, he calls them evil, and says they hate him for "merely speaking the truth".

Jesus condemns them because they don't love him, and yet, Jesus doesn't "love" them- but wait, according to Jesus, they aren't sent by God, so it's all ok!

Wow, ipse dixit statements and circular logic sure are fun. :rolleyes:

The Claims of Jesus About Himself

48The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.

He has not done anything to deserve honor in their eyes. He has flaunted the religious rules and mores of the day, and attacked religious leaders. What is he expecting, a cake?

50I am not seeking glory for myself

Bullshit.

Examine the passages right before and after it. Salvation comes from the jews means nothing as to who the jews are. Does it? It doesn't say "The real tribe of Israel is not white."

It doesn't say they ARE, either. In fact, it doesn't say ANYTHING as to "who the Jews are". I guess the authors thought their readers would know who they were referring to- shocking!

Using your logic, we can conclude with 100% certainty that the passage "proves" the "real" tribe of Israel are actually radioactive chipmunks from Pluto- after all, it doesn't say they're not. Also, that Jesus had eight testicles.

We know for a fact that the children of abel are whites (true jews)

Care to share some evidence of that "fact"? (Particularly since the Bible I've read doesn't mention anything about Abel having any children.)

Also, Cain and Abel pre-dated the Jews, genius. Abraham was the first Jew.
QahJoh
09-10-2004, 22:20
I am just saying that with over 90% of modern Jews being Kazars

Prove it.

plus the Sheperdim who are another 3-5% - both of which are not from the original Israelites

Sephardim. And prove that, too.

in the Bible it always went through the mother and father

Cite?
Druthulhu
10-10-2004, 15:16
Examine the passages right before and after it. Salvation comes from the jews means nothing as to who the jews are. Does it? It doesn't say "The real tribe of Israel is not white." We know for a fact that the children of abel are whites (true jews)

Well that's interesting, because many of the Christian ID people here have been saying that the Jews are not the true Hebrews/Israelites and never were. I guess there are a lot of theories running around your side, huh?

So Jesus was white and all of the Jews running around the holy Land in his day were white too? Please tell me, just who is the "we" who know this, and how do they know it? Aside from Apocrypha, which one of you has mentioned in terms of the fate of the 10 Tribes, what are these scriptures that you call upon to correct our false assumptions of what the Scriptures say, such as that the Jews/Hebrews/Israelites were Semites, and not Whites?
Austrealite
10-10-2004, 15:37
Let's review. Jesus gets to bad-mouth the Jewish leaders all he wants. When they badmouth him, he calls them evil, and says they hate him for "merely speaking the truth".

He got up them because they were corrupt, pure and simple. How can the blind lead the sheep?


Jesus condemns them because they don't love him, and yet, Jesus doesn't "love" them- but wait, according to Jesus, they aren't sent by God, so it's all ok!

Yahsha condemns them because they talked crap, they were the false prophets if you will. Yahsha could shut down the Priest with one sentence.

Wow, ipse dixit statements and circular logic sure are fun. :rolleyes:




He has not done anything to deserve honor in their eyes. He has flaunted the religious rules and mores of the day, and attacked religious leaders. What is he expecting, a cake?

The Priest were so corrupt they turned the Temple into a Money Changing building where only the coin was worshipped. Yahsha taught them a leason, sadly their corruption continued because they will always be corrupt.




Bullshit.



It doesn't say they ARE, either. In fact, it doesn't say ANYTHING as to "who the Jews are". I guess the authors thought their readers would know who they were referring to- shocking!

Using your logic, we can conclude with 100% certainty that the passage "proves" the "real" tribe of Israel are actually radioactive chipmunks from Pluto- after all, it doesn't say they're not. Also, that Jesus had eight testicles.



Care to share some evidence of that "fact"? (Particularly since the Bible I've read doesn't mention anything about Abel having any children.)

Also, Cain and Abel pre-dated the Jews, genius. Abraham was the first Jew.

Abraham was the first Hebrew, there was no first "Jew" as there was no Jew during Biblical time, the first time it comes up in the Bible is in 2nd Kings... The Hebrews are a different Race to the Jews.
Austrealite
10-10-2004, 15:41
Well that's interesting, because many of the Christian ID people here have been saying that the Jews are not the true Hebrews/Israelites and never were. I guess there are a lot of theories running around your side, huh?

So Jesus was white and all of the Jews running around the holy Land in his day were white too? Please tell me, just who is the "we" who know this, and how do they know it? Aside from Apocrypha, which one of you has mentioned in terms of the fate of the 10 Tribes, what are these scriptures that you call upon to correct our false assumptions of what the Scriptures say, such as that the Jews/Hebrews/Israelites were Semites, and not Whites?

I think you might not understand, some believe the original Hebrews - Abraham etc were "Jews" - this is false, they were not Jews. But some think due to the word in the bible that the original Jews in the Bible (for all intensive reason I'll call them Jews - have no blood ties to the Jews of today which is true - the blood is not the same. Jacob/Israels blood does not flow in the vains of the modern Jews. So the person is correct apart from his use of the word Jew.
QahJoh
11-10-2004, 00:17
He got up them because they were corrupt, pure and simple. How can the blind lead the sheep?

Corruption may have existed, but I'm certainly not going to take the NT's word for it. It's just a tad biased, you understand...

Jesus condemns them because they don't love him, and yet, Jesus doesn't "love" them- but wait, according to Jesus, they aren't sent by God, so it's all ok!

Yahsha condemns them because they talked crap, they were the false prophets if you will.

Isn't that the exact same thing they said about him?

Yahsha could shut down the Priest with one sentence.

According to a book written by his followers about how great he was. I wonder what a book written by the High Priests would say about Caiaphas?

I stand by my earlier statement in regards to absurd double-standards pertaining Jesus and love:

Wow, ipse dixit statements and circular logic sure are fun. :rolleyes:

The Priest were so corrupt they turned the Temple into a Money Changing building where only the coin was worshipped.

Prove it. From what I understand, the money-changing area was outside the temple, inside one of the courtyards, and was designed so Jewish pilgrims from outside the area could exchange their money and then use it to buy goods, as well as sacrifices. There certainly could have been some corruption involved there, but saying they "turned the temple into a place where only the coin was worshipped" is nothing short of ridiculous hyperbole.

Yahsha taught them a leason

You mean he made a general ass of himself.

sadly their corruption continued because they will always be corrupt.

Opinion. Furthermore, it's not exactly like castigating someone for doing something wrong is the best way to get them to change. What about "love the sinner, hate the sin"? :rolleyes:

Also, Cain and Abel pre-dated the Jews, genius. Abraham was the first Jew.

Abraham was the first Hebrew, there was no first "Jew" as there was no Jew during Biblical time, the first time it comes up in the Bible is in 2nd Kings... The Hebrews are a different Race to the Jews.

Regardless of the Jew/Hebrew thing, which you still haven't substantiated, my point stands. Can and Abel pre-dated the Jews, by whatever standard you want to use.

some believe the original Hebrews - Abraham etc were "Jews" - this is false, they were not Jews.

Prove it.

some think due to the word in the bible that the original Jews in the Bible (for all intensive reason I'll call them Jews - have no blood ties to the Jews of today which is true - the blood is not the same. Jacob/Israels blood does not flow in the vains of the modern Jews.

Prove it.
Druthulhu
11-10-2004, 00:42
I think you might not understand, some believe the original Hebrews - Abraham etc were "Jews" - this is false, they were not Jews. But some think due to the word in the bible that the original Jews in the Bible (for all intensive reason I'll call them Jews - have no blood ties to the Jews of today which is true - the blood is not the same. Jacob/Israels blood does not flow in the vains of the modern Jews. So the person is correct apart from his use of the word Jew.

Thanks. So... you have one idea who the Jews and Hebrews were, TT has another idea, DA has another idea, but you all know the real truth - even though you disagree with eachother - and you all have proof that everyone else in the world is wrong, because they regard "the word in the bible" as being more credible than your theories. Got it.

But you have yet to answer me, or QahJoh, on a very simple matter: where is this proof? What biblical or historical sources can you cite to show that all modern Jews are actually Khazars with either no Hebrew blood in them, or with enough (one, apparently) non-jewish maternal or paternal descendents to make their claims to hebreism invalid? What biblical basis do those (not you, apparently) who claim that the Jews were never Israelites/Hebrews have to support this claim?

And while we're at it, I asked a question a while back, either here or in another thread: Someone has said that the 10 Tribes went north into Europe and were totally assimilated into the european races there, and totally forgot their israelite roots, and the Torah, and kosher laws, and the sabbath. Meanwhile we know that the Judeans returned to Israel and continued to keep the sabbath and kosher laws and the Torah, and went to Europe after 70 c.e. and remained apart, keeping their faith, and mixing with the Khazars who were ligitimate converts. So, what makes the people of Europe who have very little israelite blood and no memory at all of the hebrew faith the "true" Israelites, while those who have kept the faith since the time of Moses (or Elijah, at least) and continue to, and are no more assimilated into non-Israelite blood through the Khazars than the rest of Europe is through total genetic and cultural assimilation, the real Israelites?

And this idea that Jesus and all of the original Hebrews were Whites... you do know that the Bible traces their linea back to Shem, do you not? White people are traced back to Japheth. So, again provide proof: how is it that the ancient Hebrews were Whites?

Where is there proof? What supports these claims other than your own beliefs? Are there any sources you can site, who are not Christian ID scholars themselves or who can quote sources who are not, that verify the historical allegations that y'all have made here?

I am not talking about repeating your claims or even clarifying them. I am talking about providing biblical or historical proof.
Dakini
11-10-2004, 00:46
you know what i find kinda funny about the whites inheriting the whole covenant thing?

well, in an analysis of the y chromosomes of british men, they found that most of the men were of celtic origin. if they're of celtic blood, then how the hell would they inherit this covenant with god?
what about those of norse descent? they're not jewish.

unless all the pagan women were replaced with jewish women... the lineage of women is supposedly more difficult to trace, what with being treated as property and taken as loot during wars and all.

and also: the jewish people in europe were forced into ghettos and given lower status, i'm not sure how much intermarriage was happening. and they did keep their better sanitary practices, which is why the incidence of plague in jewish communities was lower than in other communities... which of course made people think that they summoned the plague to their neighbours...
Druthulhu
11-10-2004, 00:47
QahJoh, Abraham was not a Jew. The Jews were named after Judea, the nation in which they had lived before being taken to Babylon, and Judea was named after Judah, a great-grandson of Abraham.
Druthulhu
11-10-2004, 00:53
you know what i find kinda funny about the whites inheriting the whole covenant thing?

well, in an analysis of the y chromosomes of british men, they found that most of the men were of celtic origin. if they're of celtic blood, then how the hell would they inherit this covenant with god?
what about those of norse descent? they're not jewish.

unless all the pagan women were replaced with jewish women... the lineage of women is supposedly more difficult to trace, what with being treated as property and taken as loot during wars and all.

and also: the jewish people in europe were forced into ghettos and given lower status, i'm not sure how much intermarriage was happening. and they did keep their better sanitary practices, which is why the incidence of plague in jewish communities was lower than in other communities... which of course made people think that they summoned the plague to their neighbours...

Actually, through mytochondrial DNA, maternal lineage can be more easily traced, and farther back too.
Newtdom
11-10-2004, 02:05
I dont really know where I should start with this. Firstly, for the idiot who claimed the Levi are the priestly class, you are wrong. Levi are the sons of Moses, they are civil servants, governors, high ranking bueacrats, etc. The priests were Cohen, the sons of Aaron, Moses' brother. Cohen have been traced back to the priestly class some 4000 years ago through DNA testing. For example, I am a Cohen(various spellings), I am clearly white, I am a practicing Jew, and through a DNA swab test, I have proven this for fact. That refutes your statement that Jews are not Hebrews. By the way, this has been down over and over again, with Levi as well. Those two tribes are the only two that this can be done with, as the other tribes intermarried.

Point two, the Khazar Nobility did become Jewish. As well as Muslim and Eastern Christian/Early Christian throughout the various centuries. By no means were they from a direct lineage. They merely converted to Judaism. The Kagnates of Eastern Europe and Asia changed their religions per ruler, so it was bound that Judaism would occur at one point or the other.

Point three, the 10 tribes that split up during the Desporia traveled to many different locations, there is no writing in any scripture that says where they went. They merely disappeared or intermingled. (There are Jews in China that date their lineage over 800 years for example.)

Point four, the Aryans came from India. Not the Baltic/Black sea areas. This is common place between any Archaeologist or Anthropologist (My mother has an expertise in Black Sea Culture Archaeology, and she has stated on several occasions that there is no evidence Aryans are from this region.). Aryans became the upper caste in Indian society, this is stated in any history book one would read. The Brahmin, and the warrior castes. They have lighter skin than the lower castes, but by no means are white. They also never intermarried, though this probably did occur, but there are no recessive genes that would resemble a Black Sea society in those castes.

Point five, I will not go off on why Jesus was not/could not have been the Messiah, it would take far to long and bore you. As it would not change your thoughts.

Point six, it is known that some of the Celtic, and Angle nobility were also Jewish. In particular some of the first kings of Ireland, as well as some of the high nobility in the Holy Roman Empire (later on) and prior to that the warrior tribes of Germania.

In conclusion, I am right...

Due to personal reasons I will not post my mother's name for authorization. Though her credentials are quite excellent: She has a PhD from Harvard University in Early Human Studies, as well as a Masters in Ancient Archaeology and a B.S. in Anthropology and Religion.

Other various readings to back me up would be the Talmud, the Torah, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and several other ancient scriptures.
Druthulhu
11-10-2004, 02:33
Levites are the descendents of Levi, not the sons of Moses. They are a priestly class, and therefor did not receive an inheritence of land. The Aaronites, already Levites, were the high priests and the lesser priests of the Temple.

Don't go calling people idiots until you know what the fuck you are talking about. If you disagree with what I have just said, cite a scriptural source to refute it and don't just talk out of your ass. I know you are jewish so you probably think you know all about this, and maybe you do. This is from the KJV:



Numbers 8:5 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
6 Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them.
7 And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.
8 Then let them take a young bullock with his meat offering, even fine flour mingled with oil, and another young bullock shalt thou take for a sin offering.
9 And thou shalt bring the Levites before the tabernacle of the congregation: and thou shalt gather the whole assembly of the children of Israel together:
10 And thou shalt bring the Levites before the LORD: and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites:
11 And Aaron shall offer the Levites before the LORD for an offering of the children of Israel, that they may execute the service of the LORD.
12 And the Levites shall lay their hands upon the heads of the bullocks: and thou shalt offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, unto the LORD, to make an atonement for the Levites.
13 And thou shalt set the Levites before Aaron, and before his sons, and offer them for an offering unto the LORD.
14 Thus shalt thou separate the Levites from among the children of Israel: and the Levites shall be mine.
15 And after that shall the Levites go in to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation: and thou shalt cleanse them, and offer them for an offering.
16 For they are wholly given unto me from among the children of Israel; instead of such as open every womb, even instead of the firstborn of all the children of Israel, have I taken them unto me.
17 For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine, both man and beast: on the day that I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for myself.
18 And I have taken the Levites for all the firstborn of the children of Israel.



Now you're jewish so you can hopefully read this in Hebrew. So if it says something other than what Bacon and company translated please tell us. But try not to be such an ass about it, ok?
QahJoh
11-10-2004, 02:34
QahJoh, Abraham was not a Jew. The Jews were named after Judea, the nation in which they had lived before being taken to Babylon, and Judea was named after Judah, a great-grandson of Abraham.

I accept my mistake.

As http://www.jewfaq.org/origins.htm points out:

Of course, technically, it is incorrect to refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as Jews, because the terms "Jew" and "Judaism" were not used generally to refer to this nation until hundreds of years after their time; nevertheless, for convenience I will use these terms.

A tendency to conflate these terms is largely responsible for the various indistinctions (particularly among Jews) regarding "Jew", "Hebrew", and "Israelite".

An interesting thing I didn't know relating to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew#Etymology

The name for the Jewish people in Hebrew is "Yehudim".

There are different views as to the origin of the English language word Jew. The most common view is that the Middle English word Jew is from the Old French giu, earlier juieu, from the Latin iudeus from the Greek. The Latin simply means Judaean, from the land of Judaea. There is some scholarly controversy over whether Judaea is a patronymic or if it was a purely geographic term of uncertain Semitic origin. If indeed it is patronymic, it corresponds to the Hebrew y'hudi (or yehudi) Judah in English, a member of the Twelve Tribes of the Children of Israel, i.e., Jacob's sons. According to Genesis, Judah was the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob, from whom the tribe descended. The Old English equivalent was Iudeas, meaning "Judean".

Classical Rabbinic literature has a tradition which traces the word Jew to Genesis 29:35, which says that Judah's mother — the matriarch Leah — named him Judah because she wanted to praise God for giving birth to so many sons: "She said, 'This time let me praise (odeh) God,' and named the child Judah (Yehudah)." Thereafter in the Biblical narrative, Judah vouchsafes the Jewish monarchy, and the Israelite kings David and Solomon derive their lineage from Judah. Indeed, there is the tradition that the "Judaeans" (Jews) are named for him, their ancient tribal ancestor.

Which carries the argument that the Jews were in fact named after Judah.

But, regardless, you were right. My apologies.
Druthulhu
11-10-2004, 02:37
BTW posting your mother's CV is a lot more informative than posting her maiden name would probably be. I bet somebody could do a search of professors who meet those criterian and identify her.
Druthulhu
11-10-2004, 02:51
I accept my mistake.

As http://www.jewfaq.org/origins.htm points out:



A tendency to conflate these terms is largely responsible for the various indistinctions (particularly among Jews) regarding "Jew", "Hebrew", and "Israelite".

An interesting thing I didn't know relating to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew#Etymology



Which carries the argument that the Jews were in fact named after Judah.

But, regardless, you were right. My apologies.

Equally interesting is the fact that the Sephardic Jews, who the Christian ID posters here are totally Khazar, are named from the Medieval Hebrew word for "German". The Ashkanazi, named for and descended from spanish Jews, would probably be a more likely cantidate for intermingling with the turkish Khazars through intermingling with eastern-european/arabic populations while Spain was under moorish rule.

EDIT: Dang why didn't any of you catch that??? :mad: Please reverse the emboldened parts. :(
-Taliban-
11-10-2004, 02:53
What is Christian Identity? Another religious fundy group like the Taliban?
Druthulhu
11-10-2004, 03:02
What is Christian Identity? Another religious fundy group like the Taliban?

They are "Christians" who believe that Europeans are the true inheritors of God's eternal covenent due to having assimilated all or some of the 10 "Lost" Tribes of Israel, and that the modern-day Jews have been removed from His covenent or else were never truly a part of it.
-Taliban-
11-10-2004, 03:07
They are "Christians" who believe that Europeans are the true inheritors of God's eternal covenent due to having assimilated all or some of the 10 "Lost" Tribes of Israel, and that the modern-day Jews have been removed from His covenent or else were never truly a part of it.
Ah. So they don't really believe in the Bible then.
Newtdom
11-10-2004, 03:11
Shes not a professor. Wasn't being an ass to you either, I get tired of certain racist idiots.

Granted, they are the sons of Levi, but Aaron and Moses were both from the house of Levi. (Exodus 32:25-28). From that point on, it was broken between Aaron and Moses.

Levi's three sons (I'm sure you know this) Gershon, Kohath, and Merari were given nonpriestly jobs. They were given the following:

Gershon: To make sure the Curtains of the Outer Court were kept, to build the Coverings of the Tabernacle, and to build the Doors to the Holy of Holies.

Merari: Were to fashion the boards, bars, and pillars of the outercourt.

Kohath: Were given the job to carry, place, build and protect the Ark of the Covenant, the Veil, the Incense Alter, and the other alters.

None of those three were given "Priestly" jobs if you ask me, more civil and construction related. Granted, Levites helped the Cohen, but were not considered priests in their day. They also were given much respect, but to this day are not considered priests.

I'll give some examples from the Sidur and other prayers. For one, when the Torah is read, it is given in order 2 tribes are always called, the Cohen and the Levi. The Cohen are called first, and what is said when they are called is their name, and son of (father's name) and then basically a son of Aaron, a Cohamin, the most learned priest. Then a portion is read, followed by a Levite, which is the same as above. Till the part after the name calling, which basically says a son of Moses and Levi, a protector of the Covenant. Then the rest of the people are called and have various following statements that are nothing like the others.

Then there is the Priestly Prayer. Which is obviously named after the Cohen. There are others but I am extremely tired, so I shall add them later on.

I'd like to say though, that even though the Cohen are in essence Levites, they were not considered that in ancient times. Moses' sons as well as the other Levi were made into the Levites, and the Cohen were only Aaron's sons, you did acknoledge that. Part of the quote from Numbers has to do with the way the Aaronites survived. I believe it was every 4 years, the Priests would go to the houses of the Levi, and take several (not sure how many to be honest) young boys to train them as Cohen. This is what Numbers was talking about with regards to cleansing. When this happened, the Priests would take the young boys to the Temple, and cleanse them in the Priestly manner, (same way young Cohen were cleansed) and then would basically be one with them. Atleast, that was part of what we learned in interpertation as I recall...Though I could be wrong about the exact interp from those lines.
Druthulhu
11-10-2004, 03:11
Ah. So they don't really believe in the Bible then.

I guess not.
Druthulhu
11-10-2004, 03:29
Shes not a professor. Wasn't being an ass to you either, I get tired of certain racist idiots.

Granted, they are the sons of Levi, but Aaron and Moses were both from the house of Levi. (Exodus 32:25-28). From that point on, it was broken between Aaron and Moses.

Levi's three sons (I'm sure you know this) Gershon, Kohath, and Merari were given nonpriestly jobs. They were given the following:

Gershon: To make sure the Curtains of the Outer Court were kept, to build the Coverings of the Tabernacle, and to build the Doors to the Holy of Holies.

Merari: Were to fashion the boards, bars, and pillars of the outercourt.

Kohath: Were given the job to carry, place, build and protect the Ark of the Covenant, the Veil, the Incense Alter, and the other alters.

None of those three were given "Priestly" jobs if you ask me, more civil and construction related. Granted, Levites helped the Cohen, but were not considered priests in their day. They also were given much respect, but to this day are not considered priests.

I'll give some examples from the Sidur and other prayers. For one, when the Torah is read, it is given in order 2 tribes are always called, the Cohen and the Levi. The Cohen are called first, and what is said when they are called is their name, and son of (father's name) and then basically a son of Aaron, a Cohamin, the most learned priest. Then a portion is read, followed by a Levite, which is the same as above. Till the part after the name calling, which basically says a son of Moses and Levi, a protector of the Covenant. Then the rest of the people are called and have various following statements that are nothing like the others.

Then there is the Priestly Prayer. Which is obviously named after the Cohen. There are others but I am extremely tired, so I shall add them later on.

I'd like to say though, that even though the Cohen are in essence Levites, they were not considered that in ancient times. Moses' sons as well as the other Levi were made into the Levites, and the Cohen were only Aaron's sons, you did acknoledge that. Part of the quote from Numbers has to do with the way the Aaronites survived. I believe it was every 4 years, the Priests would go to the houses of the Levi, and take several (not sure how many to be honest) young boys to train them as Cohen. This is what Numbers was talking about with regards to cleansing. When this happened, the Priests would take the young boys to the Temple, and cleanse them in the Priestly manner, (same way young Cohen were cleansed) and then would basically be one with them. Atleast, that was part of what we learned in interpertation as I recall...Though I could be wrong about the exact interp from those lines.

The sons of Levi were dead and buried long before the Torah was given. It was at that later time that the Levites were set aside and dedicated to G-d. Cohen was never a tribe, but rather a family in the tribe of Levi.

What I read that passage as is G-d commanding a one-time ritual in which the entire tribe of Levi was to be dedicated to His service, in substitution for the whole nation's children. The family of Aaron was given a higher position and a greater responsibility, but all Levites were to be His direct property, to serve as a priestly caste. And Aaronites could not have gone outside of their family to recruit children, because only Aaronites could serve in the high priestly offices.
Newtdom
12-10-2004, 02:52
I realize the Cohen were never a designated Tribe. But it is generally accepted in modern, and mostly in ancient Judaism that the Cohen were seperate from the other Levi. And what was meant by Levi's children were the sons of each of those men, not them in particular.

With regards to the Aaronites/Cohen recruiting, it is also commonly accepted that they did such things as recruiting. It was to make sure the line wasn't deemed to die off through genetic disease. An ancient variant of noninbreeding. I'll get the verses from the Talmud as soon as I get the chance, probably tomorrow.
Druthulhu
12-10-2004, 05:49
I realize the Cohen were never a designated Tribe. But it is generally accepted in modern, and mostly in ancient Judaism that the Cohen were seperate from the other Levi. And what was meant by Levi's children were the sons of each of those men, not them in particular.

With regards to the Aaronites/Cohen recruiting, it is also commonly accepted that they did such things as recruiting. It was to make sure the line wasn't deemed to die off through genetic disease. An ancient variant of noninbreeding. I'll get the verses from the Talmud as soon as I get the chance, probably tomorrow.

Well I am sure that you know the Talmud better than I, but it seems rather bizarre to me that men could be made Aaronites/Cohens by what basically amounts to adoption. Marrying them to their daughters I could understand, and although it still seems an improper way to continue a line, I have heard of such a thing before.

Anyway...

It still seems to me that the scriptures support that the Levites were set aside for a holy service to G-d, which makes them a priestly caste as best I can tell.
Austrealite
14-10-2004, 18:06
Thanks. So... you have one idea who the Jews and Hebrews were, TT has another idea, DA has another idea, but you all know the real truth - even though you disagree with eachother - and you all have proof that everyone else in the world is wrong, because they regard "the word in the bible" as being more credible than your theories. Got it.

But you have yet to answer me, or QahJoh, on a very simple matter: where is this proof? What biblical or historical sources can you cite to show that all modern Jews are actually Khazars with either no Hebrew blood in them, or with enough (one, apparently) non-jewish maternal or paternal descendents to make their claims to hebreism invalid? What biblical basis do those (not you, apparently) who claim that the Jews were never Israelites/Hebrews have to support this claim?

And while we're at it, I asked a question a while back, either here or in another thread: Someone has said that the 10 Tribes went north into Europe and were totally assimilated into the european races there, and totally forgot their israelite roots, and the Torah, and kosher laws, and the sabbath. Meanwhile we know that the Judeans returned to Israel and continued to keep the sabbath and kosher laws and the Torah, and went to Europe after 70 c.e. and remained apart, keeping their faith, and mixing with the Khazars who were ligitimate converts. So, what makes the people of Europe who have very little israelite blood and no memory at all of the hebrew faith the "true" Israelites, while those who have kept the faith since the time of Moses (or Elijah, at least) and continue to, and are no more assimilated into non-Israelite blood through the Khazars than the rest of Europe is through total genetic and cultural assimilation, the real Israelites?

And this idea that Jesus and all of the original Hebrews were Whites... you do know that the Bible traces their linea back to Shem, do you not? White people are traced back to Japheth. So, again provide proof: how is it that the ancient Hebrews were Whites?

Where is there proof? What supports these claims other than your own beliefs? Are there any sources you can site, who are not Christian ID scholars themselves or who can quote sources who are not, that verify the historical allegations that y'all have made here?

I am not talking about repeating your claims or even clarifying them. I am talking about providing biblical or historical proof.

Its pretty late so I'll keep this simple, if you want more answers feel free to ask.

These books can give you a bit of an understanding...

1) Satan Fights for Muscovy - by L. Buxton Gresty (pgs 49 - 56 deal with The European aspect of things while pgs 57 - 64 deal with the Jewish/Khazars aspect)

It is quite a good book that doesn't go into using Racist attacks which is rare to see.

2) Symbols of our Celto-Saxon Heritage - by W.H. Bennett (If you can get a hold of this book then good on ya, it is a rare book now as it's old. It deals with the symbols of Israel and how they are similar with European Symbols - of course don't believe it at a glance, but some of the stuff is quite good)

3) The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage - by Arthur Koestler

There are more books, one I can't remember its name so I'll get back to you, it is also very good.

p.s. sorry I can't be more helpful but I have to get to bed.
Druthulhu
14-10-2004, 19:36
Its pretty late so I'll keep this simple, if you want more answers feel free to ask.

These books can give you a bit of an understanding...

1) Satan Fights for Muscovy - by L. Buxton Gresty (pgs 49 - 56 deal with The European aspect of things while pgs 57 - 64 deal with the Jewish/Khazars aspect)

It is quite a good book that doesn't go into using Racist attacks which is rare to see.

2) Symbols of our Celto-Saxon Heritage - by W.H. Bennett (If you can get a hold of this book then good on ya, it is a rare book now as it's old. It deals with the symbols of Israel and how they are similar with European Symbols - of course don't believe it at a glance, but some of the stuff is quite good)

3) The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage - by Arthur Koestler

There are more books, one I can't remember its name so I'll get back to you, it is also very good.

p.s. sorry I can't be more helpful but I have to get to bed.

Thank you. :) I will look into those. Please, when you awaken, could you take the time to do some paper-to-keyboard transposition? The parts I am interested in are:

1) a) Evidence that 95% of modern Jews are Khazars; or

b*) evidence that intermarriage to legal converts to the hebrew religion produces offspring that are not hebrew, without regard for being raised in the hebrew faith, keeping 7th day sabbath and kosher laws, keeping the seven high holy days, being circumsized if male, etc.

Note: converts and their offspring are not ritually pure enough to enter the Temple until seven generations have passed. That hasn't mattered for 1934 years, and it certainly applies even moreso to Europeans who do not practice the hebrew religion at all. So please don't bother using that; or

c) Any evidence that the conversion of the khazarean Jews was not conducted in a biblically legal fashion. Please quote the applicible scriptures as needed;

2) Any evidence, biblical or otherwise, that Jesus and the Hebrews of his day were white.

3*) Any evidence that totally pure hebrew maternal and paternal descent is required for a person to be a ligitimate Hebrew. (This might have been something TT was saying, so if you don't ascribe to it, feel free to pass.)

4**) Any logical or biblical argument that supports the theory that a people who were totally genetically and culturally assimilated, and who did not keep the 7th day, or the high holy days, or kosher diet, and who did not circumcize their male children, and who had no memory of ever having practiced the hebrew religion, would inherit G-d's eternal covenent while a people with at least 5% (by your reconning, I believe) genetic descent to the original Hebrews, who all have at least one unbroken line of religious tradition and familial descent back to the original Hebrews (khazarean Jews would not have married Gentiles, would they?), and who continue to practice the hebrew faith as their anscestors, at least one parental line, have since the time of Moses, would not?

I know that that paragraph is just one big run-on sentence, and I apologize, but please read over it again and make sure that you understand what I am asking.



* please use Bible here, preferably Tenach (OT) only, although if you must use Brit Hadassah (NT) &/or Apocrypha please feel free.

** biblical support would be nice here, and quotes from your books would be ok too, but I really hope you can put together a logical argument to explain this apparent inconsistency.



Anyway I have yet to look up the bona fides of your authors, but please feel free to quote them here. No doubt you own copies? I would like to hear what they have to say, and hear the basis of the things you have been asserting here.
Druthulhu
14-10-2004, 20:01
"Some historians, and particularly the non-historian Arthur Koestler, have proposed that Jewish Khazars are the ancestors of most or all Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jews, but the idea is the subject of much debate. Recent genetic studies have demonstrated that Middle Eastern elements dominate the Ashkenazi male line, but the female line appears to have a substantially different history. Some have argued this suggests Middle Eastern men marrying into local European communities. [1] (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50C15F83F5D0C778DDDAC0894DA404482)[2] (http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html).

Others have suggested these ideas are political and anti-Zionist in nature; many proponents of the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi origins argue that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar in origin, then they would be exempt from God's promise of Canaan to Jews as recorded in the Bible, were one to ignore that the promise also applies to converts, and the fact that over half of Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi. Some have countered that such charges of a political motive are not relevant to the core of the argument."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars
Austrealite
15-10-2004, 07:36
Thank you. :) I will look into those. Please, when you awaken, could you take the time to do some paper-to-keyboard transposition? The parts I am interested in are:

Yeah some of those books are hard to come by, I own a couple of them, but a mate of mine owns quite a few more, and in fact he knows more of this subject that I do.


1) a) Evidence that 95% of modern Jews are Khazars; or

Well the Ashkenazi Jews are the ones who descended from the Khazar empire. See there are 2 Main Classes of "Jews" - the Ashkenazi and the Sephardi Jews. Then there are those who are true Israelites (Those descended from Israel who throughout history have come to be known as "Jews" - remembering this word is a wrong translation. They would only make up around 5% or so after you take away the Sephardi and the Ashkenazi

b*) evidence that intermarriage to legal converts to the hebrew religion produces offspring that are not hebrew, without regard for being raised in the hebrew faith, keeping 7th day sabbath and kosher laws, keeping the seven high holy days, being circumsized if male, etc.

Note: converts and their offspring are not ritually pure enough to enter the Temple until seven generations have passed. That hasn't mattered for 1934 years, and it certainly applies even moreso to Europeans who do not practice the hebrew religion at all. So please don't bother using that; or

The Temple as in the building doesn't exist remembering it was destroyed. The only Temple now is that of Yahsha. He became the Temple - when he said "I will destroy the Temple and rebuild it in 3 days" - many didn't believe he would do this. However if you see, when he dies the Temple is destroyed and then 3 days later he rises from the Dead - and thus he becomes the Temple for he is also the Lamb of YHWH.

c) Any evidence that the conversion of the khazarean Jews was not conducted in a biblically legal fashion. Please quote the applicible scriptures as needed;

I think you are not quite understanding my point, whether or not the Khazarean Jews did or did not covert in a legal fashion isn't the point of my post. The point is that 90-95% of Jews today are not Descendants of Jacob/Israel. If a Khazar is Baptized and believes in Yahsha he will be saved for it is said. Heaven doesn't close it's doors based on Race but by Faith. It sums up in Mark somewhere, I forgot where but basically you must be Baptized (Washed) and have faith in YHWH and Yahsha to be saved, and this is open to anyone.

2) Any evidence, biblical or otherwise, that Jesus and the Hebrews of his day were white.

A look at many of the prophacies and how they have been fulfilled by the Nations of Britain and the US, note: I never said Yahsha was "White" - I mean white is a pretty loose term to use as there are many different races that could class themselves as "White" so I'll ask you not to use that term again.

3*) Any evidence that totally pure hebrew maternal and paternal descent is required for a person to be a ligitimate Hebrew. (This might have been something TT was saying, so if you don't ascribe to it, feel free to pass.)

Once again you miss my entire point. That being that the blood between the current Jews and the Israelites are not the same. In the Bible it states that if someone follows the laws then he/she can be classed as a descendant of Abraham which I have no problem with...but they do not have a blood tie as in what a father/son have. That and the fact to be an Israelite you must follow the word of Yahsha, as is pointed out quite a few times.

4**) Any logical or biblical argument that supports the theory that a people who were totally genetically and culturally assimilated, and who did not keep the 7th day, or the high holy days, or kosher diet, and who did not circumcize their male children, and who had no memory of ever having practiced the hebrew religion, would inherit G-d's eternal covenent while a people with at least 5% (by your reconning, I believe) genetic descent to the original Hebrews, who all have at least one unbroken line of religious tradition and familial descent back to the original Hebrews (khazarean Jews would not have married Gentiles, would they?), and who continue to practice the hebrew faith as their anscestors, at least one parental line, have since the time of Moses, would not?

As I pointed out earlier to be saved and to be with YHWHs covenent you must be Baptized and have faith, of course if you never get a chance you will be still judged so Babies who die at birth can still enter the kingdom of heaven. And about Moses Yahsha told the Jewish Priest of the day "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me," (John 5:46.)

Also remember it was by YHWH's will that the Israelites were taken captive for their sins, but he never left them. They were always his people, he knows who they are and has seeked them out. Yahsha told the Apostles to seek out the Sheep of Israel and if you read many maps, which can be found in the back of certain Bibles quite a few Apostles make a B-line for Britain, and in one such instance Yahsha himself was believed to have been in what is now Ireland.

I know that that paragraph is just one big run-on sentence, and I apologize, but please read over it again and make sure that you understand what I am asking.

Don't worry about it, I do it sometimes but yeah I have gone over it a few times, but if you want me to go into something deeper then just ask.

* please use Bible here, preferably Tenach (OT) only, although if you must use Brit Hadassah (NT) &/or Apocrypha please feel free.

** biblical support would be nice here, and quotes from your books would be ok too, but I really hope you can put together a logical argument to explain this apparent inconsistency.

In Satan Fights for Muscovy on pg 60 it has a letter from the chief Rabbi, which he states "As far as is known, there is not any further admixture of other tribes" - after he stated that Present Jews are descendants of Judah - which isn't even entirely corret. I would post the entire letter but it is quite large, if you look it up you will no doubt find it.

I can post bible quotes if you want, but due to the fact that I am quite lazy now days due to work and other stuff, I'll probably just post the book and Chapter.

Anyway I have yet to look up the bona fides of your authors, but please feel free to quote them here. No doubt you own copies? I would like to hear what they have to say, and hear the basis of the things you have been asserting here.

I only own a couple of books, also I wouldn't call myself a "Christian Identity" person, I am quite simply a Christian. See many Identity people use racism which I will always distance myself from. In fact I have been in debates with Identity posters who use racist remarks and even alter the words of the Bible or do not believe them when they must be believed. Some go so far to say that it isn't faith that gets you into heaven but your race, this makes me sick.
Druthulhu
15-10-2004, 09:56
Yeah some of those books are hard to come by, I own a couple of them, but a mate of mine owns quite a few more, and in fact he knows more of this subject that I do.



Well the Ashkenazi Jews are the ones who descended from the Khazar empire. See there are 2 Main Classes of "Jews" - the Ashkenazi and the Sephardi Jews. Then there are those who are true Israelites (Those descended from Israel who throughout history have come to be known as "Jews" - remembering this word is a wrong translation. They would only make up around 5% or so after you take away the Sephardi and the Ashkenazi



The Temple as in the building doesn't exist remembering it was destroyed. The only Temple now is that of Yahsha. He became the Temple - when he said "I will destroy the Temple and rebuild it in 3 days" - many didn't believe he would do this. However if you see, when he dies the Temple is destroyed and then 3 days later he rises from the Dead - and thus he becomes the Temple for he is also the Lamb of YHWH.



I think you are not quite understanding my point, whether or not the Khazarean Jews did or did not covert in a legal fashion isn't the point of my post. The point is that 90-95% of Jews today are not Descendants of Jacob/Israel. If a Khazar is Baptized and believes in Yahsha he will be saved for it is said. Heaven doesn't close it's doors based on Race but by Faith. It sums up in Mark somewhere, I forgot where but basically you must be Baptized (Washed) and have faith in YHWH and Yahsha to be saved, and this is open to anyone.



A look at many of the prophacies and how they have been fulfilled by the Nations of Britain and the US, note: I never said Yahsha was "White" - I mean white is a pretty loose term to use as there are many different races that could class themselves as "White" so I'll ask you not to use that term again.



Once again you miss my entire point. That being that the blood between the current Jews and the Israelites are not the same. In the Bible it states that if someone follows the laws then he/she can be classed as a descendant of Abraham which I have no problem with...but they do not have a blood tie as in what a father/son have. That and the fact to be an Israelite you must follow the word of Yahsha, as is pointed out quite a few times.



As I pointed out earlier to be saved and to be with YHWHs covenent you must be Baptized and have faith, of course if you never get a chance you will be still judged so Babies who die at birth can still enter the kingdom of heaven. And about Moses Yahsha told the Jewish Priest of the day "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me," (John 5:46.)

Also remember it was by YHWH's will that the Israelites were taken captive for their sins, but he never left them. They were always his people, he knows who they are and has seeked them out. Yahsha told the Apostles to seek out the Sheep of Israel and if you read many maps, which can be found in the back of certain Bibles quite a few Apostles make a B-line for Britain, and in one such instance Yahsha himself was believed to have been in what is now Ireland.



Don't worry about it, I do it sometimes but yeah I have gone over it a few times, but if you want me to go into something deeper then just ask.



In Satan Fights for Muscovy on pg 60 it has a letter from the chief Rabbi, which he states "As far as is known, there is not any further admixture of other tribes" - after he stated that Present Jews are descendants of Judah - which isn't even entirely corret. I would post the entire letter but it is quite large, if you look it up you will no doubt find it.

I can post bible quotes if you want, but due to the fact that I am quite lazy now days due to work and other stuff, I'll probably just post the book and Chapter.



I only own a couple of books, also I wouldn't call myself a "Christian Identity" person, I am quite simply a Christian. See many Identity people use racism which I will always distance myself from. In fact I have been in debates with Identity posters who use racist remarks and even alter the words of the Bible or do not believe them when they must be believed. Some go so far to say that it isn't faith that gets you into heaven but your race, this makes me sick.

Thank you. :) You have provided no evidence whatsoever.
Dettibok
15-10-2004, 09:58
In the Bible it states that if someone follows the laws then he/she can be classed as a descendant of Abraham which I have no problem with...but they do not have a blood tie as in what a father/son have.Or mother/son? or father/daughter? or mother/daughter? Because if so, after 3700 years, the majority of the world would have Abraham as an ancestor. If it's only father/son, then the line of Abraham has in all likelyhood been lost.

That and the fact to be an Israelite you must follow the word of Yahsha, as is pointed out quite a few times.Not according to the usual definition. And not according to the definition you gave earlier:

From what I understand of the Bible, there are 5 classes of Israelites...

1 - THE TEN TRIBED NATION OF ISRAEL - this was the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

2 - THE TWO TRIBED KINGDOM OF JUDAH, known as the Southern Kingdom, which included Benjamin and some of Levi.

3 - THE HOUSE OF DAVID, which was taken out of the Tribe of Judah and set up as a separate entity to rule over Israel forever.

4 - THE FEW JEWS WHO ARE ISRAELITES. (Remember a vast majority of Jews are not.)

5 - SPIRITUAL ISRAEL. That vast army of people, regardless of race, color or social position, who accept Jesus Christ as Savior and King and who have been called by the Spirit of God into Sonship. Paul said in Gal. 3:29 - "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Sadly many Identity people deny this, which is hypocritical. Anyone can be of Abrahams seed, no race is forbidden.Most of the tribes have perhaps been lost to assimilation. But you claim this is not entirely true of the tribe of Judah and of Levi. BTW, isn't class # 5 more commonly called "Christians"?

I think I found the misconception at the root of your claim that most Jews are not descendents of Jacob:
The point is, that many of the Khazars are still Khazars, not Hebrews. Because the Judasim requires (obviously not 100% do this) to marry a Jew, either a coverted Jew or a Jew Jew...and with 90% being Khazars there is still a high chance many are still pure Khazars, for close to every Khazar during the converstion period became a follower of Judaism.Your analysis is wrong:
Assume for the first generation that 90% of the Jews are not Hebrews, and 10% are Hebrews. Assume random marriages. (This may not be true for the first generation, but it will start to be true as the Khazars loose their identity as Khazars.)
So you have 1% Hebrew-Hebrew Marriages, 18% Hebrew-Non Hebrew marriages, and 81% Non Hebrew-Non Hebrew marriages.
so, 2nd generation: 19% Hebrew, 81% non Hebrew
3rd generation: 34% Hebrew, 66% non Hebrew
4th generation: 57% Hebrew, 43% non Hebrew
5th generation: 81% Hebrew, 19% non Hebrew
6th generation: 97% Hebrew, 3% non Hebrew
So if children of at least one Hebrew parent are Hebrews, it would take something like a hundred years for almost all Jews to be Hebrews. If only 1% were Hebrew, it would take 9 generations for 99% of Jews to be Hebrew. If only one in a million were Hebrew, it would take 23 generations for 99% of Jews to be Hebrew. That's something like four centuries (five in modern times). That's just how the math works.
Planta Genestae
15-10-2004, 11:02
What about Austin 3:16?
Austrealite
15-10-2004, 11:14
Thank you. :) You have provided no evidence whatsoever.

Sorry, I was typing quickly due to the fact I had to run into town and pick some stuff up. If you want evidence check out those books I mentioned plus I'll post a few more books if you want. I would normally do this myself, but I can't be bothered, plus I came online to order a couple of games, not to get back into this debate.

A good site is http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/ - this isn't a racist site and is very fair in how it deals with the issue.

Another book is Jewish Nationalism - History of the Khazars (or something to that extent) I have lost the book, if you do a search you might be able to find the full name. It is a good book although is very short.

Sorry for the lack of a post, but I am getting sick of this kind of debate, you will always have your view, I will always have mine.

Check out the online book shop www.alibris.com for some books on the issue.
Austrealite
15-10-2004, 11:22
Or mother/son? or father/daughter? or mother/daughter? Because if so, after 3700 years, the majority of the world would have Abraham as an ancestor. If it's only father/son, then the line of Abraham has in all likelyhood been lost.

It doesn't work that way, YHWH told the Israelites time and time again not to touch the Cannites, but they didn't listen. Why do you think that YHWH picked Jacob over Ishmael? YHWH knows who the true Israelites are

Not according to the usual definition. And not according to the definition you gave earlier:

Most of the tribes have perhaps been lost to assimilation. But you claim this is not entirely true of the tribe of Judah and of Levi. BTW, isn't class # 5 more commonly called "Christians"?

Many modern Christians are in fact Israelites - Yahsha himself said "My people (ISRAEL) know me yet ye (Jewish Priest) do not know me because you are not my Sheep (Israel)

I think I found the misconception at the root of your claim that most Jews are not descendents of Jacob:
Your analysis is wrong:
Assume for the first generation that 90% of the Jews are not Hebrews, and 10% are Hebrews. Assume random marriages. (This may not be true for the first generation, but it will start to be true as the Khazars loose their identity as Khazars.)
So you have 1% Hebrew-Hebrew Marriages, 18% Hebrew-Non Hebrew marriages, and 81% Non Hebrew-Non Hebrew marriages.
so, 2nd generation: 19% Hebrew, 81% non Hebrew
3rd generation: 34% Hebrew, 66% non Hebrew
4th generation: 57% Hebrew, 43% non Hebrew
5th generation: 81% Hebrew, 19% non Hebrew
6th generation: 97% Hebrew, 3% non Hebrew
So if children of at least one Hebrew parent are Hebrews, it would take something like a hundred years for almost all Jews to be Hebrews. If only 1% were Hebrew, it would take 9 generations for 99% of Jews to be Hebrew. If only one in a million were Hebrew, it would take 23 generations for 99% of Jews to be Hebrew. That's something like four centuries (five in modern times). That's just how the math works.

I answered this before - up in this post
QahJoh
18-10-2004, 09:27
Its pretty late so I'll keep this simple, if you want more answers feel free to ask.

These books can give you a bit of an understanding...

1) Satan Fights for Muscovy - by L. Buxton Gresty (pgs 49 - 56 deal with The European aspect of things while pgs 57 - 64 deal with the Jewish/Khazars aspect)

It is quite a good book that doesn't go into using Racist attacks which is rare to see.

2) Symbols of our Celto-Saxon Heritage - by W.H. Bennett (If you can get a hold of this book then good on ya, it is a rare book now as it's old. It deals with the symbols of Israel and how they are similar with European Symbols - of course don't believe it at a glance, but some of the stuff is quite good)

3) The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage - by Arthur Koestler

There are more books, one I can't remember its name so I'll get back to you, it is also very good.

p.s. sorry I can't be more helpful but I have to get to bed.

Simply listing a bibliography isn't evidence. Exactly what arguments do they make, and how do they BACK THEM UP? I'm also fairly sure Koestler's "scholarship" was discredited years ago.

Well the Ashkenazi Jews are the ones who descended from the Khazar empire.

Prove it.

See there are 2 Main Classes of "Jews" - the Ashkenazi and the Sephardi Jews. Then there are those who are true Israelites (Those descended from Israel who throughout history have come to be known as "Jews" - remembering this word is a wrong translation. They would only make up around 5% or so after you take away the Sephardi and the Ashkenazi

Prove it.

The only Temple now is that of Yahsha. He became the Temple - when he said "I will destroy the Temple and rebuild it in 3 days" - many didn't believe he would do this. However if you see, when he dies the Temple is destroyed and then 3 days later he rises from the Dead - and thus he becomes the Temple for he is also the Lamb of YHWH.

How does your article of faith constitute "proof" of anything? This is no different than you saying you believe that you are a grapefruit. Does that "prove" that?

The point is that 90-95% of Jews today are not Descendants of Jacob/Israel.

First- prove it.

Second- in Judaism, at least, actual descent is irrelevant. A valid conversion constitutes membership into the Jewish people.

If a Khazar is Baptized and believes in Yahsha he will be saved for it is said. Heaven doesn't close it's doors based on Race but by Faith. It sums up in Mark somewhere, I forgot where but basically you must be Baptized (Washed) and have faith in YHWH and Yahsha to be saved, and this is open to anyone.

As you said, irrelevant to this discussion.

A look at many of the prophacies and how they have been fulfilled by the Nations of Britain and the US

I disproved your prophecy list about a month ago, IIRC.

there are many different races that could class themselves as "White" so I'll ask you not to use that term again.

What right do you have to ask such a thing of anyone? Should I ask you not to go around spouting your inane theories about Christian Identity?

That being that the blood between the current Jews and the Israelites are not the same.

Prove it.

In the Bible it states that if someone follows the laws then he/she can be classed as a descendant of Abraham

Cite?

but they do not have a blood tie as in what a father/son have.

Blood is irrelevant to Judaism. A convert is welcomed as a "son/daughter of Abraham"- equal to their "siblings".

That and the fact to be an Israelite you must follow the word of Yahsha, as is pointed out quite a few times.

Prove it.

Yahsha told the Apostles to seek out the Sheep of Israel and if you read many maps, which can be found in the back of certain Bibles quite a few Apostles make a B-line for Britain, and in one such instance Yahsha himself was believed to have been in what is now Ireland.

Any evidence for any of this besides mere folklore?

In Satan Fights for Muscovy on pg 60 it has a letter from the chief Rabbi, which he states "As far as is known, there is not any further admixture of other tribes" - after he stated that Present Jews are descendants of Judah - which isn't even entirely corret. I would post the entire letter but it is quite large, if you look it up you will no doubt find it.

How can we find it without you telling us what it says? The one sentence you posted was about as clear as mud, and you haven't told us which chief Rabbi you're quoting, or from when.

Plus, the mere fact that he's a rabbi, even a Chief rabbi, doesn't make him infallible, particularly depending on where and when we was speaking. I wrote an entire paper debunking entries in the Jewish Encyclopedia, published c. 1902.

I only own a couple of books, also I wouldn't call myself a "Christian Identity" person, I am quite simply a Christian.

One of the main tenets of Christian Identity is British Israelism. You self-identify as a British Israelite, which mainline Christianity does not affiliate itself with. You may choose to disassociate yourself from the Christian Identity movement because you disagree with some of their racist rhetoric, but it is disengenuous for you to call yourself merely a "Christian", as disengenuous as it is for a Jew For Jesus to call themselves a regular "Jew". Your religion has certain "add-on" beliefs which are simply not present in mainline Christianity.

A good site is http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/ - this isn't a racist site and is very fair in how it deals with the issue.

That depends how one defines "racist" and "fair". The site is certainly anti-Semitic (or, if one would prefer, anti-Jewish).

Let's take a look at some choice quotes:

http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/ADL/not_cannibals.html

"evil Jewish propagandists"

http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/html/sinister_propaganda.html

On page 13 of his book, Rabbi Lapin says that the Jews should "stop speaking and acting as if Christian America is their enemy." [23] Think about this, readers. The Rabbi says plainly that Jews view a Christian America as their enemy! If we desire a Christian America, and if a certain group views a Christian America as its enemy, is it so difficult to believe that the group has engaged in a propaganda war against us?

Not contextualizing Lapin within the larger Jewish community and distorting his comments- dishonest.

http://www.scripturesforamerica.org/ADL/how_far.html

In August of 1999, a man named Buford Furrow allegedly attempted to murder a number of Jewish children at a Jewish Center. The leading national newspaper, USA Today, attempted to link this crime to Identity. This was a clear case of the "hook" method.

More dishonesty. Furrow was proven guilty of attempted murder of those children (and of the successful murder of a Fillipino mail worker) and he admitted this. I think he may have even pled guilty.

Furthermore, Furrow's link to Christian Identity was well-documented and, again, self-confirmed. He was a former guard at the Aryan Nations compound, and was romantically involved with Robert Matthews' widow. Matthews was the founder and leader of the White Supremacist terrorist group, "The Order", whose crimes included murdering Jewish radio talk show host Alan Berg.

Data on the "Pastor" of the "un-racist" and "unbiased" website you directed us to:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/paranoia-as-patriotism/pete-peters.html

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Peters.asp?xpicked=2&item=8

Scriptures for America audiocassette tapes by others have included: "The Six Million Holocaust" by Ernst Zundel, a pro-Nazi propagandist and Holocaust denier

Wow. No bias here. :rolleyes:

Many modern Christians are in fact Israelites - Yahsha himself said "My people (ISRAEL) know me yet ye (Jewish Priest) do not know me because you are not my Sheep (Israel)

How does that quote prove that Christians are Israelites? Also, at that point, the 10 Tribes had ALREADY disappeared! Jesus was a JUDEAN, as were his first followers, and furthermore, he was PREACHING to Judeans!
Tcherbeb
15-11-2004, 12:23
Equally interesting is the fact that the Sephardic Jews, who the Christian ID posters here are totally Khazar, are named from the Medieval Hebrew word for "German". The Ashkanazi, named for and descended from spanish Jews, would probably be a more likely cantidate for intermingling with the turkish Khazars through intermingling with eastern-european/arabic populations while Spain was under moorish rule.

EDIT: Dang why didn't any of you catch that??? :mad: Please reverse the emboldened parts. :(

I did! Just a bit too late... ^^; I was just about to point out that "séfarade" means "spaniard" in some arabic dialect, when I noticed your edit.

/is a sephardic cohen and could tell you a thing or two about intermarriage
//would like to remind christian identity that mutilation of the ten commandments does not gain entry to the next world... (you know, that small thing about idolatry, writing the name of g.d every three sentences, and so on?)
///would like even more to know why rabbi jesus benyossef is seen as the messiah, since it is explicitly stated that maschia'h will not be a demi-god, and that he will not utter in another 2000 years of persecution for the jews... I mean, look at the splendid work this messiah accomplished.
Tcherbeb
15-11-2004, 12:27
And one last thing : the concept of purgatory wasn't invented until the renaissance. and by Blaise Pascal of all things!

/will debunk the sanctity of non-protestant priests' celibacy next