NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp

In the wake of Mel Gibson's phenomenally successful film and the production company's ambitious plans to market the film worldwide to "the faithless," taking advantage of what is perhaps "the best Christian outreach opportunity in 2,000 years," it is important for Jews to understand why we don't believe in Jesus.

The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.


But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?

The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)

Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)

Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)

Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.

1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

________________________

2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2)

Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus was not a prophet; he appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)

C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

____________________

3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

B. SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44). Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.

For further reading, go to: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-ss.html

______________________

4) JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION

Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God's true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show -- assuming they are genuine -- is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.

Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).

Of the thousands of religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation -- i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.

Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):


The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.

What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us -- who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)


Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

For further reading: "Did God Speak at Mount Sinai?"

WAITING FOR THE MESSIAH

The world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. And to the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions asked of a Jew on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"

How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.

Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.

The Messiah can come any day, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: "Redemption will come today -- if you hearken to His voice."

For further study visit: Jews for Judaism

See also:

"You Are My Witness: The Traditional Jewish Response to Christian Missionaries" A booklet in pdf format by Yisroel C. Blumenthal

"The Real Messiah," by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan

"The Path of the Righteous Gentile," by Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky

FOOTNOTES

1.Maimonides devotes much of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).

2. In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:


a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:


a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's.

b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

You obviously spent a long time on this post.



Why are you wasting it here?

You obviously spent a long time on this post.



Why are you wasting it here?
since it's cut and pasted from the link he provided, he didnt waste too much time I think.

I enjoyed reading it. It clears up a few points for me. Thanks.

Rebuild the temple in 3 days, after he destroyed it - it was destroyed on the same day he died, he rose in 3 days - he became the Temple, for we all reach YHWH trough Yahsha.

Gather all of the ISRAELITES TO ISRAEL - not Jews, not Jewry, they are not Israelites, well 90% are not. He told the Apostles to go and seek the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.

He was well versed in Torah Law, in fact more than the High Priest, whom Yahsha shot down on so many occasions, even with one comment.

Be a Great Military Leader - He defeated the worst Enemy known - Satan, that would class him as a military Leader.

---
The reason the Modern Jews don't want Yahsha to be known as the Messiah is because he knew who they really were!

Because after some converted they were called christians, so they wouldn't be jewish anymore.

teal deer

The reason the Modern Jews don't want Yahsha to be known as the Messiah is because he knew who they really were!

I am a modern Jew. My mother is Jewish. I reject Jesus (or whatever you want to call him) hence, I am 1 Jew who is not "gathered to Israel" (by your definition) and as long as there's even 1 of us, there can be no Messiah.

Want my proof that I am an Israelite?

Okie dokie ....

My pedigree: (leaving out dates and all that)

1. Me
2. My mother (no names yet, for privacy reasons)
3. My mother's mother
4. My mother's mother's mother (now I'll start names, since the following are dead)
5. Mary Reilly
6. Harry Reilly
7. Benjamin Reilly
8. Jack Reilly
9. Fergus Reilly
10. Doyle Reilly
11. James Reilly (Veteran of the US Revolution)
12. Edward Reilly (First of this line in US)
13. Benjamin Reilly
14. Joseph Reilly
15. Henry Reilly
16. Horace Reilly
17. Myra Weymouth
18. Joseph Weymouth
19. Liam Weymouth
20. Heather Codd
21. William Codd
22. Gerald Codd
23. Wallace Codd
24. Edna de Neville
25. Margaret Raellagh
26. Sir Liam Raellagh
27. Domuil Aed Raellagh
28. Tomiafh O'Raellagh
29. Aed MacNiall O'Raellagh
30. Niall Raellagh
31. Godfred O' Raellagh [Godfred III], King of Man
32. Maek Sechnaill MacLochlainn, Queen of Cenel Eogain
33. Muirchertach MacLochlainn, 182nd Monarch of Ireland
34. Niall MacLochlainn, King of Tir Conaill
35. Domnall MacLochlainn, 179th Monarch of Ireland
36. Ardgar MacLochlainn, King of Ailech
37. Lochlann
38. Mael Sechnaill
39. Mael Ruanaid
40. Kenneth I MacAlpin
41. Flann
42. Domnall, King of Ailech
43. Aed Findlaith, 168th Monarch of Ireland
44. Niall Caille, 166th Monarch of Ireland
45. Aed Oirdnide, 164th Monarch of Ireland
46. Niall Frossach, 162nd Monarch of Ireland
47. Fergal, 156th Monarch of Ireland
48. Cacht
49. Cellach, 147th Monarch of Ireland
50. Mael Coba, 144th Monarch of Ireland
51. Aed, 140th Monarch of Ireland
52. Ainmere, 138th Monarch of Ireland
53. Ercc Dalriada
54. Setna
55. Fedhlimidh
56. Fergus Cennfota
57. Muredach II MacOwen
58. Conall Gulban, King of Tirconnel
59. Niall Noigiallach, 126th Monarch of Ireland
60. Eochaid Mugmedon, 124th Monarch of Ireland
61. Muiredach Tirech, 122nd Monarch of Ireland
62. Fiachu Sraiptime, 120th Monarch of Ireland
63. Cairbre Liffeachaire
64. Cormac Ulfhada MacArt
65. Art Aenfher, 112th Monarch of Ireland
66. Conn Cetchathach, 110th Monarch of Ireland
67. Fedelmid Rechtmar, 108th Monarch of Ireland
68. Tuathal Tecthmar, 106th Monarch of Ireland
69. Fiachu Findfolaid, 104th Monarch of Ireland
70. Feradach Finn Fechtnach, 102nd Monarch of Ireland
71. Crimthann Nia Naire, 100th Monarch of Ireland
72. Lugaid Reoderg, 98th Monarch of Ireland
73. Finn Emna MacEochaid Feidlech
74. Eochaid Feidlech, 93rd Monarch of Ireland
75. Finn MacFindloch
76. Findloch MacRoighean
77. Roighean Ruadh
78. Asaman Eamhna
79. Blathachta
80. Labraid Lorc
(The following are all pre-Jesus)
81. Enna Aignech, 84th Monarch of Ireland
82. Laebchor MacEochaid
83. Eochaid Altlethan [Eachaidh VIII], 79th Monarch of Ireland
84. Ailill Casfiaclach, 77th Monarch of Ireland
85. Condla Caem, 76th Monarch of Ireland
86. Irero Gleofathach, 74th Monarch of Ireland
87. Meilge, 71st Monarch of Ireland
88. Cobthach Caelbreg, 69th Monarch of Ireland
89. Ugaine Mor, 66th Monarch of Ireland
90. Eochaid Buadach
91. Dui Ladrach, 59th Monarch of Ireland
92. Fiachu Tolgrach, 55th Monarch of Ireland
93. Muiredach Bolgach, 46th Monarch of Ireland
94. Simon Brec, 44th Monarh of Ireland
95. Nuadu Finn Fail, 39th Monarch of Ireland
96. Giallchad, 37th Monarch of Ireland
97. Ailill Oalchlaen
98. Sirna Sirsaeglach, 34th Monarch of Ireland
99. Dian Denius
100. Deman
101. Rothechtaid Rigderg, 22nd Monarch of Ireland
102. Moen
103. Aengus Olmuccaid, 20th Monarch of Ireland
104. Fiachu Labriann
105. Smiorgoill
106. Eanbothadh
107. Tighearnmas
108. Follag
109. Eithral
110. Faifh “The Prophet”
111. Ereahmon
112. Mileadh
113. Bile
114. Breogan, King of Galicia
115. Bratha
116. Deaghata
117. Earchada
118. Aldoid
119. Nuadhat
120. Nenuaill
121. Ermhear Glas
122. Agnofinn
123. Lamhfinn
124. Agnamaan
125. Tait, King of Scythia
126. Ogamon, King of Scythia
127. Beogamon
128. Eibbher Swt
129. Sru
130. Esasru
131. Goadhal Glas
132. Niul
133. Phoeniusa Farsaidh, King of Scythia
134. Boath
135. Magog
136. Japheth
137. Noah
138. Lameth
139. Methuselah
140. Enoth
141. Jared
142. Mahalalel
143. Kenan
144. Enosh
145. Seth
146. Adam

So there it is. That represents over a decade of research and travel and I have substantiating documents to back it up.

Where's your pedigree, Christian? If you want to steal my birthright, then kiss my royal Irish ass.

Cos Jews are full of shit thats why!

Whole E. Crap, Keruvalia. That's a mighty fine list you've got there.

Anywho, i've never liked to get into talks about religion, but who really cares? I think that we should just belive what we want to belive and have it at that. I dont really think i am making sense here, but......Meh.

Sigh... Christianity is a cult that went mainstream. That's all there is to it.

Whole E. Crap, Keruvalia. That's a mighty fine list you've got there.

Well ... as people have often pointed out ... I have a lot of free time on my hands. I set out to do my entire geneaology when I was 18 and I've gotten pretty far back in most branches. It gets tough, though, when you get back more than 4-5 generations. After all, the number of people doubles with every generation .... 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, 32 great-great-great-grandparents .... *whew*

I actually had to travel to Ireland to get most of that and even went to Greece so I could visit what was Scythia to go back further. Obviously some of it is simply biblical, but any geneaologist will tell you ... Adam is as good a stopping point as any!

I advise everyone research their families. It's amazing what you can find. As a great man once said, "Who we are is who we were."

I advise everyone research their families. It's amazing what you can find. As a great man once said, "Who we are is who we were."

I know what you mean. My grandfather and i have worked for years on our family, but have not gotten farther back than the Catholic Reformation in the 14-1600's.

Woo-hoo!
Reasoned argument!
Thanks for starting this thread. Sadly I don't have time at the moment to go through your post in detail (arrgh! Uni work!) But I look forward to doing so in a few days. God Bless!

I know what you mean. My grandfather and i have worked for years on our family, but have not gotten farther back than the Catholic Reformation in the 14-1600's.

Nod ... that is a tough time because of the large illiteracy rate. People were often born and the only record in existence was someone's word or a baptismal record. Often times you have to travel to the country itself to look through ancient archives, burial records, or even look at ancient cemetaries.

Sometimes you get lucky and the family has maintained constant records. Jewish people have always kept extremely careful records of families (hence all the begats in the Bible), so if you find a Jewish branch, you're home free! :D

I am a modern Jew. My mother is Jewish. I reject Jesus (or whatever you want to call him) hence, I am 1 Jew who is not "gathered to Israel" (by your definition) and as long as there's even 1 of us, there can be no Messiah.

Want my proof that I am an Israelite?

Okie dokie ....

My pedigree: (leaving out dates and all that)

1. Me
2. My mother (no names yet, for privacy reasons)
3. My mother's mother
4. My mother's mother's mother (now I'll start names, since the following are dead)
5. Mary Reilly
6. Harry Reilly
7. Benjamin Reilly
8. Jack Reilly
9. Fergus Reilly
10. Doyle Reilly
11. James Reilly (Veteran of the US Revolution)
12. Edward Reilly (First of this line in US)
13. Benjamin Reilly
14. Joseph Reilly
15. Henry Reilly
16. Horace Reilly
17. Myra Weymouth
18. Joseph Weymouth
19. Liam Weymouth
20. Heather Codd
21. William Codd
22. Gerald Codd
23. Wallace Codd
24. Edna de Neville
25. Margaret Raellagh
26. Sir Liam Raellagh
27. Domuil Aed Raellagh
28. Tomiafh O'Raellagh
29. Aed MacNiall O'Raellagh
30. Niall Raellagh
31. Godfred O' Raellagh [Godfred III], King of Man
32. Maek Sechnaill MacLochlainn, Queen of Cenel Eogain
33. Muirchertach MacLochlainn, 182nd Monarch of Ireland
34. Niall MacLochlainn, King of Tir Conaill
35. Domnall MacLochlainn, 179th Monarch of Ireland
36. Ardgar MacLochlainn, King of Ailech
37. Lochlann
38. Mael Sechnaill
39. Mael Ruanaid
40. Kenneth I MacAlpin
41. Flann
42. Domnall, King of Ailech
43. Aed Findlaith, 168th Monarch of Ireland
44. Niall Caille, 166th Monarch of Ireland
45. Aed Oirdnide, 164th Monarch of Ireland
46. Niall Frossach, 162nd Monarch of Ireland
47. Fergal, 156th Monarch of Ireland
48. Cacht
49. Cellach, 147th Monarch of Ireland
50. Mael Coba, 144th Monarch of Ireland
51. Aed, 140th Monarch of Ireland
52. Ainmere, 138th Monarch of Ireland
53. Ercc Dalriada
54. Setna
55. Fedhlimidh
56. Fergus Cennfota
57. Muredach II MacOwen
58. Conall Gulban, King of Tirconnel
59. Niall Noigiallach, 126th Monarch of Ireland
60. Eochaid Mugmedon, 124th Monarch of Ireland
61. Muiredach Tirech, 122nd Monarch of Ireland
62. Fiachu Sraiptime, 120th Monarch of Ireland
63. Cairbre Liffeachaire
64. Cormac Ulfhada MacArt
65. Art Aenfher, 112th Monarch of Ireland
66. Conn Cetchathach, 110th Monarch of Ireland
67. Fedelmid Rechtmar, 108th Monarch of Ireland
68. Tuathal Tecthmar, 106th Monarch of Ireland
69. Fiachu Findfolaid, 104th Monarch of Ireland
70. Feradach Finn Fechtnach, 102nd Monarch of Ireland
71. Crimthann Nia Naire, 100th Monarch of Ireland
72. Lugaid Reoderg, 98th Monarch of Ireland
73. Finn Emna MacEochaid Feidlech
74. Eochaid Feidlech, 93rd Monarch of Ireland
75. Finn MacFindloch
76. Findloch MacRoighean
77. Roighean Ruadh
78. Asaman Eamhna
79. Blathachta
80. Labraid Lorc
(The following are all pre-Jesus)
81. Enna Aignech, 84th Monarch of Ireland
82. Laebchor MacEochaid
83. Eochaid Altlethan [Eachaidh VIII], 79th Monarch of Ireland
84. Ailill Casfiaclach, 77th Monarch of Ireland
85. Condla Caem, 76th Monarch of Ireland
86. Irero Gleofathach, 74th Monarch of Ireland
87. Meilge, 71st Monarch of Ireland
88. Cobthach Caelbreg, 69th Monarch of Ireland
89. Ugaine Mor, 66th Monarch of Ireland
90. Eochaid Buadach
91. Dui Ladrach, 59th Monarch of Ireland
92. Fiachu Tolgrach, 55th Monarch of Ireland
93. Muiredach Bolgach, 46th Monarch of Ireland
94. Simon Brec, 44th Monarh of Ireland
95. Nuadu Finn Fail, 39th Monarch of Ireland
96. Giallchad, 37th Monarch of Ireland
97. Ailill Oalchlaen
98. Sirna Sirsaeglach, 34th Monarch of Ireland
99. Dian Denius
100. Deman
101. Rothechtaid Rigderg, 22nd Monarch of Ireland
102. Moen
103. Aengus Olmuccaid, 20th Monarch of Ireland
104. Fiachu Labriann
105. Smiorgoill
106. Eanbothadh
107. Tighearnmas
108. Follag
109. Eithral
110. Faifh “The Prophet”
111. Ereahmon
112. Mileadh
113. Bile
114. Breogan, King of Galicia
115. Bratha
116. Deaghata
117. Earchada
118. Aldoid
119. Nuadhat
120. Nenuaill
121. Ermhear Glas
122. Agnofinn
123. Lamhfinn
124. Agnamaan
125. Tait, King of Scythia
126. Ogamon, King of Scythia
127. Beogamon
128. Eibbher Swt
129. Sru
130. Esasru
131. Goadhal Glas
132. Niul
133. Phoeniusa Farsaidh, King of Scythia
134. Boath
135. Magog
136. Japheth
137. Noah
138. Lameth
139. Methuselah
140. Enoth
141. Jared
142. Mahalalel
143. Kenan
144. Enosh
145. Seth
146. Adam

So there it is. That represents over a decade of research and travel and I have substantiating documents to back it up.

Where's your pedigree, Christian? If you want to steal my birthright, then kiss my royal Irish ass.

Since when were the Irish kings Jewish? Are you a practicing Jew? and when did you begin practicing?

I am Roman Catholic, I believe that Jesus was The Prophet, but I respect other religions. Anyways, one thing that I am confused is this. I know that Jewish religion doesn't believe that Jesus was The Prophet, but do you believe that he was a prophet. Also, is Jew a racial, slang, or offending term.

I am a modern Jew. My mother is Jewish. I reject Jesus (or whatever you want to call him) hence, I am 1 Jew who is not "gathered to Israel" (by your definition) and as long as there's even 1 of us, there can be no Messiah.

Want my proof that I am an Israelite?

Okie dokie ....

My pedigree: (leaving out dates and all that)

1. Me
2. My mother (no names yet, for privacy reasons)
3. My mother's mother
4. My mother's mother's mother (now I'll start names, since the following are dead)
5. Mary Reilly
6. Harry Reilly
7. Benjamin Reilly
8. Jack Reilly
9. Fergus Reilly
10. Doyle Reilly
11. James Reilly (Veteran of the US Revolution)
12. Edward Reilly (First of this line in US)
13. Benjamin Reilly
14. Joseph Reilly
15. Henry Reilly
16. Horace Reilly
17. Myra Weymouth
18. Joseph Weymouth
19. Liam Weymouth
20. Heather Codd
21. William Codd
22. Gerald Codd
23. Wallace Codd
24. Edna de Neville
25. Margaret Raellagh
26. Sir Liam Raellagh
27. Domuil Aed Raellagh
28. Tomiafh O'Raellagh
29. Aed MacNiall O'Raellagh
30. Niall Raellagh
31. Godfred O' Raellagh [Godfred III], King of Man
32. Maek Sechnaill MacLochlainn, Queen of Cenel Eogain
33. Muirchertach MacLochlainn, 182nd Monarch of Ireland
34. Niall MacLochlainn, King of Tir Conaill
35. Domnall MacLochlainn, 179th Monarch of Ireland
36. Ardgar MacLochlainn, King of Ailech
37. Lochlann
38. Mael Sechnaill
39. Mael Ruanaid
40. Kenneth I MacAlpin
41. Flann
42. Domnall, King of Ailech
43. Aed Findlaith, 168th Monarch of Ireland
44. Niall Caille, 166th Monarch of Ireland
45. Aed Oirdnide, 164th Monarch of Ireland
46. Niall Frossach, 162nd Monarch of Ireland
47. Fergal, 156th Monarch of Ireland
48. Cacht
49. Cellach, 147th Monarch of Ireland
50. Mael Coba, 144th Monarch of Ireland
51. Aed, 140th Monarch of Ireland
52. Ainmere, 138th Monarch of Ireland
53. Ercc Dalriada
54. Setna
55. Fedhlimidh
56. Fergus Cennfota
57. Muredach II MacOwen
58. Conall Gulban, King of Tirconnel
59. Niall Noigiallach, 126th Monarch of Ireland
60. Eochaid Mugmedon, 124th Monarch of Ireland
61. Muiredach Tirech, 122nd Monarch of Ireland
62. Fiachu Sraiptime, 120th Monarch of Ireland
63. Cairbre Liffeachaire
64. Cormac Ulfhada MacArt
65. Art Aenfher, 112th Monarch of Ireland
66. Conn Cetchathach, 110th Monarch of Ireland
67. Fedelmid Rechtmar, 108th Monarch of Ireland
68. Tuathal Tecthmar, 106th Monarch of Ireland
69. Fiachu Findfolaid, 104th Monarch of Ireland
70. Feradach Finn Fechtnach, 102nd Monarch of Ireland
71. Crimthann Nia Naire, 100th Monarch of Ireland
72. Lugaid Reoderg, 98th Monarch of Ireland
73. Finn Emna MacEochaid Feidlech
74. Eochaid Feidlech, 93rd Monarch of Ireland
75. Finn MacFindloch
76. Findloch MacRoighean
77. Roighean Ruadh
78. Asaman Eamhna
79. Blathachta
80. Labraid Lorc
(The following are all pre-Jesus)
81. Enna Aignech, 84th Monarch of Ireland
82. Laebchor MacEochaid
83. Eochaid Altlethan [Eachaidh VIII], 79th Monarch of Ireland
84. Ailill Casfiaclach, 77th Monarch of Ireland
85. Condla Caem, 76th Monarch of Ireland
86. Irero Gleofathach, 74th Monarch of Ireland
87. Meilge, 71st Monarch of Ireland
88. Cobthach Caelbreg, 69th Monarch of Ireland
89. Ugaine Mor, 66th Monarch of Ireland
90. Eochaid Buadach
91. Dui Ladrach, 59th Monarch of Ireland
92. Fiachu Tolgrach, 55th Monarch of Ireland
93. Muiredach Bolgach, 46th Monarch of Ireland
94. Simon Brec, 44th Monarh of Ireland
95. Nuadu Finn Fail, 39th Monarch of Ireland
96. Giallchad, 37th Monarch of Ireland
97. Ailill Oalchlaen
98. Sirna Sirsaeglach, 34th Monarch of Ireland
99. Dian Denius
100. Deman
101. Rothechtaid Rigderg, 22nd Monarch of Ireland
102. Moen
103. Aengus Olmuccaid, 20th Monarch of Ireland
104. Fiachu Labriann
105. Smiorgoill
106. Eanbothadh
107. Tighearnmas
108. Follag
109. Eithral
110. Faifh “The Prophet”
111. Ereahmon
112. Mileadh
113. Bile
114. Breogan, King of Galicia
115. Bratha
116. Deaghata
117. Earchada
118. Aldoid
119. Nuadhat
120. Nenuaill
121. Ermhear Glas
122. Agnofinn
123. Lamhfinn
124. Agnamaan
125. Tait, King of Scythia
126. Ogamon, King of Scythia
127. Beogamon
128. Eibbher Swt
129. Sru
130. Esasru
131. Goadhal Glas
132. Niul
133. Phoeniusa Farsaidh, King of Scythia
134. Boath
135. Magog
136. Japheth
137. Noah
138. Lameth
139. Methuselah
140. Enoth
141. Jared
142. Mahalalel
143. Kenan
144. Enosh
145. Seth
146. Adam

So there it is. That represents over a decade of research and travel and I have substantiating documents to back it up.

Where's your pedigree, Christian? If you want to steal my birthright, then kiss my royal Irish ass.
Awesome my friend, we share much of the same ancient pedigree. Rock on fellow ancient monarch descendant!

I think that most any European can trace their lineage to a Jew somewhere and tracing ones family to royal lineage is very common (even I'm descended from royal lineage). Whether you want to spend all that time and effort tracing dead people is another story.

why do you waste all of your time doing this

Since when were the Irish kings Jewish? Are you a practicing Jew? and when did you begin practicing?

You should study your Irish history more indepthly. Many of the ancient monarchs, especially the pre-Christian monarchs, were Jewish. Not all of them, but many of them.

No, I no longer practice Judaism. I was, however, born into it.

I know that Jewish religion doesn't believe that Jesus was The Prophet, but do you believe that he was a prophet. Also, is Jew a racial, slang, or offending term.

No, Judaism does not hold any importance to Jesus at all. Christianity (obviously) and Islam hold great importance to him.

"Jew" used to be a racial slur, but not anymore.

My family has been mostly pagan Christians, but I am non-religious, but if I were to choose I'd say Judaism or Buddhism. All I know of my lineage (I haven't traced much) is that a very far back relative of mine was Captain Morgan (pirate).

My family has been mostly pagan Christians, but I am non-religious, but if I were to choose I'd say Judaism or Buddhism. All I know of my lineage (I haven't traced much) is that a very far back relative of mine was Captain Morgan (pirate).

Sweeet ... thanks for the Rum. :D

I know i'm getting off topic, but just if anyone cares, i'm decended from a 15th century Count Edward Waldeck, the ruler of the short-lived kingdom of Waldeck in middle Germany, as well as an encentric 18th century explorer named Fredrick Waldeck, who is somewhat imfamous for his work among the natives of south america. (He wasn't exactley nice to them......)

Nowadays, Waldeck Hotels are popular all through Germany. (Ive been to one; they are very comfertable.) There is also a Waldeck bank.

146. Adam

So there it is. That represents over a decade of research and travel and I have substantiating documents to back it up.
You have substantiating documents of Adam? Cool!

Christianity and Islam are mainstream cults...

Is judaaism anything more than a racist doctrine that accidently got recognized as a religion? (claiming that they are the children of god, insisting on a 'pure' bloodline, massacring unknown numbers of people in the name of god, etc)

I am a modern Jew. My mother is Jewish. I reject Jesus (or whatever you want to call him) hence, I am 1 Jew who is not "gathered to Israel" (by your definition) and as long as there's even 1 of us, there can be no Messiah.

Want my proof that I am an Israelite?

Okie dokie ....

My pedigree: (leaving out dates and all that)

1. Me
2. My mother (no names yet, for privacy reasons)
3. My mother's mother
4. My mother's mother's mother (now I'll start names, since the following are dead)
5. Mary Reilly
6. Harry Reilly
7. Benjamin Reilly
8. Jack Reilly
9. Fergus Reilly
10. Doyle Reilly
11. James Reilly (Veteran of the US Revolution)
12. Edward Reilly (First of this line in US)
13. Benjamin Reilly
14. Joseph Reilly
15. Henry Reilly
16. Horace Reilly
17. Myra Weymouth
18. Joseph Weymouth
19. Liam Weymouth
20. Heather Codd
21. William Codd
22. Gerald Codd
23. Wallace Codd


I'm jewish and this proves sh*t. As a jew you should know that religion is passed on the mother's side, tribe on the father's. See if you can do it again using only the women.

Mosoka- Nice thread. Another good link is http://members.aol.com/LazerA/archive/christianity.html

Austrealite- defeating "Satan", an agent of God (in Jewish theology), would count as a spiritual, not a military, victory. Nice try.

Gather the Israelites to Israel- even if we are to accept your uber-bullshit theory about Jews not being Israelites- the Messiah is supposed to gather the exiles. Sending his apostles out to do it while he goes gets crucified doesn't sound like it would count.

(Not to mention the obvious problem that the NT is not really a reliable source.)

Keruvalia- nice tree. (Although I'm curious about that earlier documentation- particularly once you get into your "Magog" generation and before... :) )

Mine only goes back to the 1770s, which is pretty good, as Eastern European Jews go (no surnames and lack of illustrious ancestors make it sort of difficult).

Theoretically, I could devise a similar tree- since my maternal grandfather and paternal grandmother were both Kohanim. But since I'm unconvinced of the accuracy of the OT accounts, I generally tend to only go back as far as I can actually prove with documents.

Anyway, I'm quite impressed with what you managed to find. Kudos.

BTW, have you ever taken a look at Dan Rottenberg's "Finding Our Fathers"? Great book on Jewish genealogy.

Cos Jews are full of shit thats why!

Weren't you "praying to Allah" in another thread, earlier? Muslims don't recognize "Hay-seuss" as the Messiah either, dork. At least get your fictional online character background straight.

I know that Jewish religion doesn't believe that Jesus was The Prophet, but do you believe that he was a prophet.

It's largely dependant on who you talk to. Some Jews have a greater appreciation for Jesus, others take a more hostile position. The vast majority are simply ambivalent. Judaism has no official theological position on Jesus.

Also, is Jew a racial, slang, or offending term.

It's largely dependant on context. If it's used in certain connotations, it can be offensive.

Is judaaism anything more than a racist doctrine that accidently got recognized as a religion?

Well, first, there's no reason why you can't have a racist religion.

Second, Judaism is not race-oriented. Like Islam, you have Jews from every race on the globe, since anyone can convert to it (although unlike Islam, Judaism does not prostelitize).

(claiming that they are the children of god

Your knowledge of Judaism is indeed quite lacking. Judaism claims that ALL people are the children of God, since all humanity is descended from the same common ancestors (Adam and Eve).

insisting on a 'pure' bloodline

Again, wrong. Some of the greatest Jewish figures came from "impure" bloodlines. David and Solomon were descended of Ruth, a non-Israelite who converted. The Messiah is supposed to be David's descendant, which means that he will also share this same "impure" blood.

Blood, like race, is not the issue in Judaism. The issue is whether one BELONGS to the community. One does not have to be of a particular ethnic "stock" to belong.

massacring unknown numbers of people in the name of god, etc)

Again, unconnected to race. And something that has been done by many groups throughout history, irrespective of race, culture, or religion. There have been plenty of secular massacres, too. (Stalinist purges, Pol Pot, French Revolution, etc...)

Furthermore, the concept of a certain people being "chosen" by God, or conceived as being specifically special or unique, is a "Jewish" thing- far from it. It exists all over the world, in many different cultures and religions. (The word for China in Mandarin, for instance, means "Middle-Kingdom", representing the idea that China was the center of the universe.)

Before anyone else criticizes what I wrote previously, I will quickly apologize for hasty and sloppy writing. Clearly, racism was not the word I wanted to use. Perhaps ethnic? Not sure. In any case, Judaaism has proved to be a highly effective family network, and quite commendable in that regards. The thing that bothers me the most about Judaaism is the intolerance and the annhilation (genocide) of the various tribes around them, without any sign of remorse. Heck, remorse? No where near, it was glorified in the name of God. The only sin was the worship of multiple gods or idols (not like I support them, but still, killing is arguably a bit much). In any case, the religion naturally breeds hate/intolerance, with murder considered a legitimate answer if twisted the right way (despite the ten commandments). Oh, and just because there are secular massacres too doesn't exactly justify it by any means.

You say theres no reason you can't have a racist religion? I'm sure if white supremacy suddenly became a religion, one heck of a lot of people would complain, and hate or at minimum not trust its followers. Heck, I'm even white and I wouldn't trust it. And you know very few people would consider it an actual religion.

And by "claiming that they are the children of god" perhaps I meant claiming that they are the chosen ones (they certainly seem to think that they and they alone are very special). On a side note, is that region of the world really worth so much of a sacrifice (the centuries of persecution)?

Sorry about the mention of purity, I got confused by the accounts of descendency (which apparently is to be considered an Israelite?). I agree, the family tree is quite nice:) I wish I could trace mine back anywhere near that far. While blood itself might not matter to the general religion and conversion, clearly descendency does matter and is favored if the Messiah is supposed to be a descendent of David. Plus, they haven't always been favorable to converts either. For some reason I am remembering a story where they killed people who were in the process of converting the day after their men had gotten circumsized.

Returning to the semi-apologetic tones that I intended to write this with, can someone explain/remind me the importance of the pedigree? Clearly I seem to have forgotten :headbang:

As far as Adam and Eve are concerned, if you even slightly believe in evolution (which as far as I am concerned is undeniable, at least to the extent I am referring to. After all, people have been breeding animals for years trying to get the best traits of animals to create superior offspring.), then the beginning of Genesis is largely irrelevant. Basically, anything before Noah is irrelevant because God supposedly flooded the entire world and killed everyone but Noah and his family (or are you going to tell me that I got that wrong too? haha, it has been quite a while since I looked at the old testament, which apparently can even be discreditted as mistranslated). In any case, there stands a good chance that man has evolved to be quite different from whatever God's image originally was, especially with the inbreeding that Noah's family must have done in order to populate the world like it is ;)



In any case, if I am going to get into an argument about Judaism, clearly I need to finish reading the old testament (I only read the first half of it before losing interest, I should probably re-read that part too since I am forgetting quite a bit of it). Of course, you could argue that I should read the Torah, but for some reason I don't really feel like learning Hebrew. (would I need to? I'm not even sure about that.)



Concerning the original topic of this thread, I don't blame the Jews for not accepting Jesus as their messiah. Interesting points too I might add. I guess my general theme is that while I also question the legitimacy of Christianity, I also extend my questioning to Judaism. To me, any faith should be able to survive questioning unscathed if it is truly the words of some god, especially an all-powerful God. Clearly, whatever created a world that operates as logically as this one does must be a logical entity itself.


Oh, and Yay for Ireland. I'm 1/4th Irish myself.

[QUOTE=Keruvalia]I am a modern Jew. My mother is Jewish. I reject Jesus (or whatever you want to call him) hence, I am 1 Jew who is not "gathered to Israel" (by your definition) and as long as there's even 1 of us, there can be no Messiah.

Want my proof that I am an Israelite?

Okie dokie ....

My pedigree: (leaving out dates and all that)/quote]


No way.

I just dont believe that.

Your talking about having "documents" and proof for an era where written language didnt exist.

The thing that bothers me the most about Judaaism is the intolerance and the annhilation (genocide) of the various tribes around them, without any sign of remorse. Heck, remorse? No where near, it was glorified in the name of God. The only sin was the worship of multiple gods or idols (not like I support them, but still, killing is arguably a bit much). In any case, the religion naturally breeds hate/intolerance, with murder considered a legitimate answer if twisted the right way (despite the ten commandments). Oh, and just because there are secular massacres too doesn't exactly justify it by any means.

Saying a religion "naturally" breeds hate and intolerance when you have demonstrated you know very little about its beliefs is rarely a smart move.

The genocide of the Israelites' neighbors was not simply for idol-worship. It was also practical- they were enemies, they presented a danger, and it was tribal warfare.

You should also realize that modern Judaism has been heavily influenced by the past several thousand years that have passed since the events allegedly described in the Bible. The rabbis of the diaspora were far less militant than their forebears (in point of fact, they had to be). The Judaism of today is in many ways a different animal than the one described in the OT, particularly the "slay 'em all" narratives.

You say theres no reason you can't have a racist religion? I'm sure if white supremacy suddenly became a religion, one heck of a lot of people would complain, and hate or at minimum not trust its followers. Heck, I'm even white and I wouldn't trust it. And you know very few people would consider it an actual religion.

The fact that you might not "trust it" or consider it to be an actual religion is irrelevant. You might not "like" it, but that doesn't mean it can't be a religion. A religion is defined as "2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices...4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

There is no reason why you can't have a racist religion. Indeed, there are some racist religions that I know of. Christian Identity, for instance, is Christianity through the prism of white supremacy. The fact that I find their theology objectionable, and indeed, disturbing, does not negate the fact that it is a religion. The Nation of Islam could also be said to be a racist religion.

I'm a little confused why you seem to think that the fact people would "complain" about a religion being racist is enough to "disqualify" it from being a religion. Plenty of people have "complained" about Christianity over the past several thousand years... does that mean it's going to be abolished?

And by "claiming that they are the children of god" perhaps I meant claiming that they are the chosen ones (they certainly seem to think that they and they alone are very special).

You seem to be misunderstanding the belief behind Choseness: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/chosen_people.html

Also, as I mentioned, many other cultures and religions believe similar things- in many cases, their conception of Chosen-ness is more exclusionary than the Jewish one.

While blood itself might not matter to the general religion and conversion, clearly descendency does matter and is favored if the Messiah is supposed to be a descendent of David.

Descendancy is important in many different cultures. An emphasis and pride on family roots is in no way indicative of negative attitudes towards outsiders. And, as mentioned, the Messiah, like David, were both descended from a convert, Ruth, who had NO Israelite ancestry.

Plus, they haven't always been favorable to converts either. For some reason I am remembering a story where they killed people who were in the process of converting the day after their men had gotten circumsized.

I suspect there's something you're not telling us- like CAUSE. Also, my general impression is that circumcision occurs as one of the final stages in the conversion process.

If you can find any sources for your story (or perhaps give us some clue where and when it occured), feel free to post it here. Until then, I'm not going to give it much worth.

Returning to the semi-apologetic tones that I intended to write this with, can someone explain/remind me the importance of the pedigree? Clearly I seem to have forgotten :headbang:

There's no inherent importance. This discussion went into a tangent because one of the posters believes himself to be a "British Israelite", and alleges that modern-day Jews aren't "real Israelites"- leading another poster to document his lineage.

As far as Adam and Eve are concerned, if you even slightly believe in evolution (which as far as I am concerned is undeniable, at least to the extent I am referring to. After all, people have been breeding animals for years trying to get the best traits of animals to create superior offspring.), then the beginning of Genesis is largely irrelevant.

Well, first, it should be noted Judaism does believe in a kind of evolution (one rabbi says that everything was created from a "primordial soup"- but God made the soup). Second, it's not irrelevant within a religious context because we're dealing with what Judaism, as a religion, teaches about the origins of mankind. And Judaism is quite explicit on this point- we ALL come from the same original ancestors.

Basically, anything before Noah is irrelevant because God supposedly flooded the entire world and killed everyone but Noah and his family (or are you going to tell me that I got that wrong too?

Well, you're not wrong, but seem to have missed the point. The fact that Noah and his family were the only ones to survive only further reinforces the Jewish doctrine that we are all descended from common ancestors- in this case, Noah. All you've done is move the common ancestor down a bunch of generations. The point still stands.

In any case, if I am going to get into an argument about Judaism, clearly I need to finish reading the old testament (I only read the first half of it before losing interest, I should probably re-read that part too since I am forgetting quite a bit of it). Of course, you could argue that I should read the Torah, but for some reason I don't really feel like learning Hebrew. (would I need to? I'm not even sure about that.)

I would suggest that if you want to discuss Judaism, that you should at least read a Jewish version of the Bible. (AKA, Tanakh- the Torah is just the first five books.)

You can actually read an English version of the Tanakh online, if you're interested. http://www.hareidi.org/bible/bible.htm

And I would recommend you also read some contemporary books about Judaism- the Jewish Books of Why (vol. 1 and 2) are quite good, but largely focused on practical deeds, and less on theology. For a person with a very limited knowledge of Judaism, I would highly recommend Rabbi Wayne Dosick's "Living Judaism". (The Judaism of today is very different from the Judaism of the Old Testament.)

You might also try some of the "Idiot's Guide" books reg. Judaism.

I guess my general theme is that while I also question the legitimacy of Christianity, I also extend my questioning to Judaism. To me, any faith should be able to survive questioning unscathed if it is truly the words of some god, especially an all-powerful God. Clearly, whatever created a world that operates as logically as this one does must be a logical entity itself.

Judaism has a long history of asking questions- it's one of the things that has distinguished it as a religion. The Talmud is full of questions. Like, for instance, who did Cain marry, if there there were only four people on earth? :)

I'm jewish and this proves sh*t. As a jew you should know that religion is passed on the mother's side, tribe on the father's. See if you can do it again using only the women.

The father's is acceptable. Check your Tanakh (OT) ... all of the "begats" are father to son. Religion isn't passed at all, by the way. If you were a Jew, you'd know that a majority of Jews don't practice Judaism. I, for example, am a Jew by blood, but I am a Pagan.

You have substantiating documents of Adam? Cool!

Well ... yeah ... the Bible. In genaeology, it is widely accepted that once you reach a certain point, the Bible is a substantiating document when it comes to lineage.

Your talking about having "documents" and proof for an era where written language didnt exist.

What are you talking about? Archaeologists have uncovered small petrified sticks carved with specific symbols in Africa that are 75,000 years old. Written language has been around a long, long time.

What are you talking about? Archaeologists have uncovered small petrified sticks carved with specific symbols in Africa that are 75,000 years old. Written language has been around a long, long time.
I don't really want to get drawn into this, but I would think you have to pick at a certain point, archeology or adam. I'm all for people believing that science it part of gods plan, in fact I think it makes religous people more rational and easier to deal with, but that means that you have to accept that some of the bible is aligory and not every word is literal. After all, someone was going on the other day about the fact that there are two creations in genesis.

Well ... yeah ... the Bible. In genaeology, it is widely accepted that once you reach a certain point, the Bible is a substantiating document when it comes to lineage.

My understanding is that that's quite variable depending on who you talk to.

The father's is acceptable. Check your Tanakh (OT) ... all of the "begats" are father to son. Religion isn't passed at all, by the way. If you were a Jew, you'd know that a majority of Jews don't practice Judaism. I, for example, am a Jew by blood, but I am a Pagan.


Well you are wrong. According to jewish law you are considered jewish only if your mother is jewish, or if you convert. It does say so explicitly in the Tanakh, though I am having trouble finding the exact verse. If you would like check out:
http://www.fact-index.com/j/ju/judaism.html
look at the section about "what makes a person jewish"
interestingly if your mother is jewish and you turn from the faith jews will still consider you jewish, but a non-practicing one.

BTW the begots all start before the offical start of judiasm. Adam was not a jew. I believe the first one was Abraham, though I could be wrong.

Also BTW, I would be considered one of those non-practicing jews.

oh yeah and the begats also have nothing to do with religion but rather a family tree.

oh yeah and the begats also have nothing to do with religion but rather a family tree.

So we agree ... what's the problem then?

Well you are wrong. According to jewish law you are considered jewish only if your mother is jewish, or if you convert. It does say so explicitly in the Tanakh, though I am having trouble finding the exact verse. If you would like check out:


Actually, the Reform movement recognizes the father as well. The law you are looking for isn't in Tanakh, it's in Talmud. However, Torah is the supreme authority when it comes to law and nothing in Torah says whether it is paternal or maternal. However, paternal is implied because Abraham - the first Jew - converted but Sarah did not (no record of it, anyway), hence, by the Talmudic decree of maternal lineage, Isaac was not a Jew.


:eek:

Actually, the Reform movement recognizes the father as well. The law you are looking for isn't in Tanakh, it's in Talmud. However, Torah is the supreme authority when it comes to law and nothing in Torah says whether it is paternal or maternal. However, paternal is implied because Abraham - the first Jew - converted but Sarah did not (no record of it, anyway), hence, by the Talmudic decree of maternal lineage, Isaac was not a Jew.


:eek:

I'm sure there's a midrash about it somewhere. ;)

In response to QahJoh, I thank you for the resources. I have read the article you sent regarding chosen people, and now that I see how little of an issue most jewish people consider it to be, I will avoid mention of it (and related issues) in further conversation. I also appreciate the english copy of the jewish bible. While obviously I am not going to read it any time soon, I'm sure it will come in handy some day in the future when I get curious about it again. :)

In response to QahJoh, I thank you for the resources. I have read the article you sent regarding chosen people, and now that I see how little of an issue most jewish people consider it to be, I will avoid mention of it (and related issues) in further conversation. I also appreciate the english copy of the jewish bible. While obviously I am not going to read it any time soon, I'm sure it will come in handy some day in the future when I get curious about it again. :)

Happy to help. Other general Jewish resources are the Jewish Virtual Library- http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ (a bit biased on some matters regarding modern Israeli politics, but generally quite solid info), as well as http://www.jewfaq.org

Feel free to telegram me with any questions or comments you might have.

Amazing how this hasn't erupted into an all out flame war. :eek:

Quite miraculous. Keep it civil, everyone.

Where's your pedigree, Christian? If you want to steal my birthright, then kiss my royal Irish ass.

An Irish Jew? I didn't know there existed such a thing.

Well ... as people have often pointed out ... I have a lot of free time on my hands. I set out to do my entire geneaology when I was 18 and I've gotten pretty far back in most branches. It gets tough, though, when you get back more than 4-5 generations. After all, the number of people doubles with every generation .... 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, 32 great-great-great-grandparents .... *whew*

I actually had to travel to Ireland to get most of that and even went to Greece so I could visit what was Scythia to go back further. Obviously some of it is simply biblical, but any geneaologist will tell you ... Adam is as good a stopping point as any!

I advise everyone research their families. It's amazing what you can find. As a great man once said, "Who we are is who we were."


Very nice. Also a load of crap. You don't have personal names from your ancestors in the 3rd century, much less earlier, likely not even until much later. You simply don't. And tracing your family heritage back to Adam is a bit ridiculuous. About when was Adam alive, huh? do you have dates on that? Why; that must mean you know exactly how old the Earth is! And since you can trace back to Adam, then you should be able to trace everyone's line forward from him, since you know all his children, and theirs, and so forth. Or wait, you mean there might have been other children somewhere in this ridiculous geneology that didn't make the records? Oh, you just got lucky then, and YOUR family tree is complete all the way back until the dawn of time. You make me laugh. Very funny post.

Amazing how this hasn't erupted into an all out flame war. :eek:

Quite miraculous. Keep it civil, everyone.


Well I was just about the only one to throw out anything overly flammable. however, rather than push forward blindly and stubbornly when things i say are shown inaccurate, im willing to change my attitude towards subjects when i recieve different information :)

I am a modern Jew. My mother is Jewish. I reject Jesus (or whatever you want to call him) hence, I am 1 Jew who is not "gathered to Israel" (by your definition) and as long as there's even 1 of us, there can be no Messiah.

Want my proof that I am an Israelite?

Okie dokie ....

My pedigree: (leaving out dates and all that)

1. Me
2. My mother (no names yet, for privacy reasons)
3. My mother's mother
4. My mother's mother's mother (now I'll start names, since the following are dead)
5. Mary Reilly
6. Harry Reilly
7. Benjamin Reilly
8. Jack Reilly
9. Fergus Reilly
10. Doyle Reilly
11. James Reilly (Veteran of the US Revolution)
12. Edward Reilly (First of this line in US)
13. Benjamin Reilly
14. Joseph Reilly
15. Henry Reilly
16. Horace Reilly
17. Myra Weymouth
18. Joseph Weymouth
19. Liam Weymouth
20. Heather Codd
21. William Codd
22. Gerald Codd
23. Wallace Codd
24. Edna de Neville
25. Margaret Raellagh
26. Sir Liam Raellagh
27. Domuil Aed Raellagh
28. Tomiafh O'Raellagh
29. Aed MacNiall O'Raellagh
30. Niall Raellagh
31. Godfred O' Raellagh [Godfred III], King of Man
32. Maek Sechnaill MacLochlainn, Queen of Cenel Eogain
33. Muirchertach MacLochlainn, 182nd Monarch of Ireland
34. Niall MacLochlainn, King of Tir Conaill
35. Domnall MacLochlainn, 179th Monarch of Ireland
36. Ardgar MacLochlainn, King of Ailech
37. Lochlann
38. Mael Sechnaill
39. Mael Ruanaid
40. Kenneth I MacAlpin
41. Flann
42. Domnall, King of Ailech
43. Aed Findlaith, 168th Monarch of Ireland
44. Niall Caille, 166th Monarch of Ireland
45. Aed Oirdnide, 164th Monarch of Ireland
46. Niall Frossach, 162nd Monarch of Ireland
47. Fergal, 156th Monarch of Ireland
48. Cacht
49. Cellach, 147th Monarch of Ireland
50. Mael Coba, 144th Monarch of Ireland
51. Aed, 140th Monarch of Ireland
52. Ainmere, 138th Monarch of Ireland
53. Ercc Dalriada
54. Setna
55. Fedhlimidh
56. Fergus Cennfota
57. Muredach II MacOwen
58. Conall Gulban, King of Tirconnel
59. Niall Noigiallach, 126th Monarch of Ireland
60. Eochaid Mugmedon, 124th Monarch of Ireland
61. Muiredach Tirech, 122nd Monarch of Ireland
62. Fiachu Sraiptime, 120th Monarch of Ireland
63. Cairbre Liffeachaire
64. Cormac Ulfhada MacArt
65. Art Aenfher, 112th Monarch of Ireland
66. Conn Cetchathach, 110th Monarch of Ireland
67. Fedelmid Rechtmar, 108th Monarch of Ireland
68. Tuathal Tecthmar, 106th Monarch of Ireland
69. Fiachu Findfolaid, 104th Monarch of Ireland
70. Feradach Finn Fechtnach, 102nd Monarch of Ireland
71. Crimthann Nia Naire, 100th Monarch of Ireland
72. Lugaid Reoderg, 98th Monarch of Ireland
73. Finn Emna MacEochaid Feidlech
74. Eochaid Feidlech, 93rd Monarch of Ireland
75. Finn MacFindloch
76. Findloch MacRoighean
77. Roighean Ruadh
78. Asaman Eamhna
79. Blathachta
80. Labraid Lorc
(The following are all pre-Jesus)
81. Enna Aignech, 84th Monarch of Ireland
82. Laebchor MacEochaid
83. Eochaid Altlethan [Eachaidh VIII], 79th Monarch of Ireland
84. Ailill Casfiaclach, 77th Monarch of Ireland
85. Condla Caem, 76th Monarch of Ireland
86. Irero Gleofathach, 74th Monarch of Ireland
87. Meilge, 71st Monarch of Ireland
88. Cobthach Caelbreg, 69th Monarch of Ireland
89. Ugaine Mor, 66th Monarch of Ireland
90. Eochaid Buadach
91. Dui Ladrach, 59th Monarch of Ireland
92. Fiachu Tolgrach, 55th Monarch of Ireland
93. Muiredach Bolgach, 46th Monarch of Ireland
94. Simon Brec, 44th Monarh of Ireland
95. Nuadu Finn Fail, 39th Monarch of Ireland
96. Giallchad, 37th Monarch of Ireland
97. Ailill Oalchlaen
98. Sirna Sirsaeglach, 34th Monarch of Ireland
99. Dian Denius
100. Deman
101. Rothechtaid Rigderg, 22nd Monarch of Ireland
102. Moen
103. Aengus Olmuccaid, 20th Monarch of Ireland
104. Fiachu Labriann
105. Smiorgoill
106. Eanbothadh
107. Tighearnmas
108. Follag
109. Eithral
110. Faifh “The Prophet”
111. Ereahmon
112. Mileadh
113. Bile
114. Breogan, King of Galicia
115. Bratha
116. Deaghata
117. Earchada
118. Aldoid
119. Nuadhat
120. Nenuaill
121. Ermhear Glas
122. Agnofinn
123. Lamhfinn
124. Agnamaan
125. Tait, King of Scythia
126. Ogamon, King of Scythia
127. Beogamon
128. Eibbher Swt
129. Sru
130. Esasru
131. Goadhal Glas
132. Niul
133. Phoeniusa Farsaidh, King of Scythia
134. Boath
135. Magog
136. Japheth
137. Noah
138. Lameth
139. Methuselah
140. Enoth
141. Jared
142. Mahalalel
143. Kenan
144. Enosh
145. Seth
146. Adam

So there it is. That represents over a decade of research and travel and I have substantiating documents to back it up.

Where's your pedigree, Christian? If you want to steal my birthright, then kiss my royal Irish ass.
How can one claim to be a Jew if descended from Japheth?

The greatest trouble with Irish geneology is the Four Courts Fire in 1923(?) destroyed all the records older than 50 years.

Thus, is is mainly conjecture...

An Irish Jew? I didn't know there existed such a thing.

Check out the documentary, "Shalom Ireland". I hear it's quite good.

An Irish Jew? I didn't know there existed such a thing.

Oh sure ... there are thousands of us. :)

The greatest trouble with Irish geneology is the Four Courts Fire in 1923(?) destroyed all the records older than 50 years.

Thus, is is mainly conjecture...


Not true. Court records are not the only source of lineage.

Jews don't believe in the messiah because they killed Jesus, and they want to be ashamed for cutting short the messiah's live ;) . If christianity is a cult why are they not persecuted like Jew's are.

I am a modern Jew. My mother is Jewish. I reject Jesus (or whatever you want to call him) hence, I am 1 Jew who is not "gathered to Israel" (by your definition) and as long as there's even 1 of us, there can be no Messiah.

Want my proof that I am an Israelite?

Okie dokie ....

My pedigree: (leaving out dates and all that)

1. Me
2. My mother (no names yet, for privacy reasons)
...
145. Seth
146. Adam

So there it is. That represents over a decade of research and travel and I have substantiating documents to back it up.

Where's your pedigree, Christian? If you want to steal my birthright, then kiss my royal Irish ass.

Jeez, you actually do believe that? Seriously? Please say that you do not! Please!!!

IF you do, I'd be delighted to see your "evidence"! Most interesting to know the sources of that pedigree! Laughable! Totally so!

Irish jew what is next Saudi Arabian Jew aah those papers are fake

Jeez, you actually do believe that? Seriously? Please say that you do not! Please!!!

IF you do, I'd be delighted to see your "evidence"! Most interesting to know the sources of that pedigree! Laughable! Totally so!


it doesn't matter, he's ignoring the voice of reason in favor of his ridiculous claims.

If christianity is a cult why are they not persecuted like Jew's are.


Good question, where should we begin? ;)

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp

In the wake of Mel Gibson's phenomenally successful film and the production company's ambitious plans to market the film worldwide to "the faithless," taking advantage of what is perhaps "the best Christian outreach opportunity in 2,000 years," it is important for Jews to understand why we don't believe in Jesus.

The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.


But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?

The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)

Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)

Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)

Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.

1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

________________________

2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2)

Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus was not a prophet; he appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)

C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

____________________

3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

B. SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44). Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.

For further reading, go to: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-ss.html

______________________

4) JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION

Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God's true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show -- assuming they are genuine -- is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.

Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).

Of the thousands of religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation -- i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.

Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):


The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.

What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us -- who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)


Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

For further reading: "Did God Speak at Mount Sinai?"

WAITING FOR THE MESSIAH

The world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. And to the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions asked of a Jew on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"

How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.

Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.

The Messiah can come any day, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: "Redemption will come today -- if you hearken to His voice."

For further study visit: Jews for Judaism

See also:

"You Are My Witness: The Traditional Jewish Response to Christian Missionaries" A booklet in pdf format by Yisroel C. Blumenthal

"The Real Messiah," by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan

"The Path of the Righteous Gentile," by Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky

FOOTNOTES

1.Maimonides devotes much of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).

2. In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:


a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:


a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's.

b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

and excelent post moskoka. I ususally don't read these religion threads, but this was great. Did you write this, or copy and paste?

it doesn't matter, he's ignoring the voice of reason in favor of his ridiculous claims.

No ... I'm ignoring people who clearly have no clue how geneaology works ... ignorance is not an option.

Why should I debate my bloodline? It makes no sense. It's like me telling you to prove who your dad is. I've done the work, you just take your mom's word for it. *shrug*

Keruvalia, I don't want to be harsh on your inspired original post, but I always thought that the Jewish people started with Abraham, and you don't list Abraham in your list of ancestors (someone else hinted at this, but you didn't respond). Biblically, we're all descended from Noah, as somone else said.

On the original point, some Jews do believe that Jesus Christ (Yeshua ha'Meshiach in the Hebrew) is the Jewish Messiah predicted in the Torah and the Prophets. I've been to Israel and met some of them, they really do exist. Whether they call themselves Christians (not common), Messianic Jews (fairly common), or Jewish followers of Yeshua is not the issue. Some worship God like American Christians, some worship Him like Orthodox Jews and add "Yeshua" onto some of the prayers, but the category whose existence you disputed is alive and well (and growing), living in the lands of Judea and Samaria (I won't get into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict here).

And to answer Busayo, Christians are persecuted today in many predominantly Muslim countries, as well as China.

Keruvalia, I don't want to be harsh on your inspired original post, but I always thought that the Jewish people started with Abraham, and you don't list Abraham in your list of ancestors (someone else hinted at this, but you didn't respond). Biblically, we're all descended from Noah, as somone else said.

Like I said in the post ... I didn't include all the gritty details. It would have taken up way too much space. The first Jew on the line I gave was Eochaid Altlethan [Eachaidh VIII], who converted when he married Tamar Tephi, Princess of Judah, around 8 BCE. I went ahead and included his line back to Adam as a copy/paste from my own documents - just for interest. Pardon my lack of inclusion of that tidbit.

On the original point, some Jews do believe that Jesus Christ (Yeshua ha'Meshiach in the Hebrew) is the Jewish Messiah predicted in the Torah and the Prophets. I've been to Israel and met some of them, they really do exist. Whether they call themselves Christians (not common), Messianic Jews (fairly common), or Jewish followers of Yeshua is not the issue. Some worship God like American Christians, some worship Him like Orthodox Jews and add "Yeshua" onto some of the prayers, but the category whose existence you disputed is alive and well (and growing), living in the lands of Judea and Samaria (I won't get into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict here).

Actually, the haMessianic movement was started by Baptists in the 1800s as a method of converting Jews to Christianity. The acceptance of a new Prophet who came around after God declared there would be no more Prophets makes a person, by Jewish law, no longer Jewish. Also, by Jewish law, anyone who believes the Messiah has come and gone makes a person no longer Jewish.

Scripture is very clear on the Messiah and, according the general Christian concensus, Jesus fulfilled about 30 of the messianic prophecies. Great ... there are close to 90. If a person fails to fulfill even 1 messianic prophecy, then they are not the Messiah. It's all in Tanakh.

Now, I'm not a practicing Jew by any stretch of the imagination, but I am a Jew nonetheless.

Like I said in the post ... I didn't include all the gritty details. It would have taken up way too much space. The first Jew on the line I gave was Eochaid Altlethan [Eachaidh VIII], who converted when he married Tamar Tephi, Princess of Judah, around 8 BCE. I went ahead and included his line back to Adam as a copy/paste from my own documents - just for interest. Pardon my lack of inclusion of that tidbit.



Actually, the haMessianic movement was started by Baptists in the 1800s as a method of converting Jews to Christianity. The acceptance of a new Prophet who came around after God declared there would be no more Prophets makes a person, by Jewish law, no longer Jewish. Also, by Jewish law, anyone who believes the Messiah has come and gone makes a person no longer Jewish.

Scripture is very clear on the Messiah and, according the general Christian concensus, Jesus fulfilled about 30 of the messianic prophecies. Great ... there are close to 90. If a person fails to fulfill even 1 messianic prophecy, then they are not the Messiah. It's all in Tanakh.

Now, I'm not a practicing Jew by any stretch of the imagination, but I am a Jew nonetheless.

I accept your point about the conversion of your turn-of-the-millenium ancestor.

The ha-Messianic movement started in about 31 A.D.; it's more commonly called Christianity these days. All the first followers of Yeshua were Jews; Gentiles came later. Those followers of Yeshua, like Saul of Tarsus, who was renamed Paul, definitely still considered themselves Jews, but they found allegiance to their Messiah to be more important than their Jewishness, just as I am a Christian first, then an Englishman.
My point is that those Jews I talked about in my first post DO believe that Yeshua fulfills the Messianic prophecies; it's a disputed issue, with arguments on both sides. I imagine they either reject the interpretation of Jewish law that says they're not Jews, or they disregard it, because their faith in Yeshua is more important.
BTW, you are not the ultimate authority on who counts as Jewish, and neither is any Jewish scholar you care to quote. That role is filled by El-Shaddai himself, the great HE IS.

Jews don't believe in the messiah because they killed Jesus, and they want to be ashamed for cutting short the messiah's live ;) . If christianity is a cult why are they not persecuted like Jew's are.

there is no proof that Jesus existed and in your NT bible the romans killed him crucifixion is the roman way of execution not the jewish way

and excelent post moskoka. I ususally don't read these religion threads, but this was great. Did you write this, or copy and paste?



I copy and paste

BTW, you are not the ultimate authority on who counts as Jewish, and neither is any Jewish scholar you care to quote. That role is filled by El-Shaddai himself, the great HE IS.

I'm pretty sure I'm the ultimate authority on whether I, personally, am Jewish or not. As for God's authority, I don't recognize it, so that whole argument is moot.

For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why? .simply because thats what they choose to beleive, Leave the Jews alone, I was Religious Choice, and you should respect that.

Keruvalia, I don't want to be harsh on your inspired original post, but I always thought that the Jewish people started with Abraham, and you don't list Abraham in your list of ancestors (someone else hinted at this, but you didn't respond). Biblically, we're all descended from Noah, as somone else said.

On the original point, some Jews do believe that Jesus Christ (Yeshua ha'Meshiach in the Hebrew) is the Jewish Messiah predicted in the Torah and the Prophets. I've been to Israel and met some of them, they really do exist. Whether they call themselves Christians (not common), Messianic Jews (fairly common), or Jewish followers of Yeshua is not the issue. Some worship God like American Christians, some worship Him like Orthodox Jews and add "Yeshua" onto some of the prayers, but the category whose existence you disputed is alive and well (and growing), living in the lands of Judea and Samaria (I won't get into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict here).

And to answer Busayo, Christians are persecuted today in many predominantly Muslim countries, as well as China.

The comment about Messianic Jews that someone made about them being inspired by Baptists is correct. While your comment about early Christians being called Jews (although I would dispute their Jewishness, but that is irrelevant) is also true, that was quite a bit more than 1000 years. THe modern Messianic "Jewish" movement was, in fact, created by Baptists as a proselytizing tool.

According to their reasoning, if the earliest Christians were able to gradually change from Jews to Christians, it might be possible to recreate that process and slowly convert Jews without forcing them to make a choice between their religion and social norms. Messianic Jews are NOT Jews, they are several steps on the path to Christianity. Eventually most of the people in this movement will have moved so closely to Christianity that they will cease to call themselves Jews (as generations go by their children will feel less of a connection to Judaism and more of one to Christianity, which is only natural as they espouse Christian ideology).

Jews don't believe in the messiah because they killed Jesus, and they want to be ashamed for cutting short the messiah's live ;) . If christianity is a cult why are they not persecuted like Jew's are.

I really do hope this was a joke, albeit a bad one.

Since when were the Irish kings Jewish? Are you a practicing Jew? and when did you begin practicing?

That's exactly my question, and how can one become a Jew through a king? Don't you become you through you mother?

I've actually seen the "traditional lineage of Irish kings" that Kervalia posted in the past; I believe the authenticity is more traditional than documented. Much as was probably the lineage that traces Noah back to Adam. Would either hold up to DNA scrutiny? Probably not. Should they be completely dismissed as bunkum altogether, then? I don't see why.

Personally, this has reminded me of something fun this Irish girl can show her Jewish boyfriend who keeps getting freaked out when he finds out I know about things like "midrash". :)

I'm pretty sure I'm the ultimate authority on whether I, personally, am Jewish or not. As for God's authority, I don't recognize it, so that whole argument is moot.

So, and I hope I'm not misrepresenting or misunderstanding you, you are a Jew who invokes Jewish law in order to determine the identity of the Messiah, but you yourself do not recognise the authority of God, the One who selects the Messiah.
Do you see any contradiction here? If not, are you saying that Jewish law is more important, and more relevant, than God's authority? How many Jews agree with you on this point?
This is not meant to be a cynical flame. I don't understand the logic of your position.

Yeah it was a joke but is it true that Jews killed Jesus

[Keruvalia #74]
I am a modern Jew. My mother is Jewish. I reject Jesus (or whatever you want to call him) hence, I am 1 Jew who is not "gathered to Israel" (by your definition) and as long as there's even 1 of us, there can be no Messiah.

Want my proof that I am an Israelite?

Okie dokie ....

My pedigree: (leaving out dates and all that)

1. Me
2. My mother (no names yet, for privacy reasons)
3. My mother's mother
4. My mother's mother's mother (now I'll start names, since the following are dead)
5. Mary Reilly
6. Harry Reilly
7. Benjamin Reilly
8. Jack Reilly
9. Fergus Reilly
10. Doyle Reilly
11. James Reilly (Veteran of the US Revolution)
12. Edward Reilly (First of this line in US)
13. Benjamin Reilly
14. Joseph Reilly
15. Henry Reilly
16. Horace Reilly
17. Myra Weymouth
18. Joseph Weymouth
19. Liam Weymouth
20. Heather Codd
21. William Codd
22. Gerald Codd
23. Wallace Codd
24. Edna de Neville
25. Margaret Raellagh
26. Sir Liam Raellagh
27. Domuil Aed Raellagh
28. Tomiafh O'Raellagh
29. Aed MacNiall O'Raellagh
30. Niall Raellagh
31. Godfred O' Raellagh [Godfred III], King of Man
32. Maek Sechnaill MacLochlainn, Queen of Cenel Eogain
33. Muirchertach MacLochlainn, 182nd Monarch of Ireland
34. Niall MacLochlainn, King of Tir Conaill
35. Domnall MacLochlainn, 179th Monarch of Ireland
36. Ardgar MacLochlainn, King of Ailech
37. Lochlann
38. Mael Sechnaill
39. Mael Ruanaid
40. Kenneth I MacAlpin
41. Flann
42. Domnall, King of Ailech
43. Aed Findlaith, 168th Monarch of Ireland
44. Niall Caille, 166th Monarch of Ireland
45. Aed Oirdnide, 164th Monarch of Ireland
46. Niall Frossach, 162nd Monarch of Ireland
47. Fergal, 156th Monarch of Ireland
48. Cacht
49. Cellach, 147th Monarch of Ireland
50. Mael Coba, 144th Monarch of Ireland
51. Aed, 140th Monarch of Ireland
52. Ainmere, 138th Monarch of Ireland
53. Ercc Dalriada
54. Setna
55. Fedhlimidh
56. Fergus Cennfota
57. Muredach II MacOwen
58. Conall Gulban, King of Tirconnel
59. Niall Noigiallach, 126th Monarch of Ireland
60. Eochaid Mugmedon, 124th Monarch of Ireland
61. Muiredach Tirech, 122nd Monarch of Ireland
62. Fiachu Sraiptime, 120th Monarch of Ireland
63. Cairbre Liffeachaire
64. Cormac Ulfhada MacArt
65. Art Aenfher, 112th Monarch of Ireland
66. Conn Cetchathach, 110th Monarch of Ireland
67. Fedelmid Rechtmar, 108th Monarch of Ireland
68. Tuathal Tecthmar, 106th Monarch of Ireland
69. Fiachu Findfolaid, 104th Monarch of Ireland
70. Feradach Finn Fechtnach, 102nd Monarch of Ireland
71. Crimthann Nia Naire, 100th Monarch of Ireland
72. Lugaid Reoderg, 98th Monarch of Ireland
73. Finn Emna MacEochaid Feidlech
74. Eochaid Feidlech, 93rd Monarch of Ireland
75. Finn MacFindloch
76. Findloch MacRoighean
77. Roighean Ruadh
78. Asaman Eamhna
79. Blathachta
80. Labraid Lorc
(The following are all pre-Jesus)
81. Enna Aignech, 84th Monarch of Ireland
82. Laebchor MacEochaid
83. Eochaid Altlethan [Eachaidh VIII], 79th Monarch of Ireland
84. Ailill Casfiaclach, 77th Monarch of Ireland
85. Condla Caem, 76th Monarch of Ireland
86. Irero Gleofathach, 74th Monarch of Ireland
87. Meilge, 71st Monarch of Ireland
88. Cobthach Caelbreg, 69th Monarch of Ireland
89. Ugaine Mor, 66th Monarch of Ireland
90. Eochaid Buadach
91. Dui Ladrach, 59th Monarch of Ireland
92. Fiachu Tolgrach, 55th Monarch of Ireland
93. Muiredach Bolgach, 46th Monarch of Ireland
94. Simon Brec, 44th Monarh of Ireland
95. Nuadu Finn Fail, 39th Monarch of Ireland
96. Giallchad, 37th Monarch of Ireland
97. Ailill Oalchlaen
98. Sirna Sirsaeglach, 34th Monarch of Ireland
99. Dian Denius
100. Deman
101. Rothechtaid Rigderg, 22nd Monarch of Ireland
102. Moen
103. Aengus Olmuccaid, 20th Monarch of Ireland
104. Fiachu Labriann
105. Smiorgoill
106. Eanbothadh
107. Tighearnmas
108. Follag
109. Eithral
110. Faifh “The Prophet”
111. Ereahmon
112. Mileadh
113. Bile
114. Breogan, King of Galicia
115. Bratha
116. Deaghata
117. Earchada
118. Aldoid
119. Nuadhat
120. Nenuaill
121. Ermhear Glas
122. Agnofinn
123. Lamhfinn
124. Agnamaan
125. Tait, King of Scythia
126. Ogamon, King of Scythia
127. Beogamon
128. Eibbher Swt
129. Sru
130. Esasru
131. Goadhal Glas
132. Niul
133. Phoeniusa Farsaidh, King of Scythia
134. Boath
135. Magog
136. Japheth
137. Noah
138. Lameth
139. Methuselah
140. Enoth
141. Jared
142. Mahalalel
143. Kenan
144. Enosh
145. Seth
146. Adam

So there it is. That represents over a decade of research and travel and I have substantiating documents to back it up.

Where's your pedigree, Christian? If you want to steal my birthright, then kiss my royal Irish ass.

Woof..! :D

How you doin' cousin..!?

Your great-great-great-great^6th-grandmother and mine,.... sisters..!

Good to see one of the clan keepin' track of things..!

who ever got this record should have given us a list of websites or paper sources, because who knows i may be related to Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey

My point is that those Jews I talked about in my first post DO believe that Yeshua fulfills the Messianic prophecies; it's a disputed issue, with arguments on both sides. I imagine they either reject the interpretation of Jewish law that says they're not Jews, or they disregard it, because their faith in Yeshua is more important.
BTW, you are not the ultimate authority on who counts as Jewish, and neither is any Jewish scholar you care to quote. That role is filled by El-Shaddai himself, the great HE IS.

Irrelevant to Keruvalia's point, which was about the more-or-less uniform position among the world's Jewish population (both those who adhere to Jewish law and those who don't), which is that Judaism and belief in Christ as the Messiah are more or less incompatible. Of course Messianic Jews can- and do- believe they're Jews. That doesn't necessarily make it so- any more than the fact that non-Messianic Jews generally agree that Messianics aren't real Jews. All Keruvalia did was point out the general Jewish consensus and opinion.

You are essentially arguing that no one can have an opinion about ANYONE else- a white person claiming to be black, for instance, since, no black person has the "ultimate authority" on who is black. Obviously. But there can be an established position that the BLACK COMMUNITY has on who they recognize as BEING black. That's what we're talking about.

Yeah it was a joke but is it true that Jews killed Jesus

It depends who you ask and what books you read. There's certainly nothing conclusive to show that the Jews actually killed him, although they may have had some role in events that led up to his death. The important thing to remember is that the Jews weren't in charge- of anything- at that point. Anything that happened happened under the ultimate authority of the Roman government.

So, and I hope I'm not misrepresenting or misunderstanding you, you are a Jew who invokes Jewish law in order to determine the identity of the Messiah, but you yourself do not recognise the authority of God, the One who selects the Messiah.
Do you see any contradiction here? If not, are you saying that Jewish law is more important, and more relevant, than God's authority? How many Jews agree with you on this point?
This is not meant to be a cynical flame. I don't understand the logic of your position.


Nod ... and it may seem as such ... however, give me a moment to explain.

When arguing the case of the Jewish Messiah, you cannot use any other authority than Jewish Law. Otherwise, it's like asking a judge in England to make a ruling on American law or, even better, using Milton's "Paradise Lost" to prove points in the Book of Revelations.

Jewish Law, as those who practice Judaism believes comes from God, is the only authority on that which is the Jewish Messiah. Now, I personally do not recognize the validity of the God of Torah (disclaimer: in my life) and, hence, do not recognize the validity of any Jewish Messiah - whether self-proclaimed or not. However, if by all Jewish law, a person comes around and fulfills every single one of the Jewish Messianic prophecies, then I will say, "Hey! Good for the Jews!" and smile. It wouldn't change my beliefs in any way, though.

I hope that makes some reasonable semblance of sense as to the logic of my argument. :)

who ever got this record should have given us a list of websites or paper sources, because who knows i may be related to Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey

Geneaology is very limited over the web. What do you want me to do, snail mail you copies of all of my notes and everything I've collected from the US, Ireland, Greece, and Israel over the last 14 years?

TG me an address and I'll be more than happy ... but you pay shipping.

For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?.


Because they were the ones who killed him!

Jewish Dude: "Yay! Jesus is dead!"
Angel: "You killed the messiah"
Jewish Dude: " WHAT??! Uh,, hmm. No! Jesus wasn't the messiah. Yeah, that's the ticket! That wasn't him, it was somebody else! That whole raised from the dead thing was just lucky!

You want to know my bloodline. Here it is right from predestination.
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15 For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God:
17 and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him , that we may be also glorified with him .

I believe in every miracle from Moses to Jesus. Didn't you as a nation see Jesus doing miracles just as you saw Moses? Didn't you see him in Jerusalem and Galilee? When you said he made paste and he violated "shabat" THAT WAS ALL YOU SAW. You are CORRECT you didn't see the miracles because you didn't want to see the blind man healed and you didn't think it was "necessary". It is only because of your own unbelief. I know of alot of messianic Jews who accept Christ as thier Lord and Savior along with the Torah. And they believe he fulfilled all of their prophecies. Are you not the Holy people who brought the Final Sacrifice the blood of the lamb for the entire world's sins? You did your job as priests. You protected your bloodline and finally brought forth the Messiah. Unfortunately only a small remnant of your people who believe in thier purpose will be saved. It is predicted in Zechariah.

You want to know my bloodline. Here it is right from predestination.
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
15 For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God:
17 and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him , that we may be also glorified with him .


*shrug*

I saw David Blaine levitate ... nothing miraculous. I watched my wife and I create life three times using a simple sperm (not life) and an egg (not life), thus creating life where there was no life before - something Jesus never did. Yet, that's simple biology, and doesn't make me the Messiah. I've seen doctors put together pastes and salves and medicines that heal the sick, it doesn't make them God.

I don't reject your Messiah. Rejection implies a deliberate act of rebellion. Jesus is not something I even consider, hence, it is not rejection but merely abstinance. I find the whole idea silly, but if it brings you comfort, so be it. For believing it to be ultimate cosmic truth for all people, I simply pity you.

I also pity you that suffering must be part of your salvation. It seems to me that you have a very pathetic and whiney God. Any deity who says, "worship me or I'll take my ball and go home" is just sad and a waste of my and my children's time.

Yet, there is nothing wrong in my life. I am happy, healthy, with a great marriage, wonderful children, a loving home, and feel no emptiness.

As I said .... *shrug*

Are you telling me jesus was never mentioned in the Jewish Bible. No one rose from the dead after three days, is there a cure for Leprosy today, no but jesus healed the lepers, there are lots of people disabled, jesus healed those in his time. who died on the cross, jesus of course, this is why the Bible has been misinterpreted to favour different religions.

; Jesus was born as a Jew, and died as a Jew. People are anit-semetic because they envy!
After, when Christianity started...Christains were considered as Jews, who believed Jesus was the messiah, for the first couple centuries.

Nod ... and it may seem as such ... however, give me a moment to explain.

When arguing the case of the Jewish Messiah, you cannot use any other authority than Jewish Law. Otherwise, it's like asking a judge in England to make a ruling on American law or, even better, using Milton's "Paradise Lost" to prove points in the Book of Revelations.

Jewish Law, as those who practice Judaism believes comes from God, is the only authority on that which is the Jewish Messiah. Now, I personally do not recognize the validity of the God of Torah (disclaimer: in my life) and, hence, do not recognize the validity of any Jewish Messiah - whether self-proclaimed or not. However, if by all Jewish law, a person comes around and fulfills every single one of the Jewish Messianic prophecies, then I will say, "Hey! Good for the Jews!" and smile. It wouldn't change my beliefs in any way, though.

I hope that makes some reasonable semblance of sense as to the logic of my argument. :)

Okay, you don't accept the authority of the God of the Torah over your life; I disagree with you, but I understand your position there.

This will almost definitely offend some people.

My claim is that Judaism has undergone major transformations since the time of Jesus. The current Orthodox Jewish interpretations of the Tenakh are deliberately prejudiced against the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. This has come about for a number of reasons, including the desire not to lose power, and people, to the new 'sect', but also the rise of hostility in non-Jewish Christians towards Jews which started to happen when Gentiles outnumbered Jews in the early church, and sadly continues to this day in some denominations.

For the record, I think God loves all races and ethnic groups equally and enormously (though not all behaviours and not all cultural practices), and if there's any race He considers special or 'chosen', it's the Jews.

However, due to this prejudice against Jesus, I don't consider most Jewish commentary on the Tenakh to be valid. Post-Temple Judaism has defined itself in opposition to Christianity to a large extent, and a lot of the blame for that error is due to the attitude of Christians towards Jews down the centuries, but this bias has warped rabbinical teaching.

You HAVE rejected Jesus, Keruvalia; "I find the whole idea silly" sounds like a rejection to me. "It seems to me that you have a very pathetic and whiney God" is a rejection of the God of the Bible, Tenakh (OT) or Brit Hadassah (NT); you are not on the fence. There is no fence.

I am a modern Jew. My mother is Jewish. I reject Jesus (or whatever you want to call him) hence, I am 1 Jew who is not "gathered to Israel" (by your definition) and as long as there's even 1 of us, there can be no Messiah.

Want my proof that I am an Israelite?

Okie dokie ....

My pedigree: (leaving out dates and all that)....

...

So there it is. That represents over a decade of research and travel and I have substantiating documents to back it up.

Where's your pedigree, Christian? If you want to steal my birthright, then kiss my royal Irish ass.

Hahaha.
One of the most amusing things I have read in ages.
Why?
1. You claim to have documents from areas and times that were illiterate.
2. Your opening line contends that you are Jewish, and your closing one that you are Irish. In between, you claim American.
3. Your supposed list of Irish kings is garbage.
4. You claim descent from Adam - presumably you can produce birth certificates for his children ?


Thanks for the laugh.

Are you telling me jesus was never mentioned in the Jewish Bible. No one rose from the dead after three days, is there a cure for Leprosy today, no but jesus healed the lepers, there are lots of people disabled, jesus healed those in his time. who died on the cross, jesus of course, this is why the Bible has been misinterpreted to favour different religions.

Jesus is not mentioned in the Jewish Bible. At all. If you think he is, please give chapter and verse.

There is a cure for leprosy (Hansen's Disease) today just as there is a cure written of in Leviticus (part of the Jewish Bible). Lots of people with disablities are cured today. Even Christopher Reeves is getting better. Nothing miraculous, just medical science.

Thousands of people died on the cross. Thousands.

1. You claim to have documents from areas and times that were illiterate.

At no time in recorded history has the entirety of the planet been illiterate. A few places here and there, but one country's history does not the world's history make.

2. Your opening line contends that you are Jewish, and your closing one that you are Irish. In between, you claim American.

I was born in Texas, that makes me an American. My mother is Jewish, that makes me Jewish. My bloodline is Irish and Caddo (Native America). I can claim all four. What's your problem?

3. Your supposed list of Irish kings is garbage.

What makes you think so?

4. You claim descent from Adam - presumably you can produce birth certificates for his children ?

Of course not. However, birth certificates are not the end-all of proof of someone being born or having lived. Substantiating documentation is acceptable. In many cases, prior to the 1600s, the only way you know a person was alive is because they have a marked grave. It's proof that they lived. Otherwise, they would not have died. Another good indication is historical text. You could never show me the birth certificate of Alexander of Macedonia (Alexander the Great), but everyone knows who he was, when he lived, and what he accomplished.

Thanks for the laugh.

Likewise.

At no time in recorded history has the entirety of the planet been illiterate. A few places here and there, but one country's history does not the world's history make.



I was born in Texas, that makes me an American. My mother is Jewish, that makes me Jewish. My bloodline is Irish and Caddo (Native America). I can claim all four. What's your problem?



What makes you think so?



Of course not. However, birth certificates are not the end-all of proof of someone being born or having lived. Substantiating documentation is acceptable. In many cases, prior to the 1600s, the only way you know a person was alive is because they have a marked grave. It's proof that they lived. Otherwise, they would not have died. Another good indication is historical text. You could never show me the birth certificate of Alexander of Macedonia (Alexander the Great), but everyone knows who he was, when he lived, and what he accomplished.



Likewise.


You claimed "I have substantiating documents to back it up." I claim that that is impossible for some of the times and places that you claim. Prove me wrong.

I advise everyone research their families. It's amazing what you can find. As a great man once said, "Who we are is who we were."
Unfortunately, there's a major problem with me trying to do that. Parts of my family go back to Gypsies, adoptions or completely war-torn areas. That leaves me only my fraternal grandfather, which is a single quarter of my bloodline. I don't even think much of any of my bloodline was actually written into any family trees. Any advice?

Unfortunately, there's a major problem with me trying to do that. Parts of my family go back to Gypsies, adoptions or completely war-torn areas. That leaves me only my fraternal grandfather, which is a single quarter of my bloodline. I don't even think much of any of my bloodline was actually written into any family trees. Any advice?

Make it up as you go along.
Seems to work for some.

Just a tag, just in case. I might try to come up with a rebuttal eventually.

Make it up as you go along.
Seems to work for some.
I doubt that'd work, but okay. Hey, that's why I'm already part Maltese (unfortunately, the only people who actually know are dead).

there is no proof that Jesus existed and in your NT bible the romans killed him crucifixion is the roman way of execution not the jewish way
Yes, but according to the NT bible, the Jews were the ones who claimed Jesus to be a heretic. He was brought to the Romans, who didn't care. The Jews were offered the choice of freeing either Jesus or a sadistic murderer from crucifixion. Guess which one they freed and, if you get it right, you can have a cookie. The Jews didn't even have a death penalty, so they had to get the Romans to do it, and they didn't care about either belief.

And, I believe there is proof that Jesus existed, but, damnit, I don't know what it is yet, severely ruining my argument. There is little proof that he was the Messiah, however.

On a side note, I examined the pedigree. I assumed two things; that Adam existed from about the dawn of civilization (which [surprise!] occurs at the same time as Humanity) (makes sense, eh?), which was about 2 million years ago, and that each generation was, on average, 40 years long, despite the average being closer to 30. There are 146 generations; 146 times 40 equals 5,840. Not even close. Are those, seriously, every generation you have?

On a side note, I examined the pedigree. I assumed two things; that Adam existed from about the dawn of civilization (which [surprise!] occurs at the same time as Humanity) (makes sense, eh?), which was about 2 million years ago, and that each generation was, on average, 40 years long, despite the average being closer to 30. There are 146 generations; 146 times 40 equals 5,840. Not even close. Are those, seriously, every generation you have?

Yup. However, like I said, there's no way to go beyond Adam and, technically, the only substantiating documentation from Boath to Adam is only the begats of the Bible.

I'm not saying that the generations enumerated from Boath to Adam are absolute, but as I said before, once you reach a certain point, Biblical begats are acceptable to genaeologists. That's all I've got so far, but until I find other evidence that shows me Phoeniusa Farsaidh was not the son of Boath, then I must accept its validity.

You claimed "I have substantiating documents to back it up." I claim that that is impossible for some of the times and places that you claim. Prove me wrong.


You claim it's impossible ... back up your own claims.

<The messiah will...> C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease.
So, we can assume that G W Bush ain't the messiah then!

Unfortunately, there's a major problem with me trying to do that. Parts of my family go back to Gypsies, adoptions or completely war-torn areas. That leaves me only my fraternal grandfather, which is a single quarter of my bloodline. I don't even think much of any of my bloodline was actually written into any family trees. Any advice?

Ah! A very difficult problem indeed. Adoptions without documentation are extremely difficult unless there is someone still alive who remembers and war can tear apart a lot of records.

I advise you go back as far as you can in each branch of your family. Once you reach a block in one branch, move to the next. Once you've blocked all paths to as far back as you can, then you have to start going to where those blocks lived. For instance, if your great-grandmother was born in the Ukraine and you cannot find out who her parents were, then you might have to travel to the Ukraine in order to talk to locals or look in local courts.

In some of the cases in my lineage, I've had to find old prison records! Not an easy thing to do, but with enough persistence, you can do it. Only advise I can really give is: Genaeologists have no other hobbies. :)

And, no, don't just "make it up". You'll be cheating yourself and your posterity.

Yes, but according to the NT bible, the Jews were the ones who claimed Jesus to be a heretic. He was brought to the Romans, who didn't care... ... The Jews didn't even have a death penalty, so they had to get the Romans to do it, and they didn't care about either belief.

And, I believe there is proof that Jesus existed, ...

On a side note, I examined the pedigree. I assumed two things; that Adam existed from about the dawn of civilization (which [surprise!] occurs at the same time as Humanity) (makes sense, eh?), which was about 2 million years ago, and that each generation was, on average, 40 years long, despite the average being closer to 30. There are 146 generations; 146 times 40 equals 5,840. Not even close. Are those, seriously, every generation you have?

Couple of points.
1. The Jews did have a death penalty. It took the form of stoning. However, the Romans were the government and reserved civilian cases (as opposed to religious ones) to themselves, and they were the "law". The execution was by cruxifiction, a Roman method, and the "crime" was claiming to be the king of the Jews, which would have been viewed as treason/rebellion by the Romans.

2. Jesus, and early Christians are mentioned by several Roman historians of the time, who regarded Christians as a particularly strange cult. IIRC Seutonius comes to mind. The Romans were generally (but not always) tolerant of other religions (no objection to the Jews practising their religion for example).

3. You really cannot compare scientific theory (origins of humanity) to the Bible. The Bible, as you have correctly surmised, gives the earth a total life span of around 6000 years. Belive either the Bible in its most literal sense, or the science, as you prefer. I know where my money is.

What amazes me is that if someone can't wrap their minds around something, they automatically debunk it as "impossible".

What a very ... Christian attitude.

"I can't do it, so it must be impossible!" :rolleyes:

Nice. How very progressive. [/sarcasm]

i'm just glad i don't believe either side
*goes back to daily life*

Rebuild the temple in 3 days, after he destroyed it - it was destroyed on the same day he died, he rose in 3 days - he became the Temple, for we all reach YHWH trough Yahsha.

Gather all of the ISRAELITES TO ISRAEL - not Jews, not Jewry, they are not Israelites, well 90% are not. He told the Apostles to go and seek the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.

He was well versed in Torah Law, in fact more than the High Priest, whom Yahsha shot down on so many occasions, even with one comment.

Be a Great Military Leader - He defeated the worst Enemy known - Satan, that would class him as a military Leader.

---
The reason the Modern Jews don't want Yahsha to be known as the Messiah is because he knew who they really were!
if he defeated satan then how come the latter is still around? and if not, shouldn't we all be holy? It wasn't destroyed in the same day he died. read on history carefully. gotta go now

You claim it's impossible ... back up your own claims.

No need. YOU have already stated "Yup. However, like I said, there's no way to go beyond Adam and, technically, the only substantiating documentation from Boath to Adam is only the begats of the Bible.

I'm not saying that the generations enumerated from Boath to Adam are absolute, but as I said before, once you reach a certain point, Biblical begats are acceptable"

Perhaps you could enlighten us on your supposed documentary evidence claiming descent from Irish kings. How did you obtain such documents?

Perhaps you could enlighten us on your supposed documentary evidence claiming descent from Irish kings. How did you obtain such documents?

I started from myself and worked backwards in time. It's really a very simple concept. If you know who your mother is, you ask her who her mother is. If she knows who her mother is, then you ask her mother who her mother is.

This goes on until you have to start asking the dead. In order to do that, you generally need to look up court records like birth certificates. You may reach a point where a person was born, but there is no actual birth certificate. Once you reach this point, then you start looking to graveyards, death records, baptismal certificates, old letters, family Bibles (many birth/death records are kept in family Bibles), and - if you're lucky - you find that you've reached a point where a distant cousin and your line link up and you can consult with them on the hundreds of thousands of genaeology wesbites, chat lounges, message boards, and other such things. In some cases, you have to travel to other countries and obtain records and whatnot. Sometimes this comes with a fee, sometimes it's free. Sometimes you find something buried in the attic of an 8th cousin who thinks it's really cool that they have an American cousin and will let that cousin rifle through their family records.

ancestry.com, rootsweb.com, familytree.com and many other sich sites abound on the internet where your 10th cousin may have information that you haven't found yet. All it comes down to is dilligence, persistence, and the desire to discover your roots. Sometimes you get blocked. I'm blocked on one line a mere 4 generations back and blocked on another in the 1620s because of a discrepancy in spelling on an old Virginia land title document.

Don't discount something just because you're too lazy to do it.

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp

>>SNIP for brevety<<
Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.


I just want to point out that this whole "BCE" thing is irrational and pointless.

* Saying BCE "Before Common Era" still measures time the same as "BC -- Before Christ". Sure, you're taking out the "Christ" part, but you're still measuring time by him!

* Every world government ahears to the standard international date format of BC/AD. While there are other calendar systems in use here and there, no official business is done in them on a global level (or usually even national).

* I'd have no trouble if you said year 3455 on the Jewish calendar. I'm just really against not calling a spade a spade.
(http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970115)

In summation, look at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm for their take on it. I consider this the usual politically correct GARBAGE that is being forced upon society by an overly zealous left wing.
Perhaps if we all spent time BEING tolerant instead of talking about it, it wouldn't be neccesary.
The point I'm making is that you do NOT have the right to not be offended. It is not in the Constitution, nor anywhere else. Not in the US? Fine. Show me where in your nation's documents you have the right to not be offended, and I'll seriously consider moving there. Or sending you Rosie O'Donnell. :)

I'm all for TOLERANCE. However, tolerance does not mean devolving into a 1984/Orwellian "doubleplusgood" language tempest. How would you feel if my religious group (all 3 of us) decided we were offended by the existence of the word "purple" and demanded it now be called "dark interwoven pink and blue" for the sake of being PC? Absurd? Open this Pandora's Box and there is no end to it.

BTW: There are many other calendars in use. A good place to see what day it is at: http://www.ecben.net/calendar.shtml . (Though it does have some broken links).

... I'm sorry, this is just nails across the chalkboard for me. I do not mean to offend anyone by this post.

Christianity and Islam are mainstream cults...

Is judaaism anything more than a racist doctrine that accidently got recognized as a religion? (claiming that they are the children of god, insisting on a 'pure' bloodline, massacring unknown numbers of people in the name of god, etc)

Umm...watch who you insult.

Christians and Muslims have killed plenty in the name of God.

Don't hold Jews to a standard you don't even measure up to. You risk being called a hypocrite.

Well ... as people have often pointed out ... I have a lot of free time on my hands. I set out to do my entire geneaology when I was 18 and I've gotten pretty far back in most branches. It gets tough, though, when you get back more than 4-5 generations. After all, the number of people doubles with every generation .... 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, 32 great-great-great-grandparents .... *whew*

I actually had to travel to Ireland to get most of that and even went to Greece so I could visit what was Scythia to go back further. Obviously some of it is simply biblical, but any geneaologist will tell you ... Adam is as good a stopping point as any!

I advise everyone research their families. It's amazing what you can find. As a great man once said, "Who we are is who we were."

heh, I traced mine back through the lady anne staford to the plantagenets, and through them to just about everybody...

An Irish Jew? I didn't know there existed such a thing.

Yes, an Irish Jew is a buddhist


*subtle*

Jews don't believe in the messiah because they killed Jesus, and they want to be ashamed for cutting short the messiah's live ;) . If christianity is a cult why are they not persecuted like Jew's are.

Christians were persecuted. Romans fed 'em to lions remember? ;)

Then the Roman Empire converted to Christianity by some miracle and the Holy Roman Empire was born. Hello, Catholics. (like me :p )

And, of course, once you have da powah you don't get persecuted...you do the persecuting :)

(And don't imitate trolls. Its bad for the spleen!)

I started from myself and worked backwards in time. It's really a very simple concept. If you know who your mother is, you ask her who her mother is. If she knows who her mother is, then you ask her mother who her mother is.

This goes on until you have to start asking the dead. In order to do that, you generally need to look up court records like birth certificates. You may reach a point where a person was born, but there is no actual birth certificate. Once you reach this point, then you start looking to graveyards, death records, baptismal certificates, old letters, family Bibles (many birth/death records are kept in family Bibles), and - if you're lucky - you find that you've reached a point where a distant cousin and your line link up and you can consult with them on the hundreds of thousands of genaeology wesbites, chat lounges, message boards, and other such things. In some cases, you have to travel to other countries and obtain records and whatnot. Sometimes this comes with a fee, sometimes it's free. Sometimes you find something buried in the attic of an 8th cousin who thinks it's really cool that they have an American cousin and will let that cousin rifle through their family records.

ancestry.com, rootsweb.com, familytree.com and many other sich sites abound on the internet where your 10th cousin may have information that you haven't found yet. All it comes down to is dilligence, persistence, and the desire to discover your roots. Sometimes you get blocked. I'm blocked on one line a mere 4 generations back and blocked on another in the 1620s because of a discrepancy in spelling on an old Virginia land title document.

Don't discount something just because you're too lazy to do it.


My question was quite specific.

You claim descent from several Irish kings.

You have stated you can support your claims with documentary evidence.

Please adviser the type and source of document used to back your claim to descent from Irish kings.

A specific answer to the specific question please, not a general ramble and personal insult (too lazy?).

You made the claim. How can you support it?

My question was quite specific.

You claim descent from several Irish kings.

You have stated you can support your claims with documentary evidence.

Please adviser the type and source of document used to back your claim to descent from Irish kings.

A specific answer to the specific question please, not a general ramble and personal insult (too lazy?).

You made the claim. How can you support it?

Holy crap. You actually want him to list every damn bit of evidence?

Stop trolling for God's sake.

If you bothered to read any of the other posts you'd know its possible for a Jew to be Irish.

http://www.shalomireland.com/


Everyone stop feeding the troll.

Personally, I have links to Scottish and French Royalty.

I'm too lazy to bum my family trees from my aunts and post it.

Just take my word for it. :)

Holy crap. You actually want him to list every damn bit of evidence?

Stop trolling for God's sake.

If you bothered to read any of the other posts you'd know its possible for a Jew to be Irish.

http://www.shalomireland.com/


Everyone stop feeding the troll.

I am not trolling.
I believe genealogy to be a most inexact "science", where those who practice it often make the most bizarre claims, with no supporting documentation.
Strange how everyone who makes the "research" ends up related to at least one royal family. One would have to wonder whether the commoners and peasants ever bred at all.
I am not asking to list "every damn bit of evidence". Any bit of any evidence supporting a claim to any of the Irish kings will be acceptable. Why? Because I know that no such documentation can exist.

Couple of points.
1. The Jews did have a death penalty. It took the form of stoning. However, the Romans were the government and reserved civilian cases (as opposed to religious ones) to themselves, and they were the "law". The execution was by cruxifiction, a Roman method, and the "crime" was claiming to be the king of the Jews, which would have been viewed as treason/rebellion by the Romans.
Oh.
2. Jesus, and early Christians are mentioned by several Roman historians of the time, who regarded Christians as a particularly strange cult. IIRC Seutonius comes to mind. The Romans were generally (but not always) tolerant of other religions (no objection to the Jews practising their religion for example).
Oh.
3. You really cannot compare scientific theory (origins of humanity) to the Bible. The Bible, as you have correctly surmised, gives the earth a total life span of around 6000 years. Belive either the Bible in its most literal sense, or the science, as you prefer. I know where my money is.
Hmm... Yeah. I, honestly, don't take religious texts as absolute. I just don't believe it could be absolutely accurate, which also allows me to continue worshipping the heretical Jesus. At the very least, I suspect most of it is metaphorical. Particularly Genesis, considering no one was really there to write it down...

Politically correct people are retards.
Basically. It's a shame that we can't even say religious terms that obviously have a correlation to today's society; I remember we had a "holiday tree" in City Hall in Toronto, and our Jewish mayor thought it was a retarded idea and changed it to a Christmas Tree. I honestly think we should have complete free speech, and also be able to make cultural observations about minorities that are almost always true (normally, people would call this "racism"; I disagree, because most of it's usually true).

By the way, Keruvalia, that's a fine list of geaneology sites ya got. Is there any that don't have to be paid for?

I also pity you that suffering must be part of your salvation. It seems to me that you have a very pathetic and whiney God. Any deity who says, "worship me or I'll take my ball and go home" is just sad and a waste of my and my children's time.
I've always wondered about that. I believe Catholics maintain you must do every thing in the Bible, literally, and then you also have to confess your sins, and then be a White Male. Do Jews have any similar things that mean you soul can't be saved if you're a horrid monster? Or... Somethin' like 'at?

I try not to interpret the Bible literally or even as an accurate document. I personally do not maintain that you have to follow every single strict regulation to get into Heaven. I honestly believe that if Jesus died on the cross for us, then all of us have been saved. I'm not a Catholic. I am Presbyterian, and I believe that entitles me to free interpretation of the Bible.

Actually, in Ireland, the oral and monastic traditions kept the genealogy of the chieftainly lines quite well. Tracing Milesius back to Biblical figures is something monks tacked on much later, and is obviously highly dubious, but you've pretty much only got to trace a family name back to certain families and there's usually royalty in abundance to be claimed.

Because of Jesus Christ's ultimate sacrifice for our sins, who the Jews sacrificed, ANYONE who believes that his sins have been covered with the blood of the Lamb and repents, will be adopted into the family of God. That is how he defeated Satan. You are welcome to join at any time. You will know when you have salvation when the Promise of the Father comes into your heart to witness to your spirit. It is an awesome feeling. Like you are crossing into eternity. I can do nothing to help you. I can only show you the way. The one who leads you to salvation is the Holy Spirit, not me.

Actually, in Ireland, the oral and monastic traditions kept the genealogy of the chieftainly lines quite well. Tracing Milesius back to Biblical figures is something monks tacked on much later, and is obviously highly dubious, but you've pretty much only got to trace a family name back to certain families and there's usually royalty in abundance to be claimed.
I do have roots back to Ireland, but that's my lineage that was covered with adoptions (this is Finare). My cleanest lineage goes back somewhere in Great Britain. Anything to know about that?

This will almost definitely offend some people.

My claim is that Judaism has undergone major transformations since the time of Jesus. The current Orthodox Jewish interpretations of the Tenakh are deliberately prejudiced against the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. This has come about for a number of reasons, including the desire not to lose power, and people, to the new 'sect', but also the rise of hostility in non-Jewish Christians towards Jews which started to happen when Gentiles outnumbered Jews in the early church, and sadly continues to this day in some denominations.

For the record, I think God loves all races and ethnic groups equally and enormously (though not all behaviours and not all cultural practices), and if there's any race He considers special or 'chosen', it's the Jews.

However, due to this prejudice against Jesus, I don't consider most Jewish commentary on the Tenakh to be valid. Post-Temple Judaism has defined itself in opposition to Christianity to a large extent, and a lot of the blame for that error is due to the attitude of Christians towards Jews down the centuries, but this bias has warped rabbinical teaching.

You HAVE rejected Jesus, Keruvalia; "I find the whole idea silly" sounds like a rejection to me. "It seems to me that you have a very pathetic and whiney God" is a rejection of the God of the Bible, Tenakh (OT) or Brit Hadassah (NT); you are not on the fence. There is no fence.

So, no-one felt like tackling my post?

No-one at all?


Ah well . . .

I am not trolling.
I believe genealogy to be a most inexact "science", where those who practice it often make the most bizarre claims, with no supporting documentation.
Strange how everyone who makes the "research" ends up related to at least one royal family. One would have to wonder whether the commoners and peasants ever bred at all.
I am not asking to list "every damn bit of evidence". Any bit of any evidence supporting a claim to any of the Irish kings will be acceptable. Why? Because I know that no such documentation can exist.

I've never heard of an Irish king who was a practicing Jew.

Because of Jesus Christ's ultimate sacrifice for our sins, who the Jews sacrificed, ANYONE who believes that his sins have been covered with the blood of the Lamb and repents, will be adopted into the family of God. That is how he defeated Satan. You are welcome to join at any time. You will know when you have salvation when the Promise of the Father comes into your heart to witness to your spirit. It is an awesome feeling. Like you are crossing into eternity. I can do nothing to help you. I can only show you the way. The one who leads you to salvation is the Holy Spirit, not me.

Except that, surely, the point of the thread is that Jesus WASN'T the Christ.

Therefore, the 'spirit' coming 'into your heart' is mere delusion... a conditioned response.

I am not trolling.
I believe genealogy to be a most inexact "science", where those who practice it often make the most bizarre claims, with no supporting documentation.
Strange how everyone who makes the "research" ends up related to at least one royal family. One would have to wonder whether the commoners and peasants ever bred at all.
I am not asking to list "every damn bit of evidence". Any bit of any evidence supporting a claim to any of the Irish kings will be acceptable. Why? Because I know that no such documentation can exist.

They also only ever consider patrilinear descent, which is a bit of a shame, really, since your DNA comes from both parents. By the time you've gone back 10 generations you have 1024 ancestors, which makes the whole 'descended from' thing a bit pointless IMHO. Still, if it keeps him off the streets...

On the 'my mass delusion is better than your mass delusion' thread I pass. I'm just glad that religions have calmed down a bit (with one or two notable exceptions) so that atheists like me don't get burned at the stake any more.

Actually, in Ireland, the oral and monastic traditions kept the genealogy of the chieftainly lines quite well. Tracing Milesius back to Biblical figures is something monks tacked on much later, and is obviously highly dubious, but you've pretty much only got to trace a family name back to certain families and there's usually royalty in abundance to be claimed.

Thank you, that was the basis of my question.
"Oral and monastic traditions" is exactly what we are talking about.
That is why I felt compelled to challenge a claim that supporting documentation existed.
Oral traditions exist in societies where written records are not kept, or are only kept very incompletely.
There is no viable independent written records for the vast majority of the lineage claimed, no supoporting documentation at all. It just don't exist.
I am equally certain that "professional genealogists" are more than happy to "discover" your links to any number of royal families for their fee. Just don't ask for proof.
Irrspective, I most certainly believe that you should spend far more time and effort worrying about your descendents. Your ancestors can take care of themselves.

Strange how everyone who makes the "research" ends up related to at least one royal family. One would have to wonder whether the commoners and peasants ever bred at all.

Apparently you didn't pay attention to the multitude of generations before and after the kings who were just common folks. Now, to give your question answer:

Almost everyone can find royalty in their lineage because:

1] Royalty generally had a shit-load of kids. A lot of kids means a lot of people will be descended from them. For example, I have 3 kids. If each of those kids has two kids, that's a total of 9 people; each of the grandkids having 2 kids means a total of 21 people who can claim me in their genaeology; each of the great-grandkids have 2 kids and then 45 people can claim me in their lineage ... imagine that after 200 years ... now imagine I were a King, with 6 concubines, and had 30 kids.

2] Peasants did breed aplenty, but it was generally peasants who died in wars, not royalty.

; Jesus was born as a Jew, and died as a Jew. People are anit-semetic because they envy!
After, when Christianity started...Christains were considered as Jews, who believed Jesus was the messiah, for the first couple centuries.

Wrong The term Semite (Shemite) doesn't mean anything when used towards many Jews, in fact around 95% as they are not descendants of Shem!

And also, Yahsha was not, nor ever will be a Jew, he was an Israelite, and the first "Christians" were known as Messanic Israelites

if he defeated satan then how come the latter is still around? and if not, shouldn't we all be holy? It wasn't destroyed in the same day he died. read on history carefully. gotta go now

Uh, in a spiritual sense, Revelation speaks of Michael and his Angels fighting back against the "Dragon" - Satan and his Angels and kicking them out of Heaven - this is after those whom believed in YHWH and Yahsha are in Heaven.

Apparently you didn't pay attention to the multitude of generations before and after the kings who were just common folks. Now, to give your question answer:

Almost everyone can find royalty in their lineage because:

1] Royalty generally had a shit-load of kids. A lot of kids means a lot of people will be descended from them. For example, I have 3 kids. If each of those kids has two kids, that's a total of 9 people; each of the grandkids having 2 kids means a total of 21 people who can claim me in their genaeology; each of the great-grandkids have 2 kids and then 45 people can claim me in their lineage ... imagine that after 200 years ... now imagine I were a King, with 6 concubines, and had 30 kids.

2] Peasants did breed aplenty, but it was generally peasants who died in wars, not royalty.

Horseshit. The number of people who died in wars in pre-industrial times is insignificant compared to the number who died of disease, malnutrition, and women in childbirth (about 1 in 10).
No doubt you'll tell me that peasants suffered more from this than royalty, but in a kindgom where there are 30 or so members of a Royal dynasty and half a million peasants the peasant-descended people still vastly outnumber the royal-descended ones.
The reason everyone can trace their descent to royalty (as if that meant anything anyway - they were just people, after all, who happened to have been born into a more priveliged background) is because they choose to, as Smeagol suggests. I note you had to go back 30 generations. By that stage your 'royal DNA' bloodline is only one out of over a billion other ancestors from that generation. Why pick him? Because he sounded cooler than the billion peasants that made up the other bloodlines of your ancestry. Also he's the only one you're ever likely to find any evidence for, since people tended to remember Royal geneologies and not peasant ones.
HOWEVER, what you have to remember is that a lot of alleged links to royal ancestry were made up by people who had usurped thrones in order to justify the fact that they had murdered the previous king and stolen the country from them. This happens all the time (trust me, I'm a historian).

But like I say, whatever keeps you occupied, man. Just don't take it too seriously (I mean, you have clearly mythological people in there too, like 'Adam' and so on, so how seriously are we supposed to take it?)

By that stage your 'royal DNA' bloodline is only one out of over a billion other ancestors from that generation. Why pick him? Because he sounded cooler than the billion peasants that made up the other bloodlines of your ancestry.

Ummmm ... no .... I chose one very specific and very jagged line on my genaeology. I am working on every single branch of my family. It has nothing to do with sounding cool. I'm an American ... we don't give a shit about titles or nobility. There's plenty of common peasant blood in my veins and I'm just as proud of it.

That line happens to be the only one that goes back to Adam, so it's the one I posted. It also has a large chunk of my Jewish line. Go back about 7 generations on that line, and I can break off and go back through the spouse to a long, long line of Rabbis - but I've hit a snag on that line and it is incomplete.

I simply chose the most complete line linking me to Israel. So what?

You have no clue.

Uh, in a spiritual sense, Revelation speaks of Michael and his Angels fighting back against the "Dragon" - Satan and his Angels and kicking them out of Heaven - this is after those whom believed in YHWH and Yahsha are in Heaven.

You're aware that the Dragon of Revelation is a metaphor for the Roman Empire, yes? Revelation is a well-crafted tirade against Roman power written in the imagery of late Jewish Apocalyptic literature as a kind of 'code' to stop people being persecuted for writing anti-Roman literature.

Ummmm ... no .... I chose one very specific and very jagged line on my genaeology. I am working on every single branch of my family. It has nothing to do with sounding cool. I'm an American ... we don't give a shit about titles or nobility. There's plenty of common peasant blood in my veins and I'm just as proud of it.

That line happens to be the only one that goes back to Adam, so it's the one I posted. It also has a large chunk of my Jewish line. Go back about 7 generations on that line, and I can break off and go back through the spouse to a long, long line of Rabbis - but I've hit a snag on that line and it is incomplete.

I simply chose the most complete line linking me to Israel. So what?

You have no clue.

But surely by that reckoning we're all Jewish? I mean if I go back 40 or so generations I'm sure at least one of my ancestors must have been Jewish - the statistics are in favour. But then, we're also all African. And Chinese. It's like the 'six degrees of separation'. You've pursued only the connection you wanted to - which you freely acknowledge. There's no problem with that. All I'm saying is that I'm just not sure it means anything, since you can prove a relationship to just about any racial grouping if you go back far enough (after all, if you go back far enough we were ALL just a bunch of early hominids in Kenya).

You're aware that the Dragon of Revelation is a metaphor for the Roman Empire, yes? Revelation is a well-crafted tirade against Roman power written in the imagery of late Jewish Apocalyptic literature as a kind of 'code' to stop people being persecuted for writing anti-Roman literature.

Uh it is talking about Satan, as in the Angel who rebelled against YHWH, Satan makes one last attack against the Gates of Heaven but is defeated and with the anti-Messiahs (Those who don't believe) is thrown into Hell (Not Fire and Brimstone IMO, but rather as in the Lazarus and the Rich man idea)

Uh it is talking about Satan, as in the Angel who rebelled against YHWH, Satan makes one last attack against the Gates of Heaven but is defeated and with the anti-Messiahs (Those who don't believe) is thrown into Hell (Not Fire and Brimstone IMO, but rather as in the Lazarus and the Rich man idea)

Mmm. Well, if you're going to insist on taking it literally, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can show the sections where it dissects the Roman economy and the cult of Emperor Worship if it helps. I mean, my memory on this is hazy now, but there is even a section where there is a beast described with seven horns. And the text says (I paraphrase, so feel free to correct my quotation): "now here is wisdom, for the seven horns are seven hills." Now how many cities were built on seven hills? (Well, quite a few, probably, but most famously Rome, the one that happened to run Judea at the time). The writer is basically explicitly saying at that point: "the beast is Rome". He doesn't want you to read it literally, but metaphorically.

But surely by that reckoning we're all Jewish? I mean if I go back 40 or so generations I'm sure at least one of my ancestors must have been Jewish - the statistics are in favour. But then, we're also all African. And Chinese. It's like the 'six degrees of separation'. You've pursued only the connection you wanted to - which you freely acknowledge. There's no problem with that. All I'm saying is that I'm just not sure it means anything, since you can prove a relationship to just about any racial grouping if you go back far enough (after all, if you go back far enough we were ALL just a bunch of early hominids in Kenya).

I'm pursuing all of the connections, not just the ones I want to. If I have to go back more than 5 generations, I don't worry about who they are or their connection to me. After 5 generations, it just becomes a point of interest.

My mother is Jewish, that makes me Jewish. Not some King from 40 generations back. My mother also has 6 of her branches going directly to Ireland, one of which is off the boat Irish in 1904, hence I can claim to be Irish - again, not because of some guy 40 generations back.

My father was (he's deceased) Caddo(1/2 by his father), Cajun (1/2 by his mother).

So I can easily claim to be a Native American Cajun Irish Jew ... not because of some bunch of guys who've been dead since the first millenium, but because of my grandparents, whom I grew up with and 3 of whom are still alive to this day and continue teaching me their history and traditions.

Welcome to being American. :p

I'm pursuing all of the connections, not just the ones I want to. If I have to go back more than 5 generations, I don't worry about who they are or their connection to me. After 5 generations, it just becomes a point of interest.

My mother is Jewish, that makes me Jewish. Not some King from 40 generations back. My mother also has 6 of her branches going directly to Ireland, one of which is off the boat Irish in 1904, hence I can claim to be Irish - again, not because of some guy 40 generations back.

My father was (he's deceased) Caddo(1/2 by his mother), Cajun (1/2 by his father).

So I can easily claim to be a Native American Cajun Irish Jew ... not because of some bunch of guys who've been dead since the first millenium, but because of my grandparents, whom I grew up with and 3 of whom are still alive to this day and continue teaching me their history and traditions.

Welcome to being American. :p

My sincere apologies in that case, I've obviously misunderstood, and now you explain it it does all sound a lot more reasonable. So the Irish king stuff and tracing a 'connection to Adam' is more of an academic exercise for you? That's fair enough. You don't actually believe that 'Adam' really existed, do you?

Is anybody aware that there are "Messianic Jews"? Not many, but some Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah, but keep their culture and tradition. I'll leave what I believe out of it.

My sincere apologies in that case, I've obviously misunderstood, and now you explain it it does all sound a lot more reasonable. So the Irish king stuff and tracing a 'connection to Adam' is more of an academic exercise for you? That's fair enough. You don't actually believe that 'Adam' really existed, do you?

No ... while there may have been someone named Adam who lived about 6,000 years ago, I have no delusions that he was the first guy in existence. I find that whole idea silly and misguided.

I'm not an atheist, though, I do practice the spirituality of my fathers. (The Caddo bloodline) However, I don't buy into that whole Biblical nonsense. Unfortunately, it's so ingrained in the European culture, that it's nearly impossible not to end up at Adam. I don't blame Europeans for that, but when the Priests in power are telling you that everyone came from Adam and, for 1,000+ years, you'd be killed for stating otherwise, it just becomes deeply ingrained. So, yeah, it's all academic in the end.

The Caddo becomes a bit difficult beyond about 400 years because prior to that, there was no written language ... only pictures and stories. The Cajun separates itself between French (easy enough, but same problem as other Europeans) and Hatian/African (same problem as Caddo).

But, then again, I never discount out of hand the spoken lineage of ancestry. After all, in many cultures, there was one guy who's job it was to memorize people's lineage. That's all he did his whole life. When he got old, he'd train an apprentice. This could be kept up for hundreds of generations until someone came up with a way to write it down. If you really put your mind to it, how many names can you memorize?

It still exists in our culture. Ask any Star Wars freak to name every character in all 5 movies. I bet they can do it ... even though it's hundreds. :D

But, then, in any religious culture, eventually you reach an end point of some religious figure. Whether it's Adam or Coyote (of whom I'm supposedly descendant) or Samael or Woozumfoozumnu ... it always ends somewhere strange.

Is anybody aware that there are "Messianic Jews"? Not many, but some Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah, but keep their culture and tradition. I'll leave what I believe out of it.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but don't the Lebanese Druze sect believe that one of the Shia Islam founders was the Messiah (making them sort of Muslim-Christian-Jews)?

I guess you could say Christianity was a (heretical) Jewish sect until St Paul broadened its scope by saying that you didn't need to be Jewish to be a Christian. There is a school of thought that believes St Paul's version of Christianity was in conflict with a more traditionalist Jewish version of Christianity, originally led by Jesus' family (Miriam/Mary his mother and James, his brother, and, more controversially, possibly also Miriam of Magdala, his (ahem) significant other).

Ever thought that for 2000 years, Christians have refused except what Jews and Muslims have universally excepted: that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah?

Facts:

- There had been plenty of false messiahs to have surfaced during the time of Rome's occupation of Jerusalem. This was due to despair, and not religious belief.

- During the time of Rome's occupation, Jews who believed in the coming of the messiah, expected the messiah to be a Mosaic figure. The concept of Mosiac figure developed from the name, Moses, the man who led the Hebrew slaves from Egypt to the Promised Land. The Mosaic figure is the key figure in the Salvation History of Judaism.

- Salvation History: each stage begins with the Jewish nation being oppressed by their occupiers. Just before the nation faces certain annihilation, God sends forth the Mosaic figure to save the Jews. Due to free will, God cannot physically intervene, but can inspire a person to act on behalf of God
(more information, research Free Will, and the Salvation History).
After being saved, the Jews have their homeland returned.

- The Messiah was viewed as this modern incarnation of the Mosaic figure. Jesus was expected to lead a victorious revolt against the Romans, and rid Jerusalem of it's oppressors. However, Jesus was crucified without causing any change in the oppressed state of Jerusalem. As most of the Jews would believed he did nothing as a Mosaic figure, Many would believe he was a fake. In the end, Jerusalem was destroyed, and the Jews gave up hope on the Messiah or a Mosaic figure.

Because there is no other Mosaic figure in Judaism's scriptures, it becomes obvious that there is no place in Judaism for Jesus of Nazareth, that could only be viewed as just another radical rabbi in the eyes of the Jewish scholar.

-Some points to ponder:

* Although Jews and Muslims agree that Jesus was not the Son of God, Muslims consider Jesus as a prophet of God.

* Michaelangelo Davinci subscribed to belief that Jesus did not die on the cross. In fact, he escaped with Mary Magdaline, and started a family together.
See the film "The Body", and read the novel "The Davinci Code" for further interest

*Muslims also believe that Jesus was not crucified, and that he escaped. However, Muslims believe that Jesus escaped to either India or Pakistan, and preached the coming of the prophet Mohhamed.

* Michaelangelo Davinci subscribed to belief that Jesus did not die on the cross. In fact, he escaped with Mary Magdaline, and started a family together.
See the film "The Body", and read the novel "The Davinci Code" for further interest

*Muslims also believe that Jesus was not crucified, and that he escaped. However, Muslims believe that Jesus escaped to either India or Pakistan, and preached the coming of the prophet Mohhamed.

The DaVinci Code is not a work of serious scholarship. It is an entertaining read, but the author has trawled the internet for conspiracy theories to weave in, most of them started by Bagent, Leigh and Lincoln in 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail'. The stuff about the Cathars, Templars and Leonardo (not Michelangelo, he was Leo's rival) DaVinci is selectively quoted to support the thesis, but leaves out a lot of stuff that doesn't support it.

I'm interested in your stuff on Jesus in India (I thought that was St Thomas). Do you have a source?

There are some Japanese who believe Jesus came to Japan after his death. But then, they would, wouldn't they? It's like the number of places here in the UK that claim to be the resting place of King Arthur or Robin Hood.

There are some Japanese who believe Jesus came to Japan after his death. But then, they would, wouldn't they? It's like the number of places here in the UK that claim to be the resting place of King Arthur or Robin Hood.

According to the Latter Day Saints, Jesus came to America and saved all us savage natives. I missed that memo.

It's like the number of places here in the UK that claim to be the resting place of King Arthur or Robin Hood.
And using Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon I can say that Arthur is buried in Glastonbury. ;)

* Michaelangelo [sic]Davinci subscribed to belief that Jesus did not die on the cross. In fact, he escaped with Mary Magdaline, and started a family together.
See the film "The Body", and read the novel "The Davinci Code" for further interest

Would is be OK to use "The Last Temptation of Christ" as a historical source?

According to the Latter Day Saints, Jesus came to America and saved all us savage natives. I missed that memo.

Next you'll be telling me that Utah is the Promised Land. God loves his deserts, doesn't he? What was wrong with Hawaii or Barbados?

Next you'll be telling me that Utah is the Promised Land. God loves his deserts, doesn't he? What was wrong with Hawaii or Barbados?
Of course it is. Salt Lake City is the new Jerusalme. Haven´t you known that? And the US is the new Israel, the promised land. And at the end of days all jews become christians. But before that happends the muslim need to be converted.
Well, there are also some christian luniacs - actually not the Mormons, they are quite OK.
But currently muslim luniacs are certainly much more dangerous.

And using Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon I can say that Arthur is buried in Glastonbury. ;)

According to Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald de Barri), not only was Arthur buried at Glastonbury, he and Guinevere were dug up by the monks of the Abbey there in 1188 and the bones displayed to King Henry II. Gerald is usually a reliable narrator, so it is believed this was a medieval hoax designed to get some more money for the already wealthy monastery of Glastonbury. An odd coda to that story is that allegedly the monks also later 'discovered' Excalibur and presented it to Henry's successor, Richard. It ended up as part of the Crown Jewels for about 20 years, but was lost in the sea along with the rest of the medieval Crown Jewels when King John was fighting a French invasion in 1218 and his baggage train got stuck in some tidal flats in Lincolnshire when the tide came in.

According to Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald de Barri), not only was Arthur buried at Glastonbury, he and Guinevere were dug up by the monks of the Abbey there in 1188 and the bones displayed to King Henry II. Gerald is usually a reliable narrator, so it is believed this was a medieval hoax designed to get some more money for the already wealthy monastery of Glastonbury. An odd coda to that story is that allegedly the monks also later 'discovered' Excalibur and presented it to Henry's successor, Richard. It ended up as part of the Crown Jewels for about 20 years, but was lost in the sea along with the rest of the medieval Crown Jewels when King John was fighting a French invasion in 1218 and his baggage train got stuck in some tidal flats in Lincolnshire when the tide came in.
Of course, we all really know that Jesus didn't return from the dead. Malacalyse just impersonated him an taught the disciples bingo. [iirc]

Of course, we all really know that Jesus didn't return from the dead. Malacalyse just impersonated him an taught the disciples bingo. [iirc]

Has anyone ever read The Passover Plot? It's the only book on Jesus I've ever read that was written by a rabbi. It wasn't until then that I realised Jesus was really Joshua [Jesus (Latin) = Iesu (Greek) = Yshu (Hebrew), which is usually rendered in English as Joshua].

Anyway, said rabbi thought that Jesus had deliberately staged things to fulfil Old Testament prophesies (this bit makes a good degree of sense, assuming that you believe that the Gospel accounts are telling the actual truth rather than a partial reconstruction of traditional accounts of it 50 years later), and then had faked his own death on the cross using a medicine that simulates death that was given to him on the sponge with vinegar (the book goes a little off the rails at that point, I admit). Frankly, I think the Romans were usually quite thorough, so if he was crucified, then I don't think he got off the cross alive. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Anyway, said rabbi thought that Jesus had deliberately staged things to fulfil Old Testament prophesies (this bit makes a good degree of sense, assuming that you believe that the Gospel accounts are telling the actual truth rather than a partial reconstruction of traditional accounts of it 50 years later), and then had faked his own death on the cross using a medicine that simulates death that was given to him on the sponge with vinegar (the book goes a little off the rails at that point, I admit). Frankly, I think the Romans were usually quite thorough, so if he was crucified, then I don't think he got off the cross alive. But never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Oh, I think I have heard about that.

Does it involve a special poison in the vinegar?

Also, does it say how by giving vinegar to the cruserfied wasn't a way of torturing them, but kindness?

Oh, I think I have heard about that.

Does it involve a special poison in the vinegar?

Also, does it say how by giving vinegar to the cruserfied wasn't a way of torturing them, but kindness?
Doesn't being stabbed in the side with a spear usually kill one left on a cross?
Not saying its not impossible to survive but after being beaten beforehand it would be hard to live.

Oh, I think I have heard about that.

Does it involve a special poison in the vinegar?

Also, does it say how by giving vinegar to the cruserfied wasn't a way of torturing them, but kindness?

I forget the details, but 'vinegar' is presumably a translation of a type of sour wine, which would have slaked thirst but also given a bit of a jolt to keep him awake, which was supposedly the key thing for crucifixion - because of the positions of your arms you allegedly suffocate when your body relaxes, so you have to keep straining with your legs to breathe - which was supposedly why they used to make sure they were dead by breaking their legs so they couldn't breathe. I think that's how it goes, anyway.

The gospel accounts say that the two crims got their legs broken, but they didn't do it to Jesus because he looked already dead, and just got prodded with a spear to make sure. The rabbi uses this as evidence that he 'could' have got off the cross alive, but I remain to be convinced!

I agree that the Romans were thorough when it came to execution (the natives get uppity if they think they can get away with capital crimes), so Jesus died on that piece of wood.
Interesting that, after just a few weeks, his followers start claiming that they've seen him alive, that he's come back from the dead, and that they maintain this story (an apparently convincing one, given the rapid spread of early Christianity) even to the point of their own executions.
It made me think.

Sigh... Christianity is a cult that went mainstream. That's all there is to it.

heh - a jewish cult too

I personally prefer the 1st century catagory of Christian that the form of it as it exsist today with all the traditions of Pagan Rome. Here are the real reasons Jews and Muslims cannot except the Truth of Christianity.

Within a few centuries of the death of the apostles the early churches fell pray to the greed, divisions, sects & scisms that would lead them right into the hands of the Roman political institutes of the late 3rd and 4th century's

There they excepted everything despised by worshipers of the only true God.
"Our God the LORD is One." - They invented the Trinity doctrine by twisting scripture and going beyond the word of God. They in addition adopted every traditional pagan custom in the 4th century pagan roman churches, including a form of emperor worship, your infalable pope, which so obviously is ludicrous. The implication that any imperfect man can be infallable or free of error is absolute bullshit - let history prove what this was all about in the track record of what became the "Holy" Roman Catholic Church - supressing knowledge, supressing anygroup that held to a different believe set - by the sword if neccesary. To me it sounds like a regular, imperfect human being, forgetting completely the teaching of the Christ, the anointed one, to muslims the words of a Great Prophet - muddiling along as any other human does when intrusted with such a degree of power - making decisions in the best interest of your nation, your people and eventually in order to maintain your way of life and if neccesary your authority when you delude yourself and allow yourself to believe you are the best and only man that can think in the best interest of your people.

Stick to the clear scriptural teachings of Christ is my advice to all Christians and you will go as far as being the kind of people that tell radical islamics that theres no need for rage and hate. Love your enemy - LOVE.

To my Jewish brothers[I mean this in the most inoffensive way posible to those who are so very proud of thier pedigree - to which I think to myself that they learned the wrong lessons from Germany before WWII.] Jesus was being, actually the son of God in the flesh was anointed by the LORDs own hand, his holy spirit, the same spirit that shaped our universe in the begining - at his baptism that symbolized his dedication to Our God - I think this is an improvement upon being anointed by transient material oil by an order which you should see as likely to have been corrupted by the Roman local elements.

You were a people chosen by God. But apearently you guys didnt like the invite - or do you question Gods ability to provide - indeed he did provide and continued to throughout history but God is only attentive to his sheep while his Sheep hear his voice. God created Man - and his purpose for peace and a perfect age of restoration has been extended to all through the measage of the messiah and by his sacrifice. To those that will hear the truth and Love as his son Loved. The nation of Israel now continues to exsist only in a state of military readiness. This is not the Israel of God. God provides the wisdom when he is honestly called upon neccesary to lead a nation to peace with its neighbors - look at the rule of Solomon, if you are brave enough to venture beyond the writings of moses for one such example.

If you think its imposible that's just fine - just dont get in the way of the people doing it.

1 - Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

Not entirely - not yet - first he had to prove that a human being could remain absolutely faithfull to the true God no matter what. He conquered sin, conquered satan, and death when God remembered him and resurected him. An event straight out of old hebrew writings if youre not a believer the capacity of the lord to resurect the fallen was not a new concept to Jews living in the 1st century. The prince of peace awaits at the right hand of power. When YHWH says its time - there will be an ending of things - and he will make all things new acording to his promisses. But the End is not now - the issues of weather man can rule man has not decisively been resolved at some level.

2 - In my own words - Jesus didn't fulfill your[Israel's] expectations - they were expecting a warrior, a General like Joshua, to over throw the foreign pagan power that permiated jewish life, and interfered in everything. Instead they got a, "Prophet like Moses." The Humbler and Kindler, gentler prophet. So he didn't rally, organize and direct Israeli 1st Century Armies to victory by force and the old illusion of the peace of the sword. But Instead taught explicitly how and why we should LOVE. But no you[Israel] was too busy feeling sorry for itself to get it - and you still dont get it.

The three points you make against Christ here are all wrong and misunderstandings of the christian writings. You read, but you did not undertand.

I am not going to get into the details here - but youve done a bit of research it seems, yet, you only saw what you wanted to see - like most people today in the US read and look up news articles that tell them what they want to hear. You guys just want your ears tickled.

Israel is spoken of in Isaiah as the servant of God. And indeed they are. When they serve him. How is the Nation of Israel serving God. Indeed Israel was chosen by god as his witnesses, a nation given a law by moses, and at that time a shining becon of light in an age of barbaric darkness, a shining becon of what God can do for humanity when they are willing to listen to his voice. Israel was hte servant of god - but is Israel serving God? Is Israel bringing blessings to its neighbors, leading the world to peace? Or is it inciting hatred and fear like any other political, military driven country?

4 - JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION
I found such an ethnocentric statement distastful so I didnt start reading until I got to WAITING FOR THE MESSIAH and I noticed that you say Jews are awaiting the messiah.
Do you again expect this individual to be a military leader or political figure head? If so you may be sorely disapointed time and time again Jerimaiah 10:23.

But still I found a glimmer of hope if this is the center of your current ideology - "The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well."

LOVE & GENEROUSITY are essential for peace and understanding - and so is following Gods law. Hope for the best.

I agree that the Romans were thorough when it came to execution (the natives get uppity if they think they can get away with capital crimes), so Jesus died on that piece of wood.
On a cross actually. An crucification was actually a Roman method of execution. That was of course latter a bit changed. After all: Christianity got more and more followers among the Romans. But for that it wasn´t that good to blame the Romans for the death. So, there role was reduced (washing the hands in innocence) and the jews were solely blamed.
What that meant for christian jewish relation in the following two thousand years we all know - especially during the Middle Ages. I doubt that without that background modern anti-semitism and the Holocaus would have been possible.

I agree that the Romans were thorough when it came to execution (the natives get uppity if they think they can get away with capital crimes), so Jesus died on that piece of wood.
Interesting that, after just a few weeks, his followers start claiming that they've seen him alive, that he's come back from the dead, and that they maintain this story (an apparently convincing one, given the rapid spread of early Christianity) even to the point of their own executions.
It made me think.

Well like I say, it depends upon how much you rely on the gospels as true and fully factually accurate accounts. In all of them he only appears to the disciples, and only on one occasion in Matthew, Mark and Luke (the Synoptic Gospels, which seem to all come from a single original source). In Luke he also appears to two of them on the road to Emmaus, but they don't recognise him (huh?). In John he appears to them three times, at Lake Tiberias, and goes fishing. In all cases there is no-one outside the circle of immediate believers. The doubting Thomas story from John feels like someone saying - 'you don't believe it? Well neither did this guy, but see what a fool he was...'

It was traditional for gods to die, visit the underworld, and then be reborn. This is after all what the sun does every day. You can take the story as a later addition by those who sincerely believed in the divinity of Christ but who had interpolated stories about other divine beings. Or you can assume that the Gospel is a fully true account and invent psychological reasons for why the disciples would 'want' to see Jesus after his death (my aunt saw her husband after his death. Do I believe Bruce was the son of God? No. I believe my aunt hallucinated it because she wanted so badly for it to be true).

Or of course you can believe it really happened. I find the whole thing a bit unconvincing, but that's just my opinion. I may be wrong.

On a cross actually. An crucification was actually a Roman method of execution. That was of course latter a bit changed. After all: Christianity got more and more followers among the Romans. But for that it wasn´t that good to blame the Romans for the death. So, there role was reduced (washing the hands in innocence) and the jews were solely blamed.
What that meant for christian jewish relation in the following two thousand years we all know - especially during the Middle Ages. I doubt that without that background modern anti-semitism and the Holocaus would have been possible.

Yes, I do know the piece of wood was a cross :rolleyes:
And you're right, the history of Christianity's treatments of the Jewish people down history has, generally speaking, been disgusting. I'm a Christian, and it really saddens me to think of some of the things done in the name of Christ and His church since the resurrection. I see the problems springing largely from Constantine, and the official conversion of the Roman Empire; compromise abounded from then on, and it became fashionable to convert.

Blaming the Holocaust (or Shoah, as the Jews call it) solely on Christian anti-Semitism is too simplistic (Hitler wasn't exactly a choirboy, and loads of different groups hated the Jews for loads of different reasons, especially from the late 19th century on), but yes, the church bears some of the responsibility for the climate of hatred that led to the death camps.

I don't have time to reply to this guy and I Don't have time to read the other posts but he obviously hasn't done any research on this subject at all. Jesus fulfilled every messianic prophecy. Any more given are specifically referring to Jesus' SECOND coming.

I don't have time to reply to this guy and I Don't have time to read the other posts but he obviously hasn't done any research on this subject at all. Jesus fulfilled every messianic prophecy. Any more given are specifically referring to Jesus' SECOND coming.

That's convenient.
"Hey, I'd love to fulfil the prophesies but, you know, there's all of that harrowing of Hell to be done, and getting souls out of Limbo. I've really gotta dash. Maybe next time, huh? Catch you later, guys!"

Blaming the Holocaust (or Shoah, as the Jews call it) solely on Christian anti-Semitism is too simplistic (Hitler wasn't exactly a choirboy, and loads of different groups hated the Jews for loads of different reasons, especially from the late 19th century on), but yes, the church bears some of the responsibility for the climate of hatred that led to the death camps.
I haven´t done that. But it can´t escape some responsibilty for causing a climate in which others found fertile ground for their ideologies.
Blaming it solely on christians - or the catholic church - as in one bock Goldhagen suggests is very bious and one-sided in my view. But that is the way this "scientists" gets attention.
After World War II the catholic church changed a lot (especially the second Vatican Concil). The same can be said for many protestant churches regarding the way they present jews and the jewish religion.

Well like I say, it depends upon how much you rely on the gospels as true and fully factually accurate accounts. In all of them he only appears to the disciples, and only on one occasion in Matthew, Mark and Luke (the Synoptic Gospels, which seem to all come from a single original source). In Luke he also appears to two of them on the road to Emmaus, but they don't recognise him (huh?). In John he appears to them three times, at Lake Tiberias, and goes fishing. In all cases there is no-one outside the circle of immediate believers. The doubting Thomas story from John feels like someone saying - 'you don't believe it? Well neither did this guy, but see what a fool he was...'

It was traditional for gods to die, visit the underworld, and then be reborn. This is after all what the sun does every day. You can take the story as a later addition by those who sincerely believed in the divinity of Christ but who had interpolated stories about other divine beings. Or you can assume that the Gospel is a fully true account and invent psychological reasons for why the disciples would 'want' to see Jesus after his death (my aunt saw her husband after his death. Do I believe Bruce was the son of God? No. I believe my aunt hallucinated it because she wanted so badly for it to be true).

Or of course you can believe it really happened. I find the whole thing a bit unconvincing, but that's just my opinion. I may be wrong.

I do believe it really happened.
There's no tradition in Jewish culture of God dying and being reborn, so it's implausible that Jesus's closest followers (all Jews) would come up with a story like that based on cultural tradition. All of the earliest preaching of the apostles was centered around the resurrection of Christ, so later addition is also unlikely.
Also, I find group hallucination an extremely unconvincing explanation for a lifetime of telling people that Christ had risen. Post-hypnotic suggestion is likewise pretty thin.
I know I can't prove this stuff, but I also know what's happened in my life since I started to follow Jesus,

I haven´t done that. But it can´t escape some responsibilty for causing a climate in which others found fertile ground for their ideologies.
Blaming it solely on christians - or the catholic church - as in one bock Goldhagen suggests is very bious and one-sided in my view. But that is the way this "scientists" gets attention.
After World War II the catholic church changed a lot (especially the second Vatican Concil). The same can be said for many protestant churches regarding the way they present jews and the jewish religion.

Agreed, you didn't just blame the church. And agreed, we have some responsibility.
And also agreed, the R.C. church, as well as many denominations, have greatly improved in their attitude towards Jews.
It's nice to not fight some of the time :D

Next you'll be telling me that Utah is the Promised Land. God loves his deserts, doesn't he? What was wrong with Hawaii or Barbados?

Hey ... I'm not telling you anything ... I said "according to the Latter Day Saints" ... means it's not me saying it. :p

It's in the Book of Mormon or somesuch as that.

Oh ... and I've been to Hawaii ... it *is* the Promised Land. :D

Horseshit. The number of people who died in wars in pre-industrial times is insignificant compared to the number who died of disease, malnutrition, and women in childbirth (about 1 in 10).
No doubt you'll tell me that peasants suffered more from this than royalty, but in a kindgom where there are 30 or so members of a Royal dynasty and half a million peasants the peasant-descended people still vastly outnumber the royal-descended ones.
The reason everyone can trace their descent to royalty (as if that meant anything anyway - they were just people, after all, who happened to have been born into a more priveliged background) is because they choose to, as Smeagol suggests. I note you had to go back 30 generations. By that stage your 'royal DNA' bloodline is only one out of over a billion other ancestors from that generation. Why pick him? Because he sounded cooler than the billion peasants that made up the other bloodlines of your ancestry. Also he's the only one you're ever likely to find any evidence for, since people tended to remember Royal geneologies and not peasant ones.
HOWEVER, what you have to remember is that a lot of alleged links to royal ancestry were made up by people who had usurped thrones in order to justify the fact that they had murdered the previous king and stolen the country from them. This happens all the time (trust me, I'm a historian).

But like I say, whatever keeps you occupied, man. Just don't take it too seriously (I mean, you have clearly mythological people in there too, like 'Adam' and so on, so how seriously are we supposed to take it?)

What a confused person... on the one hand you argue that the 'everyone is related to royalty thing is false', on the other, you argue that everyone is related to royalty, if they dig around enough...

You don't seem to have grasped the fact that, the further you go back in a geneological study, the SMALLER the original genepools will get... oh, and royals that usurped thrones are still royal, by virtue OF the throne.

Re: Adam. Adam is a mythological character, and, as an atheist, I don't believe in the Adam and Eve 'are parent to the whole world' scenario... but that doesn't mean that Adam didn't exist... merely that he may not have been the progenitor of all people.

As an interesting note: There is evidence that directly links the modern English Royal family with King David of the Old Testament:

http://www.kingdavid.org/genealogy.html

What a confused person... on the one hand you argue that the 'everyone is related to royalty thing is false', on the other, you argue that everyone is related to royalty, if they dig around enough...

You don't seem to have grasped the fact that, the further you go back in a geneological study, the SMALLER the original genepools will get... oh, and royals that usurped thrones are still royal, by virtue OF the throne.

Re: Adam. Adam is a mythological character, and, as an atheist, I don't believe in the Adam and Eve 'are parent to the whole world' scenario... but that doesn't mean that Adam didn't exist... merely that he may not have been the progenitor of all people.

As an interesting note: There is evidence that directly links the modern English Royal family with King David of the Old Testament:

http://www.kingdavid.org/genealogy.html

Confused? I am quite clear, thank you for asking.
I didn't argue that the 'everyone is related to royalty' was false. On te contrary, I am sure that we are all related to royalty if you go back far enough. In the same way that we are all related to Chinese, or Africans... all I am arguing is if you go back far enough then it becomes totally irrelevant. You may also have noticed that the originaly poster and I settled our differences on that issue. Or not, as the case may be. No-one says you have to read all of the posts in a long thread like this one.

Yes, the gene pool get smaller. I have no doubt that of those billion (notional) ancestors in the 40th generation (it's just 2 to the power 40 - use a calculator) there is a good degree of overlap. But there will still be millions upon millions of ancestors, enough to make any study of bloodlines totally irrelevant. Something which the poster acknowledged, if you take the trouble to read him.

As for your 'evidence' of the Adamic connections of Liz Saxe Coburg Gotha (sorry, Windsor) and co, well, if that's what you call evidence, I'd hate to see your version of wild and tenuous speculation and conjecture.

They're all twelve foot lizard people anyway. David Icke says so, and he used to be a First Division goalkeeper, so it must be true.

For the record, I'm an atheist too, but as for Adam, c'mon, surely you don't seriously believe such a person existed? I question your commitement to atheism in such a case.

Geoffry of Monmouth wrote in 1150 that all the Kings of Britain were descended from Brutus, who fled from Troy. That doesn't make it so. In fact, he was trying to find an excuse for Britain being called Britain, so he named it after an imaginary ancestor. In fact it comes from Prydain, which is Celtic for 'Land of the Mighty'. You should treat Genesis with the same degree of skepticism. It's not a historical record. It's a myth-cycle, like the Iliad, or Beowulf. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE!

there is no satan anywhere as an evil being. satan is an angel of god, and works for god. that''s it

Re: Adam. Adam is a mythological character, and, as an atheist, I don't believe in the Adam and Eve 'are parent to the whole world' scenario... but that doesn't mean that Adam didn't exist... merely that he may not have been the progenitor of all people.
Well, as a Christian, I have to say that I actually don't believe in Adam and Eve; I think of them moreso as a sort of metaphor. Soon, through evolution, the race of humanity would be born from a few and would soon spawn into billions. Makes sense, eh? 'Less ya take it too literally, and I try not to.
As an interesting note: There is evidence that directly links the modern English Royal family with King David of the Old Testament:
http://www.kingdavid.org/genealogy.html
If you read an earlier post of mine, you'd have to have way more generations to fit to the earliest records of society; I've understated it to 50,000, but there's probably way more generations. Humanity has been around for 2 million years. We know this. Perhaps you can go back to King David, but to Adam? Likely impossible. More than likely, just like Keruvalia, something has been changed along the line to relate royalty to King David and Adam.

And I understand that most of the Jews here are in consensus when it comes to agreeing that there's no way Jesus could be the Messiah. Does this mean you now have a terrible vendetta against all Christians now, or will you let us to live our undoubtably heinous lie another day because you, for whatever godforsaken reason, respect other people's religions regardless? Hey, I almost personally respect Wiccans, Mormons and Scientologists and pretend to when they're around. You should too.

there is no satan anywhere as an evil being. satan is an angel of god, and works for god. that''s it
Ah, nah, he got fired a long time ago and got a new job. They're considering hiring him back, but his new job is quite the resume stain, unfortunately.

Is Satan technically evil? More than evil, he is rather symbolic of the falling to temptation.

Ummmm ... no .... I chose one very specific and very jagged line on my genaeology. I am working on every single branch of my family. It has nothing to do with sounding cool. I'm an American ... we don't give a shit about titles or nobility. There's plenty of common peasant blood in my veins and I'm just as proud of it.

That line happens to be the only one that goes back to Adam, so it's the one I posted. It also has a large chunk of my Jewish line. Go back about 7 generations on that line, and I can break off and go back through the spouse to a long, long line of Rabbis - but I've hit a snag on that line and it is incomplete.

I simply chose the most complete line linking me to Israel. So what?

You have no clue.

You continue to make the most ludicrous claims.

I have repeatedly asked you to provide or describe any, repeat any, form of documentation (which you claim to possess) linking you to any, repeat any, Irish king you claim descent from.

You continue to ignore this request.

You have no credibility.

And if you truly belive that humanity can trace its origins back to Adam, instead of to the early hominids of Africa, and that Biblical "begats" have more credibility than mitochondrial DNA, you have no rationality.

But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?
All of this was correct, so no need to comment. But good stuff!

[snip prophecies]
Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

On the contrary, try Daniel 9:24-27. Here Daniel receives a prophecy stating that, in order:
When Jerusalem will be rebuilt;
When the Messiah will come;
When the Messiah will be ‘cut off’/killed;
When the temple will be destroyed.

Even if you challenge the years, the order is clear. Now, as the temple has been destroyed, clearly either the prophecy is false – invalidating the entire Testament – or the Messiah has already come.

Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus was not a prophet; he appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
I note that you don’t support this with Biblicial quotes! Which is just as well: if your claim was true, then Moses could not have been a prophet.
For that matter Balaam wasn’t even Jewish, yet still prophecied!




C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)
So, for example, you would expect the Messiah to say things such as:

"until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle will by any means pass from the law." Matt 5:18; see also the surrounding text for variations on this message.


Now, it’s worth noting that no Jew follows the Law correctly, and cannot – for the simple reason that the destruction of the Temple renders it impossible to offer sacrifice to God. So the Messiah would, as prophecied, need to have come while the 2nd Temple was standing – otherwise he can never earn the title, and so cannot build the 3rd.



A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

Not something I know anything about, but here:
http://www.maravot.com/alma.html
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/virgoryw.htm

Anyway – assume that you’re right. Why did Isaiah bother opening his mouth? What’s so special about a ‘young woman’ giving birth? That’s a fairly unimpressive when you’re trying to intimidate a king!

B. SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit.

Often true, but not in this case. As noted, you do need to turn to Isaiah 22: however try verse 14: Just as many were astonished at you, my people, so His appearance was marred more than any man,"
Here you have Israel told to look at ‘the suffering servant’ – that indicates a different subject, yes?


[QUOTE=Moskoka]Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show -- assuming they are genuine -- is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.
So, Deuteronomy 18:18-22?


Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion.
I suspect that the Buddhists, Confuscians, Zoroastrians would all want to take you to task for that claim.



Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

What complete and utter garbage!
The Israelitess at Mt Sinai had been on the march for how long? They had followed Moses into a frickin’ *desert*! You don’t do that on a maybe. They had lost their homes and most of their possessions when they fled Egypt. That took commitment.
On the other hand, what was their response to Sinai? Making The Golden Calf!


b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)
*Read* the things you quote. The curse on Jeconiah is expressly limited to: "in your days". Any of his descendants born after his death were not under that curse.

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

So, let’s consider the last hundred years. The Holy Land was liberated – by a Christian army, lead by a devout Christian who used the OT to determine his strategy. Israel was created as a state (and is still assisted) by Christian nations. Christian nations are growing increasingly more peaceful, and devoted to developing medical technology, and have spread the knowledge of God to 2 Billion people. Further, the billion odd Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet – so that’s half the world’s population.
Looking good for Jesus!

You continue to make the most ludicrous claims.

I have repeatedly asked you to provide or describe any, repeat any, form of documentation (which you claim to possess) linking you to any, repeat any, Irish king you claim descent from.

You continue to ignore this request.

You have no credibility.

And if you truly belive that humanity can trace its origins back to Adam, instead of to the early hominids of Africa, and that Biblical "begats" have more credibility than mitochondrial DNA, you have no rationality.

Ugh .... *hangs head, pinches bridge of nose, shakes head*

You're just not paying attention to the rest of the thread.

I already described what you're asking for. If you want something more specific, here:

I have a document, it is 8 1/2 x 11 inches. It's a piece of manufactured piece of paper. On this piece of paper are a bunch of words. The words describe the birth and death of a selected person and names their father and mother as well as their children. There are some dates on it. The piece of paper was obtained from a library in Dublin.

My god, man, are you really this dense?

Why don't you describe to me your documentation that shows George Washington existed and prove his link to his parents.

As for the rest of your stupid drivel, I already discussed the Adam thing and all that with another poster who was a hell of a lot more civil than you could possibly be.

So, let’s consider the last hundred years. The Holy Land was liberated – by a Christian army, lead by a devout Christian who used the OT to determine his strategy. Israel was created as a state (and is still assisted) by Christian nations. Christian nations are growing increasingly more peaceful, and devoted to developing medical technology, and have spread the knowledge of God to 2 Billion people. Further, the billion odd Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet – so that’s half the world’s population.
Looking good for Jesus!


Well, unfortunately, the Messiah is prophecied to accomplish, fulfill, and make complete all of the Messianic prophecies ..... IN A SINGLE LIFETIME!

Considering it's been 2000 years, well, Jesus ain't the one.

Oh ... and the Messiah will be just a man, not God made flesh. God gives us the ability to obtain our own salvation and would never pull a Deus ex Machina. No miracles, no walking on water, no magic powers ... just a man.

So, hey ... get with the program.

Well, unfortunately, the Messiah is prophecied to accomplish, fulfill, and make complete all of the Messianic prophecies ..... IN A SINGLE LIFETIME!

"The present generation will not have passed away before these things come to pass."
That's always been a bit of a sticking point on the Second Coming, you have to admit. Maybe he came and we didn't notice? The Cathars used to believe that Hell is this world. Makes you think, doesn't it?
No, not much, I admit, but maybe a quick two second; 'hmmmm'.

For the record, I'm an atheist too, but as for Adam, c'mon, surely you don't seriously believe such a person existed? I question your commitement to atheism in such a case.



I have no 'commitment' to Atheism. I do not 'choose' Atheism, it is just what I am...

On the subject of Adam, there is no reason why an Atheist should NOT believe in Adam as a real person. I am sure there have been several people CALLED Adam, in the last few thousand years.

What I'm saying is that it is entirely possible that Adam is a real person, and that there really is a chain of unbroken descent from that point onwards. That still wouldn't make Adam the Progenitor of all life (as the bible tells), or even the first Man (as the bible tells).

My personal belief is that Adam is just the name given to an idealised 'first man'. The name means 'red clay', the man was 'shaped from the dust' (according to the bible..), so it seems MOST likely that Adam is a title, for the first creation of men.

Furthermore, as is evident in many biblical characters, it is fairly obvious that different histories are compounded into the one 'character' of Adam, as portrayed in the bible.

All this aside though, every lie has a germ of truth, and there may have been an 'Adam' to the people of Israel. Maybe their creation story is fictional, but it may be based on a reality... like a man named Adam (we'll stick with this name for the moment, as a label) left one of the earlier cultures and established his own community - thereby making him the 'first Man'.

Do I believe in Adam as the first born 'man', created perfect by god? No.
Do I believe in Adam as evidence of even the existence of god? No.
Do I believe that all mankind is derived from one man, under ANY name? No.

But, there still may have been an 'Adam', quite seperate to all the myth and mystery.

I don't really want to get drawn into this, but I would think you have to pick at a certain point, archeology or adam. I'm all for people believing that science it part of gods plan, in fact I think it makes religous people more rational and easier to deal with, but that means that you have to accept that some of the bible is aligory and not every word is literal. After all, someone was going on the other day about the fact that there are two creations in genesis.

Why even waste your time on these people? None of them make coherent arguments.

Btw.. Jews are no chosen they were the only people to accept God's word. God didn't chose them they chose God.

Well screw it all im not christian im a what you would call a heathen or headen or how ever you spell it. and I´m one of about 3% of the people in my country that still fallow the old nors gods. well im not a big beliver but my parents are so what the hell it dosen´t matter if you are jew, christian a muslim, a hindu or what ever it´s all bull shit life is to shoort to live it by some rules laid out by some god that may or may not exist, thats my philosophy (but the buddist are kind´a cool in all this they dont rely belive in a god but in a surden way of life wich is pretty cool all that spiritual inlightment stuff would be good for the mankind now a days). so what the hell dont let other people tel you whats the one true faith just belive in what you think is best. O and stop saying that one religion is higer then the other that rely pisses my of about some people.
p.s if anyone ever hands you a pamplet for some cult like harikrisna or what ever my adwyse is to punch them in the face.

You could never show me the birth certificate of Alexander of Macedonia (Alexander the Great), but everyone knows who he was, when he lived, and what he accomplished.

I could never show you the birth certificate of Jesus of Nazareth (Jesus Christ), but even I know who He was, when He lived and what He accomplished.

I thought I'd comment on something that has come up once or twice in this thread that has always interested me. The debate between evolution and creation...
The fact is, one does not contradict the other. We have to remember that when Genesis says "on the first day." At this point, there is no earth. There is no light and dark etc. When we speak of a "day" we measure that as one complete rotation of the earth about its axis. If there is no earth, this amount of time cannont be measured. In addition, I dont speak ancient aramaic, so "day" is a rough translation i would assume. Just like the commandment does not really say "thou shalt not kill"...it should actually read "thou shalt not murder" which would be defined as the UNLAWFUL killing.
When Genesis speaks of a 'day' it is probably saying in terms of an era. Like when grandpa says "i remember back in my day..."
When you keep that in mind you can stretch the timeframe out to a point that matches evolution. Now with THAT in mind, if you follow the sequence of events in Genesis, it actually does match up with the events of evolution. separation of land and sea, followed by monsters of sea, followed by land beasts, etc.
The bible isnt a literal text. They had to squeeze a lot of info into a small space and probably took some liberties to make it sound nice and majestic.
Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive.

PS: Einstein also proved that time is not absolute....possibly G-D works in mysterious ways?

I thought I'd comment on something that has come up once or twice in this thread that has always interested me. The debate between evolution and creation...
The fact is, one does not contradict the other. We have to remember that when Genesis says "on the first day." At this point, there is no earth. There is no light and dark etc. When we speak of a "day" we measure that as one complete rotation of the earth about its axis. If there is no earth, this amount of time cannont be measured. In addition, I dont speak ancient aramaic, so "day" is a rough translation i would assume. Just like the commandment does not really say "thou shalt not kill"...it should actually read "thou shalt not murder" which would be defined as the UNLAWFUL killing.
When Genesis speaks of a 'day' it is probably saying in terms of an era. Like when grandpa says "i remember back in my day..."
When you keep that in mind you can stretch the timeframe out to a point that matches evolution. Now with THAT in mind, if you follow the sequence of events in Genesis, it actually does match up with the events of evolution. separation of land and sea, followed by monsters of sea, followed by land beasts, etc.
The bible isnt a literal text. They had to squeeze a lot of info into a small space and probably took some liberties to make it sound nice and majestic.
Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive.
Someone actually agrees with my heretical beliefs about an already heretical religion. Neat. Another thing to understand, though, is that at the time of writing of Genesis, probably no one could possibly understand how Evolution would work. No one would write something if no one was there to understand it.
PS: Einstein also proved that time is not absolute....possibly G-D works in mysterious ways?

I could never show you the birth certificate of Jesus of Nazareth (Jesus Christ), but even I know who He was, when He lived and what He accomplished.
I could never show you my birth certificate because the government is taking its sweet time getting it to me, even though I've asked for it months ago. No one knows who I am, when I am living and what I have accomplished so far. It'd be a hard time convincing anyone that I exist. Somehow, though, everyone thinks I exist anyway; no one goes up to me and says "you don't exist." I can't see why Jesus would have more depth and knowledge and be less accepted. I'm sure there's an obvious reason, but until then, I've made yet another correct yet completely one-sided argument that can win this entire argument even if it has so little to do with the topic at hand. People manage to pull this off all the time; why can't I?

I could never show you my birth certificate because the government is taking its sweet time getting it to me, even though I've asked for it months ago. No one knows who I am, when I am living and what I have accomplished so far. It'd be a hard time convincing anyone that I exist. Somehow, though, everyone thinks I exist anyway; no one goes up to me and says "you don't exist." I can't see why Jesus would have more depth and knowledge and be less accepted. I'm sure there's an obvious reason, but until then, I've made yet another correct yet completely one-sided argument that can win this entire argument even if it has so little to do with the topic at hand. People manage to pull this off all the time; why can't I?

YOU DON'T EXIST!!!!!

Interesting. Well, i am (or was) a Jew, though not practicing. I don't believe in God, and i don't believe a "messiah," will come or has already come. I find the theological aspects of religions to be irrational, and find that stories and other religious pieces to have more of a moral value.

Also, based on Mel Gibson's film. I despise him. He is a great director, but i despise him. His father is the one of the heads of the Australian Nazi Association, how could Mel Gibson not be anti-semetic?

He also (proven, but i can't copy and paste my source, it won't let me) added 19 scenes taht clearly show the "Jews" of Jesus's time as cruel, including thrusting a sack of his head and throwing him around. That is never mentioned in the Gospels.

AS well as how they depict the high priest, that Caicaphas dude, as a strong, stern leader, and Pilate (or whoever that ROman guy is) as a weak, controlled ruler. Switch their personalities and Gibson might have gotten close to being accurate...so, uh, there?

P.S. Im an Isrealite too, but my grandmother was a Kohen, not that it makes a difference :D ...

Are you telling me jesus was never mentioned in the Jewish Bible.

Yep. The Jewish Bible was written long before Jesus was born.

I am not trolling.
I believe genealogy to be a most inexact "science", where those who practice it often make the most bizarre claims, with no supporting documentation.
Strange how everyone who makes the "research" ends up related to at least one royal family. One would have to wonder whether the commoners and peasants ever bred at all.

Hey, simply because some people (not necessarily Keruvalia) give genealogy a bad name by using unscrupulous methods and are obsessed with making nonexistent links with "important" people is no reason to go blasting all of us.

I've been tracing my genealogy for over seven years. The closest I've come to finding someone "famous" has been that my great-grandfather's second-cousin's wife was the cousin of a quasi-famous rabbi. That's it.

Sure, it's always fun and cool to find people that other people will have heard of or care about, but that's not why I do this- I do it to find out more about MY ancestors and the world they lived in. In fact, one of my most exciting discoveries was when I found out that my g.g.g.g.grandfather had been a FARMER. (This was the period in Russia right before Jews were forbidden from farming.)

Please don't slather all genealogists with the same brush.

I have no doubt that it is possible to trace your ancestry back over many generations, and hundreds of years, in fact, through all of the time that births have been recorded.

However, if I see someone claim to be able to trace their ancestry through several Irish kings, of medieval or earlier times, and in fact back to Adam, and to have "supporting documentation", then I will ask for that documentation to be described.

I have asked for a description of the documentation tracing back to any of the Irish kings named, and have merely received abuse as a reply. Just a description would do.

I have no intention of slandering genealogists in general, or in particular.

In this instance though, you may choose for yourself whether or not scepticism is called for.

And I will continue to put more credibility in DNA and in documentation that can be authenticated than I will in any number of Biblical begats.

Many of the so-called ancestors quoted belong more in the world of mythology than history. You may as well claim descent from Hercules, Helen of Troy, or King Kong, or in the case of some posters, probably all three.

Well, unfortunately, the Messiah is prophecied to accomplish, fulfill, and make complete all of the Messianic prophecies ..... IN A SINGLE LIFETIME!
Oh really? Prophecied where?
Besides, it's impossible. The Messiah must build the 3rd Temple, yet according to Daniel, will be killed before the destruction of the 2nd. The Messiah needs a minimum of 2 lifetimes to fulfil the prophecies.
Which shouldn't be a problem - apparently it's not a problem for Elijah, after all.

Still - if you don't think that Jesus is King of the Jews: who is? The line of succession is repeatedly guaranteed - either there's a reigning King, or the scriptures are hoaxes. Take your pick.

Is anybody aware that there are "Messianic Jews"? Not many, but some Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah, but keep their culture and tradition. I'll leave what I believe out of it.

...No, there is no such thing as Messanic Jews, You might mean Messanic Israelites - true Israelites who believe in the Messiah Yahsha, not the Jews who are not Israelites.

And I will continue to put more credibility in DNA and in documentation that can be authenticated than I will in any number of Biblical begats.


You must be unfamiliar with the term "academic exercise".

It's ok ... you clearly have yet to finish high school. I will forgive.

Besides, it's impossible. The Messiah must build the 3rd Temple, yet according to Daniel, will be killed before the destruction of the 2nd. The Messiah needs a minimum of 2 lifetimes to fulfil the prophecies.


Has it occured to you that so long as the kotel stands, the 2nd temple has not been finally destroyed? No ... I suppose it hasn't.

According to Christian perception Jesus is the 3rd Temple.

According to Christian perception Jesus is the 3rd Temple.

According to the perception of SOME christians, who choose to interpret such passages as 'metaphorical'.

Also, based on Mel Gibson's film. I despise him. He is a great director, but i despise him. His father is the one of the heads of the Australian Nazi Association, how could Mel Gibson not be anti-semetic?
Did you know that Arnold Schwartzenneger's father was a brownie? If that automatically made him a nazi (and an anti-semetic nazi at that, not everyone was), then I'm suprised why anyone let him get into office. Did you know one of my grand-uncles was a nazi? Am I expected to go around killing Jews now? I may not agree with them and may dislike what they have become as a culture, but I have nothing against Jews as a whole. Besides, anyone who goes as far as to argue for a religion or against another is, no doubt, going to be biased, one way or another.

On yet another note, how come there are so many atheists who claim that they were constantly forced religion by their parents? Why aren't they religious? Weird, eh?

According to the perception of SOME christians, who choose to interpret such passages as 'metaphorical'.
What exactly is wrong with that? Is there a strict method of interpretation? Are we no longer allowed to have our own thoughts? Do you believe that free thought and free speech are definite double-plus-ungood things?

Well, if there aren't "Messianic Jews" now, there certainly were after Jesus's death. Many of His followers kept their traditions, whilst of course following Him.

Interesting. Well, i am (or was) a Jew, though not practicing. I don't believe in God, and i don't believe a "messiah," will come or has already come. I find the theological aspects of religions to be irrational, and find that stories and other religious pieces to have more of a moral value.

Also, based on Mel Gibson's film. I despise him. He is a great director, but i despise him. His father is the one of the heads of the Australian Nazi Association, how could Mel Gibson not be anti-semetic?

He also (proven, but i can't copy and paste my source, it won't let me) added 19 scenes taht clearly show the "Jews" of Jesus's time as cruel, including thrusting a sack of his head and throwing him around. That is never mentioned in the Gospels.

AS well as how they depict the high priest, that Caicaphas dude, as a strong, stern leader, and Pilate (or whoever that ROman guy is) as a weak, controlled ruler. Switch their personalities and Gibson might have gotten close to being accurate...so, uh, there?

P.S. Im an Isrealite too, but my grandmother was a Kohen, not that it makes a difference :D ...

I've seen the film, and what I came off with -- if anything -- was that it was anti-Roman. Several of my Jewish friends lamented just hearing about the movie, expecting an International "Night of the Long Knives" and synagoges burning everywhere. It just didn't happen, and for good reason.

I'd entreat you to actually watch the film. Yes, some of the rabbis are portrayed in a negative light, but not so the Jewish people.

BTW, in my opinion, Pilate was not portrayed as weak. He was a politician, and a tired one at that.

I've seen the film, and what I came off with -- if anything -- was that it was anti-Roman. Several of my Jewish friends lamented just hearing about the movie, expecting an International "Night of the Long Knives" and synagoges burning everywhere. It just didn't happen, and for good reason.

I'd entreat you to actually watch the film. Yes, some of the rabbis are portrayed in a negative light, but not so the Jewish people.

BTW, in my opinion, Pilate was not portrayed as weak. He was a politician, and a tired one at that.So are we discussing movies now? Well then. The Gibson film was not anti-semitic, and it was not accurate. It told more what is Chritian dogma than what's in the Bible or what is known from contemporary accounts. He very well, though, showed all the symbolism surrounding the crucification. But he put the focus of the film on the wrong spot: the suffering of Christ is irrelevant, only his death is of importance.

You know, that Holy Bible is really a popular book. I find it really strange though that both Jews & Christians are only reading select scriptures. The Jews only follow what was written in the early chapters of the Old Testament, while most Christians don't even know that there are scriptures that are still being translated for publishing. My country has a policy about religion... we do not deter anyone from their beliefs. Yet we were forced to initiate a Bill Of Rights declaring that all people are allowed Freedom From Religion... there was just way too many civil wars before that.

So are we discussing movies now? Well then. The Gibson film was not anti-semitic, and it was not accurate. It told more what is Chritian dogma than what's in the Bible or what is known from contemporary accounts. He very well, though, showed all the symbolism surrounding the crucification. But he put the focus of the film on the wrong spot: the suffering of Christ is irrelevant, only his death is of importance.

Not ACCURATE???!!! Define accurate?

It told the story from an orthodox Catholic perspective (concentrating, as Catholicism does, on the S&M suffering aspects of the Passion). It told the story as told in the Gospels (with a bit of the Apocrypha thown in, like St Veronica and the face cloth). Of course, the four remaining Gospels were the ones chosen by the Catholic Church for inclusion in the Bible. Others were suppressed.

What OTHER source is there for the Crucifixion apart from the Bible? What other contemporary accounts? There are one or two Roman references to Pontius Pilate (revealing him to be a total bastard). There is The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus (a Romanised Jew), written 40 years after the crucifixion and not mentioning Jesus at all. There are a few scattered Roman references from the Emperor Nero's reign about Christians. And er... that's it. The Dead Sea Scrolls, maybe. Except they don't mention Jesus either.

YOU may believe that the suffering of Christ is irrelevant. I am assuming that you are a Protestant. To Catholics, the suffering is the whole point. I'm an atheist of Methodist parents and I married a (lapsed) Catholic, and I'm a historian of the Roman Empire, so I'd like to think I have a bit of perspective. But I couldn't find anything to 'disagree' with in the film. It told it as it is told in the Gospels. The Gospels are probably 50% bullshit, but the trouble is in knowing which 50%.

It was a bit anti-Semitic. It fudged the 'His Blood Be Upon Us' quote by having it said in Aramaic without subtitles. It was still there, though. Evidently that, like the generally pro-Roman (or Roman-neutral) bias of the Gospels is a later amendment. It would be odd for the Jews to claim the death of the Messiah after all, but remember history is written by the victors. The Jewish traditions of Jesus got trampled by St Paul and his synthesis of Roman and Christian. And he took good care to make sure rival interpretations were suppressed - just read his letters.

Not ACCURATE???!!! Define accurate?

It told the story from an orthodox Catholic perspective (concentrating, as Catholicism does, on the S&M suffering aspects of the Passion). It told the story as told in the Gospels (with a bit of the Apocrypha thown in, like St Veronica and the face cloth). Of course, the four remaining Gospels were the ones chosen by the Catholic Church for inclusion in the Bible. Others were suppressed.

What OTHER source is there for the Crucifixion apart from the Bible? What other contemporary accounts? There are one or two Roman references to Pontius Pilate (revealing him to be a total bastard). There is The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus (a Romanised Jew), written 40 years after the crucifixion and not mentioning Jesus at all. There are a few scattered Roman references from the Emperor Nero's reign about Christians. And er... that's it. The Dead Sea Scrolls, maybe. Except they don't mention Jesus either.

YOU may believe that the suffering of Christ is irrelevant. I am assuming that you are a Protestant. To Catholics, the suffering is the whole point. I'm an atheist of Methodist parents and I married a (lapsed) Catholic, and I'm a historian of the Roman Empire, so I'd like to think I have a bit of perspective. But I couldn't find anything to 'disagree' with in the film. It told it as it is told in the Gospels. The Gospels are probably 50% bullshit, but the trouble is in knowing which 50%.

It was a bit anti-Semitic. It fudged the 'His Blood Be Upon Us' quote by having it said in Aramaic without subtitles. It was still there, though. Evidently that, like the generally pro-Roman (or Roman-neutral) bias of the Gospels is a later amendment. It would be odd for the Jews to claim the death of the Messiah after all, but remember history is written by the victors. The Jewish traditions of Jesus got trampled by St Paul and his synthesis of Roman and Christian. And he took good care to make sure rival interpretations were suppressed - just read his letters.Pfffffft. I am not a Protestant. I was a Catholic once, but recently I have thought about becoming a Ptahist. ;) And all your barking does not impress me at all.

So are we discussing movies now? Well then. The Gibson film was not anti-semitic, and it was not accurate. It told more what is Chritian dogma than what's in the Bible or what is known from contemporary accounts. He very well, though, showed all the symbolism surrounding the crucification. But he put the focus of the film on the wrong spot: the suffering of Christ is irrelevant, only his death is of importance.

If it's brought up, sure.

I agree it was not anti-semitic. I disagree that it was not accurate. How can you know? I believe that it was pretty accurate.

True, the symbolism was rife.

I totally disagee. He suffered *and* died for our sins.

Mosoka- Nice thread.

I throughly agree. It is one of the more interesting and thought provoking threads I have read in months.

claiming that they are the children of god

Your knowledge of Judaism is indeed quite lacking. Judaism claims that ALL people are the children of God, since all humanity is descended from the same common ancestors (Adam and Eve).


insisting on a 'pure' bloodline

Again, wrong. Some of the greatest Jewish figures came from "impure" bloodlines. David and Solomon were descended of Ruth, a non-Israelite who converted. The Messiah is supposed to be David's descendant, which means that he will also share this same "impure" blood.

Blood, like race, is not the issue in Judaism. The issue is whether one BELONGS to the community. One does not have to be of a particular ethnic "stock" to belong.
This interchange highlights what may be a misunderstanding I have. If the covenant is with Abraham and down through Issac then through Jacob/Israel from whom the line is named. Then how, and in what manner are non-Jews also considered children of God? Perhaps there is the distinction that if you are of the lineage then you are children of the promise? But then that would exclude converts. Now I am truly confused.

The Jews only follow what was written in the early chapters of the Old Testament


Ummmm .... the Jewish Bible, called Torah, is only five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. That's it. It's not picking and choosing, that's Torah! The Kethuvim and the Nevi'im (what you'd call the rest of the "old testament") are stories and history, but have no significance in the face of Torah.

Christians have the Gospel and that's all that should matter to them.

"The Bible" - as you call it - is a compilation of 4-5 different religions' texts all lumped into one. It's not anyone's fault but your own that you don't realize that.

Why don't you just go back to throwing out your "Kerry the Kommunist" threads and leave real debate to the big boys.

Irish jew what is next Saudi Arabian Jew aah those papers are fake
You seem to delight is displaying your ignorance. I am of Irish descent and a non-Jew. There is a history of Jews throughout Europe. In Ireland the most established synagogue is in Cork. It might also amaze you to find there are Spanish Jews, French Jews, Italian Jews, etc, etc. What the devil is your point?

Has it occured to you that so long as the kotel stands, the 2nd temple has not been finally destroyed? No ... I suppose it hasn't.
You're right - it hadn't.
Perhaps if it wasn't known as the Wailing Wall, with people grieving the destruction of the Temple, it would have occurred to me.

Still, it's an argument, and worthy of debate. Do you believe that this is the case? If so, when did you last go up to the Temple to sacrifice? Is there any reference in the original Hebrew of Daniel referring to the *final* destruction? If not, why regard knocking over the Wall as more significant than the Roman destruction of the Temple?
Actually, which wall is it? Because the outer wall can't be considered part of the Temple anyway; that's the wall that Gentile troops were posted on during the Roman occupation, and marks the outside of the gentile court. (This is inquiry, rather than debate - I'd like to know).

Still waiting on the name of the current Jewish King, btw!

The comment about Messianic Jews that someone made about them being inspired by Baptists is correct. While your comment about early Christians being called Jews (although I would dispute their Jewishness, but that is irrelevant) is also true, that was quite a bit more than 1000 years.
C L I P

@ quick comments;

To the extent one considers the NT book Acts an historically accurate document the first Christians were Jews. It was the practice of Jesus to only preach to Jews. The initial prolestysing was by followers of Jesus who considered themselves to be Jews. This is very much highlighted in chapters 10 through 15.

It is generally accepted that the time frame is +/- 2000 years ago.

Did you know that Arnold Schwartzenneger's father was a brownie? If that automatically made him a nazi (and an anti-semetic nazi at that, not everyone was), then I'm suprised why anyone let him get into office. Did you know one of my grand-uncles was a nazi? Am I expected to go around killing Jews now? I may not agree with them and may dislike what they have become as a culture, but I have nothing against Jews as a whole. Besides, anyone who goes as far as to argue for a religion or against another is, no doubt, going to be biased, one way or another.

Yes, i did know that. Arnold is not a Nazi.

But the head of the Australian Nazi Association? Come on. I doubt he's not anti-semetic, and if he isn't, he certainly isn't shameful of his father. Almost all politic, religious, and ethical views begin with a person's environmental features, which often include the PARENTAL GAURDIANS.

And how you mention that many athiests are have religious parents. My family is extremely religious, and i made the decision with observations of my own to not be religious.

I agree it was not anti-semitic. I disagree that it was not accurate. How can you know? I believe that it was pretty accurate.

What do you mean "how can you know?" There are countless sources, primarily on the internet and news articles, to be observed. Perhaps not anti-semetic, but it was certainly not accurate. There were 19 "fake" scenes that depicted Jews as "cruel," but over 36 which did not happen (and were unrelated to Jews) in the Gospels anyway. As well as the fact that Mel Gibson used texts from Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, a clear anti-semiti nun of her time (i do not know her time, i think it was the 17th or 18th century?) and not even a King James version (not that i have anythign against his books, but they are hard to read for homework)...

I apologize for not doing the quotes the right way, the button isn't working :rolleyes: . The first quote was by Miratha, and the second quote was by Markreich.

What exactly is wrong with that? Is there a strict method of interpretation? Are we no longer allowed to have our own thoughts? Do you believe that free thought and free speech are definite double-plus-ungood things?

All that is wrong with it is that you claimed it as the view of Christians... which, I argue, is a much broader spectrum than your comment allows for.

According to Christian perception Jesus is the 3rd Temple.

All I said was that you have to read the bible a very specific way to get that interpretation, and there are as many Christians who would argue against your interpretation as would argue for it.

But, in my opinion, if you claim the text to be the literal word of god, you're stuck with that... and that means you don't GET to read parts as metaphor just because they don't make sense.

Now, if you claim that the text is just a book - allowing it to be true or false, real or fictional - you can choose to read some parts as metaphor if you like... but you cannot then claim that it is the one true word.

But I couldn't find anything to 'disagree' with in the film. It told it as it is told in the Gospels. The Gospels are probably 50% bullshit, but the trouble is in knowing which 50%.


How about Jesus 'inventing' table-and-chair dining? I don't recall that from Scripture...
How about Satan carrying a deformed dwarf through the crowd while Jesus was scourged... I don't really recall much deformed-dwarf scripture, either.
How about the 'demons' persuing Judas?
How about Jesus killing a snake?

Of course, the real question is, how could a film stay constant to the gospels, when even the gospels disagree with each other...

This interchange highlights what may be a misunderstanding I have. If the covenant is with Abraham and down through Issac then through Jacob/Israel from whom the line is named. Then how, and in what manner are non-Jews also considered children of God? Perhaps there is the distinction that if you are of the lineage then you are children of the promise? But then that would exclude converts. Now I am truly confused.

The distinction is that ALL people are Children of God, being descendants of the same people (Noah, and before him, Adam and Eve). That is separate from the "children of Israel", who are considered the descendants of Isaac. Converts are not excluded because they can convert and thereby join into this community or family- thereby becoming Children of Israel, too. In fact, oftentimes the first thing a convert is told after their conversion ceremony is their new Hebrew name- so and so son of "Abraham OUR father", or daughter of "Sarah OUR mother".

The conversion essentially serves as a form of adoption into the "family". But that doesn't negate that all human beings are, within Jewish theology, seen as Children of God.

I agree it was not anti-semitic. I disagree that it was not accurate. How can you know? I believe that it was pretty accurate.

True, the symbolism was rife.

I totally disagee. He suffered *and* died for our sins.

I disagree with you- not having seen it, but having read about it and spoken with (and read accounts by) Jews who have seen it, it seems that there is a lot of content in the film which fits under the rubric of "anti-semitic". One issue to consider is how much of it, if any, was DELIBERATELY put there to offend Jews. I doubt that component really entered Gibson's mind when filming- although the fact that it was brought to his attention and he basically said, "F- you, I don't care" is somewhat disconcerting.

I also believe there are quite a number of things Gibson put in that are both inaccurate with scholarly accounts of the period and its political situation, as well as with the Bible itself.

See http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson8.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson10.htm for some specific examples.

Oh really? Prophecied where?
Besides, it's impossible. The Messiah must build the 3rd Temple, yet according to Daniel, will be killed before the destruction of the 2nd. The Messiah needs a minimum of 2 lifetimes to fulfil the prophecies.

How about some quotes and citations?

Still - if you don't think that Jesus is King of the Jews: who is?

Today's Judaism (with the exception of some small Messianic movements) maintains the position that the Messiah has not come yet.

The line of succession is repeatedly guaranteed - either there's a reigning King, or the scriptures are hoaxes. Take your pick.

Quotes and citations, please.

If it's brought up, sure.
I agree it was not anti-semitic. I disagree that it was not accurate. How can you know? I believe that it was pretty accurate.
True, the symbolism was rife.
I totally disagee. He suffered *and* died for our sins.Ahem...No.
You seem to have missed what the (sole) purpose of Jesus was (according, of course, to Christian logic): to un-make the sin of Adam, i.e. the original estrangement of Man from god. Through the death of Jesus a temple of stone was no longer needed because no intermediary between human and god was required any more. That's what is called the "New Covenant". The symbol for this was that the "veil of the temple was torn in two" (Luke 23:45), meaning that the access to god was now unhindered.
For the movie's accuracy: e.g. I would have bet anything that neither Jesus nor Pilatus nor any Temple cleric spoke Latin, nor that Pilatus spoke Aramaic. The lingua franca of all of the eastern Mediterranean was, of course, Greek, and especially for one of Roman nobility like Pilatus. No-one would have understood him in Judaea at that time if he had spoken Latin, since that language was only very slowly coming into use there.

You must be unfamiliar with the term "academic exercise".

It's ok ... you clearly have yet to finish high school. I will forgive.

So, your claimed lineage, traceable back to Adam, and including several Irish kings, for which you claim to have supporting documentation, is merely an "academic exercise"?

(This amusingly outrageous claim can be viewed in its full hilarity as post number 8 of this thread)

I quote in part ....

START QUOTE

"Want my proof that I am an Israelite?

Okie dokie ....

My pedigree: (leaving out dates and all that)

1. Me
.....
4. My mother's mother's mother (now I'll start names, since the following are dead).....
...
33. Muirchertach MacLochlainn, 182nd Monarch of Ireland
34. Niall MacLochlainn, King of Tir Conaill
...
46. Niall Frossach, 162nd Monarch of Ireland
...
59. Niall Noigiallach, 126th Monarch of Ireland
60. Eochaid Mugmedon, 124th Monarch of Ireland
...
91. Dui Ladrach, 59th Monarch of Ireland
...
144. Enosh
145. Seth
146. Adam

So there it is. That represents over a decade of research and travel and I have substantiating documents to back it up.

Where's your pedigree, Christian? If you want to steal my birthright, then kiss my royal Irish ass."

END QUOTE

Does it become an "academic exercise" only when people ask about your supposed documentation and express scepticism about your far-fetched claims?

Your claimed "birthright" and "pedigree" reduced to a mere "academic exercise"?

Is "academic exercise" a polite euphemism for bullsh*t?

What ever happened to your "decade of research and travel and ...substantiating documents "????

You have really left yourself looking rather foolish. One could easily suspect you of speaking through your "royal Irish ass".

I am in fact familiar with the expression "academic exercise".

Are you familiar with the expression "making it up as you go along"?

for 1200 years 'christians' have rejected mohammid and for 160 years muslims have rejected the bab and baha'u'llah.

the reasons are exactly the same

but a deeper question might be:
"are messias what we really need?"

=^^=
.../\...

How about Jesus 'inventing' table-and-chair dining? I don't recall that from Scripture...
How about Satan carrying a deformed dwarf through the crowd while Jesus was scourged... I don't really recall much deformed-dwarf scripture, either.
How about the 'demons' persuing Judas?
How about Jesus killing a snake?

Of course, the real question is, how could a film stay constant to the gospels, when even the gospels disagree with each other...

Oh yes, the table thing. I'd forgotten about that. Yes, that was pretty stupid. But then, it was about the only laugh in the film, which was otherwise pretty grim.
The demon thing was also a bit odd, but then if you're Catholic I guess you believe in demons. The snake was just a spin-off from that, trampling Satan underfoot and all that (mind you, it never says in Genesis that the snake in the garden of Eden is Satan, that's a later Catholic interpretation).

The dwarf was a bit Twin Peaks, it must be said.

The point I was making earlier was a response to the poster who called the film 'inaccurate'. I don't see how he can say that. The film portrays the orthodox Catholic view, derived from the Gospels. There is no other source for this apart from some apocryphal Gospels, saints lives etc (some small bits of which, admittedly, Gibson chose to include, like St Veronica - I don't think that, nor the minor quibbles you have raised, necessarily makes the entire film 'inaccurate').
The Gospels don't exactly disagree, IIRC, it's more to do with things that one mentions that another doesn't. So the Catholics simply assume that all bits are true and include them all. Of course, if Gibson had got to the bit about the empty tomb, he would have to decide whether the women were met by 1 man, 2 men, 1 angel or 2 angels, which could have been a tough call. Most films go for one angel.

The film is the authorised Catholic version of the Passion, as it has been passed down for centuries. Even the pope is reputed to have said: "it is as it was." My interpretation was that the poster felt that the film overdid the suffering angle, and that was why he felt it didn't chime with his own mental picture of the Passion. I may have misinterpreted that (it happens...)

But to my mind Catholicism has always had a bit of a fetishistic focus on the suffering because to them the suffering is the point. The more Christ suffers, the more he takes the sins of the world upon himself. During the Middle Ages people used to walk in procession with crowns of thorns, whipping themselves in imitation of him (probably still do in some places). If you look at art of the period the focus is always lovingly on the pain and blood and suffering. In fact, Gibson at times uses medieval and Renaissance paintings and recreates them on the screen, especially things like the Descent From the Cross and the Pieta (where Mary grieves over the body) - very common themes in Catholic art. I just felt that the film was tapping into that tradition.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I just felt 'inaccurate' was not a good way of describing the film. I am an atheist and the actual story has no religious significance to me, but I like the film somehow, for all of its rather hysterical nature.

Oh yes, the table thing. I'd forgotten about that. Yes, that was pretty stupid. But then, it was about the only laugh in the film, which was otherwise pretty grim.
The demon thing was also a bit odd, but then if you're Catholic I guess you believe in demons. The snake was just a spin-off from that, trampling Satan underfoot and all that (mind you, it never says in Genesis that the snake in the garden of Eden is Satan, that's a later Catholic interpretation).

The dwarf was a bit Twin Peaks, it must be said.

The point I was making earlier was a response to the poster who called the film 'inaccurate'. I don't see how he can say that. The film portrays the orthodox Catholic view, derived from the Gospels. There is no other source for this apart from some apocryphal Gospels, saints lives etc (some small bits of which, admittedly, Gibson chose to include, like St Veronica - I don't think that, nor the minor quibbles you have raised, necessarily makes the entire film 'inaccurate').
The Gospels don't exactly disagree, IIRC, it's more to do with things that one mentions that another doesn't. So the Catholics simply assume that all bits are true and include them all. Of course, if Gibson had got to the bit about the empty tomb, he would have to decide whether the women were met by 1 man, 2 men, 1 angel or 2 angels, which could have been a tough call. Most films go for one angel.

The film is the authorised Catholic version of the Passion, as it has been passed down for centuries. Even the pope is reputed to have said: "it is as it was." My interpretation was that the poster felt that the film overdid the suffering angle, and that was why he felt it didn't chime with his own mental picture of the Passion. I may have misinterpreted that (it happens...)

But to my mind Catholicism has always had a bit of a fetishistic focus on the suffering because to them the suffering is the point. The more Christ suffers, the more he takes the sins of the world upon himself. During the Middle Ages people used to walk in procession with crowns of thorns, whipping themselves in imitation of him (probably still do in some places). If you look at art of the period the focus is always lovingly on the pain and blood and suffering. In fact, Gibson at times uses medieval and Renaissance paintings and recreates them on the screen, especially things like the Descent From the Cross and the Pieta (where Mary grieves over the body) - very common themes in Catholic art. I just felt that the film was tapping into that tradition.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I just felt 'inaccurate' was not a good way of describing the film. I am an atheist and the actual story has no religious significance to me, but I like the film somehow, for all of its rather hysterical nature.

Yup. As a Catholic, that movie was really really Catholic. Some parts WERE dumb like the table thing.

You're correct: Catholics do believe in literal daemons. I only saw the movie once, but I'll watch for that next time. As for the snake, it's fine. Snakes represent an absolute ton of stuff in mythology. If it wasn't Satan, it may have represented danger in general - a valid omen considering the time and place.

Still, it's an argument, and worthy of debate. Do you believe that this is the case?

I believe it is possible. I believe the kotel to be part of the Temple. If it weren't, then hundreds of thousands of Jews from all over the world would not go out of their way to pray there.

If so, when did you last go up to the Temple to sacrifice?

Sacrifice is not permitted without the tabernacle. As for me, personally, I wouldn't anyway. I don't practice that religion.


Is there any reference in the original Hebrew of Daniel referring to the *final* destruction? If not, why regard knocking over the Wall as more significant than the Roman destruction of the Temple?

Destruction is destruction, even in Hebrew. It is said that if there were even one Jew less than the amount at Sinai, then Torah would not have been received. It is an implication that every brick of the Temple is part of the Temple.

Actually, which wall is it? Because the outer wall can't be considered part of the Temple anyway; that's the wall that Gentile troops were posted on during the Roman occupation, and marks the outside of the gentile court. (This is inquiry, rather than debate - I'd like to know).

It's the Western Wall and it was part of the Temple - even if the Romans defiled it.

Still waiting on the name of the current Jewish King, btw!

Nobody knows. The bloodline has been lost. That's why we wait.

So, your claimed lineage, traceable back to Adam, and including several Irish kings, for which you claim to have supporting documentation, is merely an "academic exercise"?


Yeah ... I don't really know who my mother is ...

I stated quite clearly that Boath to Adam is academic. You refuse to read my other posts and have clung to just the one. Sad.

I also quite clearly described what a document looks like, you've chosen to ignore it.

This makes your part in this debate at an end. If you wish to continue, you may do so, but it will be without benefit of my response. You will take this as a victory, but you will be wrong.

Yeah ... I don't really know who my mother is ...

I stated quite clearly that Boath to Adam is academic. You refuse to read my other posts and have clung to just the one. Sad.

I also quite clearly described what a document looks like, you've chosen to ignore it.

This makes your part in this debate at an end. If you wish to continue, you may do so, but it will be without benefit of my response. You will take this as a victory, but you will be wrong.

I have repeatedly asked you to describe your supposed supporting documentation, linking you not to Adam, but to any of the Irish kings you claimed descent from. You have never done so, and never can, as any true student of history will attest.

You made a ludicrous original claim, and have attempted to bluster and back-pedal the more it has been questioned.

I don't think any further comment is required.

I think the religion of that time is as advanced as the science of that time.

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Why_Jews_Dont_Believe_In_Jesus.asp

In the wake of Mel Gibson's phenomenally successful film and the production company's ambitious plans to market the film worldwide to "the faithless," taking advantage of what is perhaps "the best Christian outreach opportunity in 2,000 years," it is important for Jews to understand why we don't believe in Jesus.

The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation.


But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?

The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word "Mashiach", which means "Anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3)

Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as "an anointed one" (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: "God forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the Lord's Messiah [Saul]..." (I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6)

Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)

Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed king as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.

1. JESUS DID NOT FULFILL THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah."

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

________________________

2) JESUS DID NOT EMBODY THE PERSONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MESSIAH

A. MESSIAH AS PROPHET

The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum - Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides - Yad Teshuva 9:2)

Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets -- Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus was not a prophet; he appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

B. DESCENDENT OF DAVID

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (1) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (2)

C. TORAH OBSERVANCE

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

____________________

3) MISTRANSLATED VERSES "REFERRING" TO JESUS

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text -- which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. VIRGIN BIRTH

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

B. SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44). Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.

For further reading, go to: http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-ss.html

______________________

4) JEWISH BELIEF IS BASED SOLELY ON NATIONAL REVELATION

Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God's true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, there is still no verification that he is a genuine prophet. Miracles do not prove anything. All they show -- assuming they are genuine -- is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.

Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).

Of the thousands of religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation -- i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.

Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):


The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.

What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us -- who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)


Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

For further reading: "Did God Speak at Mount Sinai?"

WAITING FOR THE MESSIAH

The world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. And to the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions asked of a Jew on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"

How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.

Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.

The Messiah can come any day, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: "Redemption will come today -- if you hearken to His voice."

For further study visit: Jews for Judaism

See also:

"You Are My Witness: The Traditional Jewish Response to Christian Missionaries" A booklet in pdf format by Yisroel C. Blumenthal

"The Real Messiah," by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan

"The Path of the Righteous Gentile," by Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky

FOOTNOTES

1.Maimonides devotes much of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19).

2. In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:


a) There is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30)

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:


a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's.

b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Samuel 7:14; I Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.



No need to get the Romans to do your dirty work for you and get him murdered! What with 'The chosen people' and 'The master race', the Jews and the Germans by various philosophies and actions have been a curse on the whole world. The Germans have become democratic, but the Jews, particularly in Israel are still as blatently selfish and racist as they ever were.

I have repeatedly asked you to describe your supposed supporting documentation, linking you not to Adam, but to any of the Irish kings you claimed descent from. You have never done so, and never can, as any true student of history will attest.


Oh for the love of ....

Fine ... here:

Me to my mother - birth certificate.
My mother to her mother - birth certificate.
My mother's mother to her mother - birth certificate.
My mother's mother's mother to Mary Reilly - birth certificate.
Mary Reilly to Harry Reilly - birth certificate.
Here ... lemme make this easy ... I have copies of birth certificates from me to Horace Reilly.

I link Horace Reilly all the way up to Wallace Codd using a wonderful device called a "library". Horace Reilly was the recipient of several land titles, granted by his mother at the time of her death. Said land titles bear the names of at least 4 generations of ownership and, using that, one can find the records of the 1st generation.

Those land title links give me Wallace Codd's parents' names because they co-signed on the loan! :eek:

Now, some of the line at this point is pretty easy because of a wonderful man that I met in Omagh, Ireland by the name of James Raellagh, who can also link himself to Wallace Codd's grandmother, Margaret Raellagh, daughter of Sir Liam Raellagh, which is a simple historical document obtained in a library concerning Irish titles and nobility, giving a small tree of Sir Liam Raellagh, who had a daughter named Margaret Raellagh, who married Edward de Neville, and they had a daughter named Edna, who married Ian Codd.

So ... in the same book, we find Sir Liam's parents. His father was Domuil Aed Raellagh, son of Tomiafh O'Raellagh. This book represents a historical document and is well researched by many people who came before me, so you don't just have to take my word for it!

Now ... Tomiafh, being the good boy that he was, kept his family bible, which has the names of his parents and grandparents. His father was one Aed MacNiall O'Raellagh and his father's father was one Niall Raellagh, "born of good stock to the King of Man, Godfred O' Raellagh aka Godfred III, in the year 1163".

Looking into easily found history, we find that Godfred's dad was ... dun dun dunnnnnn ... Maek Sechnaill MacLochlainn, Queen of Cenel Eogain, daughter to none other than Muirchertach MacLochlainn, 182nd Monarch of Ireland!

There ... happy? I couldn't imagine just what else you'd possibly need.

No need to get the Romans to do your dirty work for you and get him murdered! What with 'The chosen people' and 'The master race', the Jews and the Germans by various philosophies and actions have been a curse on the whole world. The Germans have become democratic, but the Jews, particularly in Israel are still as blatently selfish and racist as they ever were.

Nothin' beats a fresh new account made just to troll. *refreshed sigh* I do so love General.

Ooh! Not only that, but a brand spankin' new Nation with 7 UN endorsements already! Puppets abound.

I disagree with you- not having seen it, but having read about it and spoken with (and read accounts by) Jews who have seen it, it seems that there is a lot of content in the film which fits under the rubric of "anti-semitic". One issue to consider is how much of it, if any, was DELIBERATELY put there to offend Jews. I doubt that component really entered Gibson's mind when filming- although the fact that it was brought to his attention and he basically said, "F- you, I don't care" is somewhat disconcerting.

I also believe there are quite a number of things Gibson put in that are both inaccurate with scholarly accounts of the period and its political situation, as well as with the Bible itself.

See http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson8.htm and http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrgibson10.htm for some specific examples.

Taking second hand tales to form your opinion, while you can see it and form your own opinion first hand, seems odd to me. Further, as Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", and more is being read into it than is really there. I went into the movie expecting it to be a bloodbath with blame being thrown all around. IMHO, that's not what happened. Barring a few "bad" clerics at the temple, the Roman soldiers are the real bastards.

That's likely true, but I'll grant artistic license. No movie is 100% accurate. Heck, most aren't even 50%! Even the brilliant 1989 "Henry V" failed to show the gun used at Agincourt. Rememeber, it's a FILM, not a DOCUMENTARY. Though we see from Michael Moore that those are artisticly edited, too. :->

These are good examples, but it still comes down to opinion in my mind. I still entreat you to see the film (with the remote control out of reach and the batteries removed) and form your own opinions.

BTW- I consider a Jewish person refusing to see the movie because it's "offensive" as empty an arguement as a German refusing to see "Schinder's List". Not all Jews/Germans/etc are good or bad; but systems or people can be.
In saying this I am *not* comparing Nazism to the ancient Hebrews/Jews, and as someone who's been to Aushwitz I would take exception to anyone whom says that I am.

Ahem...No.
You seem to have missed what the (sole) purpose of Jesus was (according, of course, to Christian logic): to un-make the sin of Adam, i.e. the original estrangement of Man from god. Through the death of Jesus a temple of stone was no longer needed because no intermediary between human and god was required any more. That's what is called the "New Covenant". The symbol for this was that the "veil of the temple was torn in two" (Luke 23:45), meaning that the access to god was now unhindered.
For the movie's accuracy: e.g. I would have bet anything that neither Jesus nor Pilatus nor any Temple cleric spoke Latin, nor that Pilatus spoke Aramaic. The lingua franca of all of the eastern Mediterranean was, of course, Greek, and especially for one of Roman nobility like Pilatus. No-one would have understood him in Judaea at that time if he had spoken Latin, since that language was only very slowly coming into use there.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the the suffering for our sins was part of the process.
Probably right, though many scholars contend the polylingualism was more common than previously expected. There are records of some common citizens (!) being able to write in both tongues.

Yes, what Ankher said about the languages currently used at that time is correct.

The Romans spoke Greek at that time, and the Hebrews (or Jews, whatever) spoke Aramaic.

And God Aramaic is so diffucult to learn! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

And God Aramaic is so diffucult to learn! :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


Nah ... just learn Samaritan ... it's essentially the same thing.

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/samaritan.htm

No ... I'm ignoring people who clearly have no clue how geneaology works ... ignorance is not an option.

Why should I debate my bloodline? It makes no sense. It's like me telling you to prove who your dad is. I've done the work, you just take your mom's word for it. *shrug*

Oh my Lord. You're right. I have no idea how geneology works. Exactly. Um, I do know however that in order to have word from the distant past like that, you need *some* kind of written record. And I suppose since your family has only been royalty for the last several millenia (Oh, wait, human evolution goes back over 10,000....most without written record...) they must have left everything in a box for you to find. Or do you now believe in evolution? Of course, there's the answer! You're a Bible-thumping literalist! I'm a Catholic myself, but even I don't believe literally everything in Bible, expecially where it contradicts itself and promotes slavery and stoning those who disobey their parents. So go ahead, believe in your 'ancient pedigree' from the Dawn of Time. I'll go ahead and join the real world. Nice talking to you!

Oh for the love of ....

Fine ... here:

Me to my mother - birth certificate.
My mother to her mother - birth certificate.
My mother's mother to her mother - birth certificate.
My mother's mother's mother to Mary Reilly - birth certificate.
Mary Reilly to Harry Reilly - birth certificate.
Here ... lemme make this easy ... I have copies of birth certificates from me to Horace Reilly.

I link Horace Reilly all the way up to Wallace Codd using a wonderful device called a "library". Horace Reilly was the recipient of several land titles, granted by his mother at the time of her death. Said land titles bear the names of at least 4 generations of ownership and, using that, one can find the records of the 1st generation.

Those land title links give me Wallace Codd's parents' names because they co-signed on the loan! :eek:

Now, some of the line at this point is pretty easy because of a wonderful man that I met in Omagh, Ireland by the name of James Raellagh, who can also link himself to Wallace Codd's grandmother, Margaret Raellagh, daughter of Sir Liam Raellagh, which is a simple historical document obtained in a library concerning Irish titles and nobility, giving a small tree of Sir Liam Raellagh, who had a daughter named Margaret Raellagh, who married Edward de Neville, and they had a daughter named Edna, who married Ian Codd.

So ... in the same book, we find Sir Liam's parents. His father was Domuil Aed Raellagh, son of Tomiafh O'Raellagh. This book represents a historical document and is well researched by many people who came before me, so you don't just have to take my word for it!

Now ... Tomiafh, being the good boy that he was, kept his family bible, which has the names of his parents and grandparents. His father was one Aed MacNiall O'Raellagh and his father's father was one Niall Raellagh, "born of good stock to the King of Man, Godfred O' Raellagh aka Godfred III, in the year 1163".

Looking into easily found history, we find that Godfred's dad was ... dun dun dunnnnnn ... Maek Sechnaill MacLochlainn, Queen of Cenel Eogain, daughter to none other than Muirchertach MacLochlainn, 182nd Monarch of Ireland!

There ... happy? I couldn't imagine just what else you'd possibly need.

I could also make up dozens of names explaining my heritage, but won't bother. Also, how long has the Earth been in existence? Just curious, since you go back to Adam, you must have a date....

I could also make up dozens of names explaining my heritage, but won't bother. Also, how long has the Earth been in existence? Just curious, since you go back to Adam, you must have a date....

You're just stupid, aren't you? Go read every post I've made in this thread and then get back to me.

By the way ... you saying I'm making up my mother's name ... or her mother's ... or her mother's mothers? At what point in my lineage does your disbelief kick in?

What name do you accuse me of "making up"?

You're a Bible-thumping literalist!

Oy gevalt ... you don't know me at all, do you ...

Click my name, look at my profile, check out my website ... then come tell me how I'm a Bible *anything* ...

Moron.

You have to admit that the family tree going back to Adam is quite arresting, and you did present it originally in quite emphatic fashion. However, the reason I backed out on about page 5, whereas some people are still going 17 tiresome pages later, is that you made it quite clear that, while each stage linked in to historical research which is about as valid as any other document from the period (aside from the Biblical stuff, which you either take on faith or not) you CLEARLY don't take it as seriously as the continued detractors seem to want to believe that you do.

Give the man a break, people. It's nothing more than an interesting academic exercise. He happened to be fortunate that some documentation held up. Most of us could probably do likewise if we picked the right branch of our family tree (remember it's an exponential combination explosion). He has said that. Why don't you believe him?

Taking second hand tales to form your opinion, while you can see it and form your own opinion first hand, seems odd to me.

I've been busy. I do have a life other than the Passion.

Further, as Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", and more is being read into it than is really there. I went into the movie expecting it to be a bloodbath with blame being thrown all around. IMHO, that's not what happened. Barring a few "bad" clerics at the temple, the Roman soldiers are the real bastards.

The beauty of personal interpretation. Someone who is coming from a different perspective would likely to interpret certain scenes differently- two obviously identifiable Jewish children morphing into demons, for instance, will probably not have the same impact (or be interpreted the same way) by a Jew watching for how Jews are portrayed and a Catholic watching to see how Christ's suffering is portrayed.

That's likely true, but I'll grant artistic license. No movie is 100% accurate. Heck, most aren't even 50%! Even the brilliant 1989 "Henry V" failed to show the gun used at Agincourt. Rememeber, it's a FILM, not a DOCUMENTARY.

But it is purporting to be Biblically as well as historically accurate, when repeated incidences of discrepancies have been documented. Hence the problem. Add to that the fact that the story it is telling is one of the most emotionally and historically loaded of all time. To quite a number of Jews, inaccuracy in relating the Jewish role in Jesus' death is not a matter of artistic liscence- it's downright dangerous. The historical precedent stares us in the face, even as we are assuaged and comforted by the complete lack of Passion-related violence towards Jews as of late in the West (although many suspect this film will be used to foment anti-Semitism in, say, the Arab world).

These are good examples, but it still comes down to opinion in my mind. I still entreat you to see the film (with the remote control out of reach and the batteries removed) and form your own opinions.

Why the restrictions on remote control? I suspect I'd probably need it during the course of the film- if only to go to the bathroom.

BTW- I consider a Jewish person refusing to see the movie because it's "offensive" as empty an arguement as a German refusing to see "Schinder's List". Not all Jews/Germans/etc are good or bad; but systems or people can be.

And the relevance to my comments is...?

In saying this I am *not* comparing Nazism to the ancient Hebrews/Jews, and as someone who's been to Aushwitz I would take exception to anyone whom says that I am.

Congratulations. I still have no idea why this is relevant.

I've been busy. I do have a life other than the Passion.

The beauty of personal interpretation. Someone who is coming from a different perspective would likely to interpret certain scenes differently- two obviously identifiable Jewish children morphing into demons, for instance, will probably not have the same impact (or be interpreted the same way) by a Jew watching for how Jews are portrayed and a Catholic watching to see how Christ's suffering is portrayed.

But it is purporting to be Biblically as well as historically accurate, when repeated incidences of discrepancies have been documented. Hence the problem. Add to that the fact that the story it is telling is one of the most emotionally and historically loaded of all time. To quite a number of Jews, inaccuracy in relating the Jewish role in Jesus' death is not a matter of artistic liscence- it's downright dangerous. The historical precedent stares us in the face, even as we are assuaged and comforted by the complete lack of Passion-related violence towards Jews as of late in the West (although many suspect this film will be used to foment anti-Semitism in, say, the Arab world).

Why the restrictions on remote control? I suspect I'd probably need it during the course of the film- if only to go to the bathroom.

And the relevance to my comments is...?

Congratulations. I still have no idea why this is relevant.
As do I. I saw it once, months ago. I'm sure you could allow a couple of hours if you wanted to.

Very true.

And so was Farenheight 9/11. Use your own judgement as to how "authentic" something is. :)
That there wasn't any when it was practically expected SHOULD be comforting. Likewise, I don't think that the Christians have an interest in provoking the Arabs to hate the Jews. Not only doesn't it help anybody, but let's face it, I don't think that much more prodding could be done in that arena if one WANTED to.

Because it's waaay to tempting to fast forward through uncomfortable parts.

Mostly to cut off any "trolls" accusing me of being an anti-semetic bigot.

Yay for geneaology. Thats a little bit comprehensive though... :|

Anyways, all I know is that on my father's side (British) I am related to John Keats the poet, and john addington symonds... You might be saying "who?" Exactly :P Not exactly the most famous people, but it still counts for something. Keats is kind of famous, though.

On my mum's side its french, sopposedly it was with one of the earliest expeditions to the new world (like the founding of Quebec)

For all I know all of that could be fake.... but whatever, its my personal faith in my family history :P

Uh, I'm not gonna bother finding the quotes for these, so here...

1. I do not consider my word the word of all Christians.

2. I am a Protestant (Presbyterian) and consider both the suffering and death of Christ important.

3. People do not need to be of a specific race to have a religion. The exception is the Protoss Khata, which, by the way, don't exist.

Yay for geneaology. Thats a little bit comprehensive though... :|

Anyways, all I know is that on my father's side (British) I am related to John Keats the poet, and john addington symonds... You might be saying "who?" Exactly :P Not exactly the most famous people, but it still counts for something. Keats is kind of famous, though.

On my mum's side its french, sopposedly it was with one of the earliest expeditions to the new world (like the founding of Quebec)

For all I know all of that could be fake.... but whatever, its my personal faith in my family history :P
I might be related to Mark Chagall, a famous Jewish artist (which makes me a JEW!!! Whah!?). 'Cause he was from one of those wacky villages where everyone's related for some godforsaken reason (most likely intermarriage or common ancestor) at the same time my Grandmother was there.

Yup. As a Catholic, that movie was really really Catholic. Some parts WERE dumb like the table thing.

You're correct: Catholics do believe in literal daemons. I only saw the movie once, but I'll watch for that next time. As for the snake, it's fine. Snakes represent an absolute ton of stuff in mythology. If it wasn't Satan, it may have represented danger in general - a valid omen considering the time and place.

What I was saying was innaccurate was the placing of those concepts. Sure, Catholics believe in demons, but where in the Bible does it say that Judas was chased out of town by demons?

Similarly... the snake incident is obviously a reference to the Genesis episode where Eve is told that her son's will 'bruise' the serpent with the heel... I get the image... but it isn't scripturally accurate for Jesus to be stomping on snakes...

But it is purporting to be Biblically as well as historically accurate, when repeated incidences of discrepancies have been documented. Hence the problem. Add to that the fact that the story it is telling is one of the most emotionally and historically loaded of all time. To quite a number of Jews, inaccuracy in relating the Jewish role in Jesus' death is not a matter of artistic liscence- it's downright dangerous. The historical precedent stares us in the face, even as we are assuaged and comforted by the complete lack of Passion-related violence towards Jews as of late in the West (although many suspect this film will be used to foment anti-Semitism in, say, the Arab world).



Congratulations. I still have no idea why this is relevant.


One point that I have not seen adressed is one that I think is very important. In Roman times, the Emperor Constantine rewrote the Christian bibe. The original text puts more emphasis on the fact that the Romans killed Jesus, rather then blaming the Jews. Constantine wanted to incorporate Christianity into the Roman Empire, so he changed parts of the bible to suit his own needs

What I was saying was innaccurate was the placing of those concepts. Sure, Catholics believe in demons, but where in the Bible does it say that Judas was chased out of town by demons?

Similarly... the snake incident is obviously a reference to the Genesis episode where Eve is told that her son's will 'bruise' the serpent with the heel... I get the image... but it isn't scripturally accurate for Jesus to be stomping on snakes...
Well, there's all sorts of reasons to make these changes. One, the nonliteral creative license, which can be used to make all sorts of stupid changes (most of the time; I have nothing against good use of it). Second, it's a powerful way to reinforce your bias upon people who don't know better. C., it's not meant to be taken literally. None of these are particularly good excuses for the Passion of the Christ, particularly because Mel Gibson is Catholic.

Another important thing to note is that while Catholics believe in demons, they also consider deities such as Astarte (Soul Calibur fans may remember "Astaroth") and Baal ("Beelzebub") to be demons and references in the Old Testament that "we have worshipped the idols of Baal and Astarte.", Which points out, quite obviously, that they are not demons at all, but false idols (which were once worshipped alongside YHWH). Sorry, no scripture listing, I can't remember it. It may have been in the book of Samuel.

PS. Look hard in the first paragraph to see something really stupid I did on purpose that has nothing to do with religion. It may come easily, you may have no clue. If it's the first, you're weird.

Yes, i did know that. Arnold is not a Nazi. But the head of the Australian Nazi Association? Come on. I doubt he's not anti-semetic, and if he isn't, he certainly isn't shameful of his father. Almost all politic, religious, and ethical views begin with a person's environmental features, which often include the PARENTAL GAURDIANS.
Which, of course, does not apply to Arnie, for whatever reason. I bet he's special. I may also say that my parents have told me many of their views, few of which are absolutely identical for mine. For instance, my parents say that the Jews refused to become Christians because they killed him and they're essentially doomed to Hell because Jesus is the Messiah. My personal views contradict most of this; I will allow them to make their own choice, and I do believe that everyone goes to Heaven regardless because Jesus suffered and died on the cross for all of us. Besides, I'm not shameful of their beliefs. Who really cares? It's your choice what to believe.
And how you mention that many athiests are have religious parents. My family is extremely religious, and i made the decision with observations of my own to not be religious.
Yes, but most Atheists say they had major religious problems with their parents; majority rules. Furthermore, you say that your view was not affected by your parents. Once again, this means you managed to break free from the shackles of parental guardians, just like anyone else can. Amazing.

Really? Based on the majority of the people who post here, or on other "religious" threads, like mine, their posts are biased, no matter how hard they try to hide it.

My parents never tried to intentionally influence me religiously...there were no apparent "shackles," to be broken.

I will agree with you- anyone can easily "break the shackles" (perhaps i'm using the expression too much :D ), they just choose not to. That is, if they are given a choice.

Really? Based on the majority of the people who post here, or on other "religious" threads, like mine, their posts are biased, no matter how hard they try to hide it.

My parents never tried to intentionally influence me religiously...there were no apparent "shackles," to be broken.

I will agree with you- anyone can easily "break the shackles" (perhaps i'm using the expression too much :D ), they just choose not to. That is, if they are given a choice.
Believe me. Everyone's a little bit biased. Everyone's a little bit racist, too. These work ten-fold for people who bother to post on religious debates.

Once again, not just anyone, but a majority has broken from the metaphorical evil shackles of parents who will try to force religious morals on their children.

Here's a question from a Christian to an Atheist, and that is, do you ever consider the bible (or other religious text) as a worthy source of morals in times of need, even if one was not religious?

One point that I have not seen adressed is one that I think is very important. In Roman times, the Emperor Constantine rewrote the Christian bibe. The original text puts more emphasis on the fact that the Romans killed Jesus, rather then blaming the Jews. Constantine wanted to incorporate Christianity into the Roman Empire, so he changed parts of the bible to suit his own needs
They're both to blame, but the Romans are sick for going through with it. Luckily (and coincidentally), they're dead now; this could easily be taken as Divine Intervention, but I'm not even going to bother trying to argue it. Here's a question: Nowadays, if anyone claimed to be the Messiah and managed to rastle up a few worshippers, would you kill the claimer or convince someone to?

Seriously, Jesus would never have been killed if no one believed him. Neat.

Oh for the love of ....

Fine ... here:

Me to my mother - birth certificate.
My mother to her mother - birth certificate.
My mother's mother to her mother - birth certificate.
My mother's mother's mother to Mary Reilly - birth certificate.
Mary Reilly to Harry Reilly - birth certificate.
Here ... lemme make this easy ... I have copies of birth certificates from me to Horace Reilly.

I link Horace Reilly all the way up to Wallace Codd using a wonderful device called a "library". Horace Reilly was the recipient of several land titles, granted by his mother at the time of her death. Said land titles bear the names of at least 4 generations of ownership and, using that, one can find the records of the 1st generation.

Those land title links give me Wallace Codd's parents' names because they co-signed on the loan! :eek:

Now, some of the line at this point is pretty easy because of a wonderful man that I met in Omagh, Ireland by the name of James Raellagh, who can also link himself to Wallace Codd's grandmother, Margaret Raellagh, daughter of Sir Liam Raellagh, which is a simple historical document obtained in a library concerning Irish titles and nobility, giving a small tree of Sir Liam Raellagh, who had a daughter named Margaret Raellagh, who married Edward de Neville, and they had a daughter named Edna, who married Ian Codd.

So ... in the same book, we find Sir Liam's parents. His father was Domuil Aed Raellagh, son of Tomiafh O'Raellagh. This book represents a historical document and is well researched by many people who came before me, so you don't just have to take my word for it!

Now ... Tomiafh, being the good boy that he was, kept his family bible, which has the names of his parents and grandparents. His father was one Aed MacNiall O'Raellagh and his father's father was one Niall Raellagh, "born of good stock to the King of Man, Godfred O' Raellagh aka Godfred III, in the year 1163".

Looking into easily found history, we find that Godfred's dad was ... dun dun dunnnnnn ... Maek Sechnaill MacLochlainn, Queen of Cenel Eogain, daughter to none other than Muirchertach MacLochlainn, 182nd Monarch of Ireland!

There ... happy? I couldn't imagine just what else you'd possibly need.


One can only suggest that you act as a 'good boy" and merely write your entire list at the front of your very own copy of a Bible.

This will obviously suffice to validate your claim all the way back to Adam.

Who could possibly doubt it after that?

Here's a question from a Christian to an Atheist, and that is, do you ever consider the bible (or other religious text) as a worthy source of morals in times of need, even if one was not religious?

Here's a question from an Agnostic Jew to a Christian- do you ever consider non-religious texts as ALSO being worthy sources of morals?

Here's a question from an Agnostic Jew to a Christian- do you ever consider non-religious texts as ALSO being worthy sources of morals?
Uhh... Yes? 'Course, these texts are not as well respected or known as the Bible. It's a shame, really. Some of these have good advice. However, humanity cannot understand morals without consequence, and the Bible is full of consequences that will happen if you don't follow morals. Or, you could follow the morals written in the Bible simply because it's a good idea. But that's not creative. The point of my question was if anyone here understood that the Bible was full of morals, a majority of which are fairly decent, and frequented to them despite their disbelief in the literal text.

By the way, I'm also Agnostic.

One can only suggest that you act as a 'good boy" and merely write your entire list at the front of your very own copy of a Bible.

This will obviously suffice to validate your claim all the way back to Adam.

Who could possibly doubt it after that?
Okay, let me put this simply. It's very hard to validate a claim back to Adam, especially because many texts have been tampered with. We figured this out in the first few pages. Because of this, it's not even fairly accurate to claim any of those names until a few generations past Adam. Understood?

vos enim imitatores facti estis fratres ecclesiarum Dei quae sunt in Iudaea in Christo Iesu quia eadem passi estis et vos a contribulibus vestris sicut et ipsi a Iudaeis qui et Dominum occiderunt Iesum et prophetas et nos persecuti sunt et Deo non placent et omnibus hominibus adversantur

"For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own coutrymen, even as they have from the Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men;"

~I Thessalonians II:XIV-XV

"For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own coutrymen, even as they have from the Jews, Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men;"

~I Thessalonians II:XIV-XV

Feel free to prove that Jews killed Jesus and "the prophets". Also, that they persecuted whoever "us" is supposed to refer to. The Church, I suppose? It's possible- although I'd have to say, the Church's behavior over the past 2,000 years seem to have more than made up for it. :rolleyes:

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because...

I read this and honestly didn't understand how in hell (no pun intended) people could say that Jesus didn't fufill each and every prophecy. I have personally looked up most of the 109 prophecies listed in the Old Testament and again in the New Testament when Jesus fufills them. Personally I have come to see that the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah because they expected Christ to come on a horse with a sword (as a warrior) and free the Jews from the Romans. Because Jesus came to free the Jews from their sins and not form the Romans they rejected him because they didn't read the signs of his coming correctly. Someone once said that hindsight is 20/20 and we can clearly (at least I hope so) see that Jesus came twice the first time to save people from their sins and the second time (which is still to come) to judge the earth. Honestly I don't see why Jews today reject Jesus as Messiah, after all my grandmother was Jewish and she accepted Christ as her Savior

I read this and honestly didn't understand how in hell (no pun intended) people could say that Jesus didn't fufill each and every prophecy. I have personally looked up most of the 109 prophecies listed in the Old Testament and again in the New Testament when Jesus fufills them. Personally I have come to see that the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah because they expected Christ to come on a horse with a sword (as a warrior) and free the Jews from the Romans. Because Jesus came to free the Jews from their sins and not form the Romans they rejected him because they didn't read the signs of his coming correctly. Someone once said that hindsight is 20/20 and we can clearly (at least I hope so) see that Jesus came twice the first time to save people from their sins and the second time (which is still to come) to judge the earth. Honestly I don't see why Jews today reject Jesus as Messiah, after all my grandmother was Jewish and she accepted Christ as her Savior

Well, as you can see, obviously it comes down to differences of opinion and perspective. The Jewish conception of the Messiah and what he's supposed to do- all without a second coming, BTW- are obviously very different from what Jesus did.

So, feel free to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. And we'll continue to do our own thing. :)

Okay, let me put this simply. It's very hard to validate a claim back to Adam, especially because many texts have been tampered with. We figured this out in the first few pages. Because of this, it's not even fairly accurate to claim any of those names until a few generations past Adam. Understood?

You are akin to my thinking.

My point is that it is difficult to make claims extending back into the period where where the reliability or even existence of written records is sketchy at best.

Basically, you can trace back around five or six generations with some confidence, but not beyond.

To claim to have supporting documentation beyond that is to invite scepticism.