Jewed
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
CherubRam
New member
History of the word Jew
Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew," and a Jew is properly a Judean, and Jewry properly Judaea.
Equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."
The history of the development of the term "Jew" does not change the (INTERPRETATION.)
Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name (Judean=Jew) for my chosen ones to use in their curses; the Sovereign Lord will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)
Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew," and a Jew is properly a Judean, and Jewry properly Judaea.
Equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."
The history of the development of the term "Jew" does not change the (INTERPRETATION.)
Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name (Judean=Jew) for my chosen ones to use in their curses; the Sovereign Lord will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)
LOL! You are entirely kind with your words, Nazaroo. My head's still spinning trying to fathom everyone's posts since my last (and before). Much is over my head, rest assured, and with all due respect. I might throw in my two cents worth on an item or two. I tend to think understanding who the Biblical players were, at least around Noah's day, helps clear the air. And, I think Jesus instructed us to this significance in Matthew 24:3, 36, 37, 38, 39.
Virtually everyone assumes the title "Jew" embraces some ancestral (being politically correct v. 'racial') component. When folk debate the ancestral component of the title "Jew", only an individual can make up their own mind being there is utterly no ancestral consensus. While circumventing the ancestral confusion (intended aspect to my finding), we can achieve some consensus discerning who is NOT an ancestral Jew.
Generally speaking, contemporary Jews appear to harbor the rather arrogant notion a Gentile is ANY non-Jew (goyim), by and large. Christians substantially follow suit, less fluent in the OT (as "Jews" are uninspired, btw), having little, if any, respect for the authentic ancestry of the Gentiles. The Gentiles were descendants of Japheth, son of Noah: Genesis 9:27 KJV, Genesis 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV (1611 KJV, btw). The lack of ancestral discernment is found in many non-1611 KJV translations. Pay particular attention to the NKJV translation of Genesis 10:5 NKJV v. the 1611 Genesis 10:5 KJV. The NNKJV suggests a literal, uninspired geographic association ('coastland people') with the metaphoric expression "isle of the Gentiles." The Gentiles were 'set aside' (isle of the Gentiles) being 'the story' of the Bible is about the lineage to produce Yeshua (Luke 3:23-38). Japheth is not paternally found in the lineage of Messiah; Noah's son Shem is (Luke 3:36). Our Bible is not about Gentiles... it's about Shemites.
Ben exploits (knowingly, or not) the Christian lack of OT knowledge and discernment. Jesus' disciples were not fluent in OT early in their ministry as found in Acts 4:13, 20. With all due respect, Jesus' disciples were essentially evangelist milk feeders testifying to a population (lost sheep) already fluent in the Books of Moses. The lost sheep were lost following the twisted renderings by the circumcised Shelanite Pharisees: Jesus was a impostor since He was not a descendant of Shelah, son of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah. Unlike Jesus' disciples, Paul was sent predominately to the Gentiles (ostracized from the synagogues) being keenly fluent in the OT. Paul was astutely aware the Gentile descendants of Japheth were long ago blessed to procreate with the Shemites found in Genesis 9:27 KJV. Neither the union, nor the child of a Gentile-Shemite marriage needed the blessing of the synagogue. This union was sanctioned by Noah.
When grasping the notion the Gentiles were the ancestrally distinct 'set aside' descendants of Japheth; evidence of Paul's OT authority can be readily appreciated in 1Corinthians 5:1 KJV. Paul understood, unlike Jesus' disciples (and the vast majority of Christians, btw) what went down in Noah's tent: Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV. Meanwhile, Christians debate the magnitude of the flood, approaching the proverbial iceberg in the Atlantic at full throttle (Matthew 24:3, 37, 38, 39).
Ask Christians around... Who is a Gentile? If I may be so presumptuous, the vast majority of Christians will answer something along the lines: Everyone who is NOT a Jew (blindly assuming ancestral consensus in that title), and... who are not Islam/Muslim/Palestinian. Aren't the Ishmaelites descendants of Abraham? Then, why aren't Muslims, "Jews"? The Muslims have clearer ancestral rights than do the Canaanite Shelanites who call themselves Jews, walking anonymously among the ancestrally un-illuminated Israelite descendants of Jacob. The whole rift between the Jews and the Muslims was inspired by the Shelanites. If, respectfully, the title "Israelite" is considered a curse word in the middle east as you suggest... pin the tail on the donkey: Shelanites are responsible. Shelanites are not Israelites, they are Canaanites. Ezra specifically excluded Shelah, and "The sons of Shelah the son of Judah..." (1Chronicles 4:21, 22) from Ezra's tribal roster of Judah in 1Chronicles 4:1. The tribe of Judah began with Pharez (via Tamar), his son Hezron... descendants of Judah and Tamar. The Shelanites are descendants of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah, and his Canaanite wife. Please consider Revelation 2:9, 3:9. The Shelanites trashed the heritage of the Gentiles, they trashed the ancestry of the Ishmaelites, and they trashed the ancestry of the Israelites who they are going to throw under the bus after bulldozing the Muslim al-Aqsa mosque from the temple mount... speaking of the next Big Bang Theory! They ONLY reason Islam hasn't already nuked the place is because their mosque sits there.
Totally appreciating your distinction of Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardim; few Christians understand the origin of the Gentiles. Therefore, few Christians realize the origin of the Ashkenazim. The Ashkenazi Jews were originally Gentile descendants of Japheth via his son Gomer's son, Ashkenaz (Genesis 10:3 KJV). Those Ashkenazi Gentiles were the target population of Nimrod (Genesis 10:10 KJV), 'grandson' of Ham and his wife, who exploited the 'set aside' notion alleging that Gentiles were not loved by Almighty God, as were the Shemites. The mere fact there are Ashkenai Jews today testifies to Paul's selection to preach to the Gentiles: Ashkenazi, particularly. On the other hand, I proffer the Sephardic 'Jews' were/are Shelanites, who have their origin as descendants of Ham (maternally via Keturah) having usurped the Israelite's 'chosen' status hiding behind the ancestrally ambiguous title, 'Jew.'
Anyway... I thought I'd just toss a few fundamentals on the table that hopefully brings this topic into a little more focus. I am honored indeed that you've considered my exhausting prior posts, Nazaroo.
blessings,
kayaker
Last edited:
A hearty welcome to TOL, Word based mystic!
Sorry I didn't greet you sooner. I do appreciate your post. "first to the Jew" has rather significant implications.
kayaker
Nazaroo
New member
Again, I asked for dates and evidence and you give me a load of diarrea.
What you've posted is:
"Just because historically there is no word 'Jew' doesn't change the fact I can insert it here in my 'interpretation' of an ancient text written 2000 years before the word "Jew" was invented." |
Thanks for playing.
But the real crime here is that you haven't even properly defined "Jew"
as it is used in the Bible, let alone how it is used in the REAL WORLD.
Lets give it a try:
MEANINGS OF "JEW"
I. Biblical Meanings: Literal
(1) Descendant of the Tribe of Judah, one of Jacob's sons through MALE line. (cf. Genesis etc.)
(2) Member of the Southern Kingdom of 'Judah', consisting of 2 1/2 tribes,
Judah, Benjamin, Levi (cf. Books of Kings)
(3) Member of the community of exiles primarily in Babylon,
formed after the conquest of the Southern kingdom of 'Judah'
by Babylon (cf. Esther)
(4) Exile Returning to the land of Judaea who could prove their lineage and descendancy, and member of the community formed under Ezra (cf. Ezra/Nehemiah)
(5) Member of the religious community occupying Palestine and Egypt,
formed under Ezra and having autonomy,
then resisting the Greek occupation under Alexander, and later
existing under occupation by the Romans in Jesus' time, and at times.
(cf. Maccabees etc.)
(6) Member of the 'diaspora' of exiled descendants of Israelite tribes
spread all over the Roman Empire, but self-identifying as Israelites and
practicing Phariseeism (cf. Paul)
(7) Any Person intermarrying with "Jews" (4,5,6) and adopting Jewish
religious practices.
After the advent of Ezra, there was a large split in "Judaism"
with Ezra's community rejecting proselytism and intermarriage,
considering it a violation of the Mosiac Covenant through disobediance,
while "Jews" who did not return but continued intermarriage self-identified
as "Jews" also, with a different set of membership rules.
II. Biblical Meanings: Figurative
(8) Representation of the Southern Kingdom as "Judah", a poetic usage.
(9) Representation of the descendants of the ancient Israelite tribes,
a poetic usage.
III. NON-Biblical Meanings: Racial/Political
(10) A person having or claiming descendancy from the historical tribes of Israel,
i.e., an ethnic definition of "Jew". (as used by many Jews today).
(11) A person practicing some recognized form of "Judaism",
a modern religion evolving out of Phariseeism and surviving sects existing
before the Roman/Jewish Wars, i.e., a religious definition of "Jew".
(as used in the Western nations)
(12) A citizen of modern Israel, a secular state formed on ethnic
and religious lines, out of ethnically "Jewish" survivors and assenters
arising out of the 2nd World War, and Holocaust.
(as used by Arabs and Muslims throughout the Middle East today).
As an important footnote, NONE of the modern meanings of "Jew" (10,11,12)
have any proper or accurate correspondence with the many Biblical meanings
listed above,
but which are often INTERPRETED, TRANSLATED, or INSERTED into
the standard religious texts as "Jew".
So called 'modern' versions of the Bible that insert "Jew" are an obvious FAIL,
and are based on a bigoted, oversimplistic, and religious or propaganda-based
spin that perpetuates racism and anti-Semitism against a modern group
of people which is largely non-religious.
Lets add one more unfortunately prejorative slang usage of "Jew",
in fact used in the very title of this thread:
(13) A derogatory term implying cheapness or cunning in business dealing,
and strongly suggestive of dishonesty and deceit, fraud,
and often used as an adjective or verb:
Examples:
"You got Jewed." (i.e., got ripped off in a business exchange)
"Don't be a Jew." (i.e., don't be stingy, and pay your way or take your economic responsibility).
Such usages are not unique to anti-Semitism, as many racial and tribal groups have derogatory names
which can be used to suggest negative traits as if they were inherited or intrinsic to a nation or culture.
Lets take away one very important point:
There cannot be only one single
meaning for "Jew" at this point in history,
and it is a very poor word to use in the translation of ancient texts without
extensive footnotes and historical explanations.
Last edited:
Daniel1611
New member
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Nazaroo
New member
kayaker Said: ...The Muslims have clearer ancestral rights than do the Canaanite Shelanites who call themselves Jews, walking anonymously among the ancestrally un-illuminated Israelite descendants of Jacob. The whole rift between the Jews and the Muslims was inspired by the Shelanites. If, respectfully, the title "Israelite" is considered a curse word in the middle east as you suggest... pin the tail on the donkey: Shelanites are responsible. Shelanites are not Israelites, they are Canaanites. Ezra specifically excluded Shelah, and "The sons of Shelah the son of Judah..." (1Chronicles 4:21, 22) from Ezra's tribal roster... |
I'm glad you are articulate.
However I absolutely must take issue with you on a number of important points:
(1) Muslims have no entitlement to anything in regard to Biblical Covenants
or even land tracts.
Your statements are very disengenious and misleading.
a) Land Contracts
Ultimately and with Eternal Sovereignty,
the LORD God owns all lands everywhere,
and gives them to who He pleases.
Israel/Palestine was originally the land of Canaan.
Those inhabitants were tossed out by God Himself for despicable sins,
such as religous prostitution, abortion and child sacrifice.
That land was given to Israel conditionally,
and we should all be aware of how those conditions have evolved historically,
and how they have been removed and restored on an ongoing basis.
The mixture of peoples who were historically in some cases forced
to move in and work the land of Israel, which was taken by Assyrians and Babylonians,
and any and all other peoples allowed to move in and plant themselves,
and specifically the Philistines, Syrians, Iraqis, Greeks, Romans,
Arabs and Bedouins who were residing there before the formation
of Israel,
have no absolute rights to any land whatsoever,
because it remains the property of the LORD God Almighty,
who gives land to whom He will.
Nor do Israelites or "Jews" have any absolute rights.
On the contrary, all rights are dependent upon the LANDLORD, who is God.
b) Biblical Covenants
However many Covenants are noticed or discovered,
the participating parties identified,
the validity, activity or inactivity historically plotted,
it remains a fact that
only the Abrahamic Covenant has any possible application to Arabs,
but the Holy Scriptures themselves indicate that (based on behaviour),
such covenants, even land covenants are limited, regulated and policed
by the LORD God Himself.
And in any case, the Abrahamic Covenant is INCLUSIVE,
ethnically and racially of the Jews as well as Arabs.
So such a Covenant as the Abrahamic Covenant,
has no relevance in a "Jew"/"Arab" dispute.
That would be an internal dispute similar to
a possible land dispute between say the tribe of Simeon and Ephraim.
It can't be solved by appealing to the Abrahamic Covenant,
or any other covenant.
Religious covenants, such as the Mosaic Covenant,
are only as valid as the participants fulfill the terms,
such as obedience to Mosiac Law, and special instructions from the LORD God.
Religious covenants such as that offered by Jesus the Christ,
do not apply to this world at this time, but refer to Spiritual Rights
and privileges, such as Eternal Life, and inheritance in the future
of a restored heaven and earth.
(2) Blaming the "Shelanites" is just a kind of racial profiling under another name.
Even if the "Shelanites" (the New anti-Semite term for "Jew"?)
are a wicked and despicable gang of thugs,
this changes NOTHING in regards to each and every person's responsibility
for their own sin.
Blaming "the Shelanites" for all the problems of the world,
is like blaming the "the Jews", "the bankers", "the foreigners",
"the muslims", "the communists", "the socialists", "the liberals" etc.
and/or any other semi-fictional autonomous group, gang or regime.
No doubt ALL of these groups of idiots, and perhaps equally,
all individuals too, like serial killers, rapists, thieves, adulterers, liars,
all have their share in the horrific crimes taking place, the innocent victims,
the terrible injustices in the world today.
But targeting ALL sin is the message of God,
and repentance of ALL people is the only doorway for salvation.
I don't doubt there is an Accuser, a Satan, an Adversary,
even a 'people of Cain', or a 'gang of the Devil',
but these are not the excuse or explanation for your sins.
They may be sources of persecution, agents of punishment,
causes of injustice, but in the Biblical worldview,
the blame for sin stops at you.
'Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.' Gal. 6:7 |
CherubRam
New member
I guess the fact that languages change over a period of time eludes you. The Hebrew word "wind" is also the word for "spirit." A Judean is a Jew no matter how it is spelled.
Nazaroo
New member
Nazaroo
New member
Being the only one here to have documented the historical changes,
I guess the change of language over time eluded me.
Thanks for taking credit for MY work.
If a "Judean is a Jew", just tell me which meaning of "Jew" and "Judean"
you are using.
Pick a number from (1) to (13).
Sluffing it off is another cop out from the racist crowd.
Nazaroo
New member
Kayaker said:Those Ashkenazi Gentiles were the target population of Nimrod (Genesis 10:10 KJV), 'grandson' of Ham and his wife, who exploited the 'set aside' notion alleging that Gentiles were not loved by Almighty God, as were the Shemites. The mere fact there are Ashkenai Jews today testifies to Paul's selection to preach to the Gentiles: Ashkenazi, particularly. On the other hand, I proffer the Sephardic 'Jews' were/are Shelanites, who have their origin as descendants of Ham (maternally via Keturah) having usurped the Israelite's 'chosen' status hiding behind the ancestrally ambiguous title, 'Jew.'[/QUOTE]
Lets cut to the chase.
(1) You have eliminated Ashkenazi as (actual) descendants of Israel.
(2) You have eliminated Sephardim as racially acceptable descendants of Judah or Israel.
Comments:
(1) Ashkenazim not equal to Jews or Israel
This is a thesis from Arthur Koestler (The Thirteenth Tribe).
It should be noted that Koestler offered as a corollary
that the Sephardim were the "true" Jews.
(2) Sephardim are not proper "Jews".
This is a variation of a theme expressed by another author:
Paul Wexler (The Non-Jewish Origins of the Sephardic Jews).
Likewise, Wexler took the opposite view,
that the Sephardim were the fakes, and the Ashkenazim real.
(a) It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to notice that each author
rejects the other's racial theories.
(b) Logically, one is likely wrong, or both are wrong, but they both
can't be right.
(c) Its safe to say that neither author is a credible historian,
although both are very popular for obvious (anti-Semitic) reasons.
(d) Its also safe to say that neither author is a mainstream Christian.
Let readers of either book read the other, for a fair evaluation of both.
The main problem with the Overriding Thesis (yours)
will be this:
Where are the 'real' Jews?
i.e., now that you've eliminated all the Jews in the world from the contest.
I won't be holding my breath for this corollary.
Thanks for your reply, Nazaroo!
I know that you must take issue, friend. And, I appreciate your recognition of articulation, and gladly dine at the table of your criticism. Please realize… your scant Scriptural references greatly diminish your argument. I’m aware of your next post… but, I’ll begin here with the issues you bring forth.
If you agree the Muslims are descendants of Ishmael, then I can discuss from this perspective. However, I think you suggested we must keep in mind the intermingling of people throughout the ages. We agree the Muslims have no direct claim to Promised Land... I suggested the Ishmaelite Muslims have "clearER ancestral rights" than do the Shelanite-'Jews' who have none, I beg your patience. God slew Shelah's two elder Canaanite brothers (Genesis 38:7, 8, 9, 10), as Judah was executing Deuteronomy 25:5, 6, the originator of this law. Therefore, the Shelanites had zero ancestral claim.
As a side note; Israelite relations with the Moabites was also forbidden (Deuteronomy 23:3, 6, Ezra 9:1, 2). For reasons beyond the scope of this discussion, the Moabites were given land (Deuteronomy 2:9), although marital relations were forbidden. In rather striking contrast... there's no mention forbidding Israelite/Hebrew-Ishmaelite relations, at least early on. Ishmael was blessed by Almighty God (Genesis 17, 18, 19, 20), while the Shelanites were the proverbial red-headed stepchildren. Carrying this clearER notion of Ishmaelite/Muslim property claim a little further: The fourth generation of Ishmael via his Egyptian daughter Mahalath, wife of Esau (Genesis 28:8, 9), were afforded conditional entrance into the congregation of the Lord in Deuteronomy as Moses also spoke to the Israelites:
Deuteronomy 23:7, 8, 9, KJV “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite (of Esau); for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. 8) The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the Lord in their third generation. 9) When the host (Israel) goeth forth against thine enemies, then keep thee from every wicked thing.”
Therefore, the Ishmaelite/Muslims do indeed have some semblance of a claim, while the Shelanites have utterly none.
Certainly, Nazaroo. In fact, I would like to specifically include incest (Leviticus 20:17) as relates to Abraham’s marriage to his half-sister, Sarah contrary to Leviticus 20:17 KJV)… even Ham (Genesis 9:22 KJV) as relates to Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, and Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV.
Indeed we should all be aware, Nazaroo! I’ve already offered abundant scripture corroborating this.
Agreed, by and large, as you speak without scriptural references. That land area is the proverbial ‘no-man’s land.’ If anyone has a claim, I suggest the Moabites do (Deuteronomy 2:9), but I’m not hearing any claims, LOL!
… so, what do you think about Genesis 17:8 KJV, Gen 17:9 KJV, Gen 21:12 KJV as reflected in Genesis 25:5 KJV, Genesis 25:6 KJV. With all due respect Nazaroo, Isaac inherited the Promised Land according to God in Genesis 21:12, “for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” And, Abraham gave this land to Isaac in Genesis 25:5. The Promised Land (formerly Canaan as you offered) was secured by Moses and the Israelites mentioned beginning in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3. Were there other folk helping along that I don’t know about who may have a claim?
Most particularly, where do you figure Abraham gave anything to Judah’s father-in-law, Shuah, ‘son’ of Keturah (Genesis 25:1, 2, 3, 4), wife of Abraham? Please recall God utterly slew Shuah’s two eldest of three Canaanite grandsons via Judah r/t Deuteronomy 25:5, 6.
Possibly I’m confused, Nazaroo… a couple quotes or so above, I read:
Perhaps I missed something? Providing a few more Scriptural references would probably help me follow you better.
This dispute was planned since early Genesis, Nazaroo. In my posts to Chair, I articulated a clear distinction between an Israelite-Jew, and a Shelanite ‘Jew’, with particular reference to Revelation 2:9, 3:9.
Do you know of other sources where the official title “Shelanites” is used in a manner you suggest as anti-Semitic? You are entirely kind, Nazaroo! I’ve been called much worse than a racist profiler; ironically by my own brother on such matters, LOL! He’s one of those guilt laden, boo-hoo-voodoo evangelist types. The “Shelanites” are a clearly named and identified people (Numbers 26:20). Do you think God, Moses, and Ezra were racist profilers in Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6, Ezra 9:1, 2, 7?
Who is a Semite, Nazaroo? My fallible rendering of Scripture suggests a Semite is a descendant of Shem, son of Noah, sanctioned to procreate with the Gentiles (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Gen 10:5), even with the Hebrews (Genesis 10:21 KJV). But, a Semite is not the progeny of a Shemite father with a Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, CANAANITE, Perizzite, Hivite, Jebusite, Moabite or Ammonite (Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, 23:3, 6, Ezra 9:1, 2, 7). Ezra and the Israelites ‘put away’ those strange wives and children in in Ezra 10:2, 3. Almighty God slew Shelah’s two elder Canaanite brothers Er, and Onan (Genesis 38:7, 8, 9, 10).
How do you Scripturally render Shelanites being Semites?
The Shelanites only instigated the crucifixion, then? Well, I can stop there if you wish.
A great sermon to a Shelanite instigator of the crucifixion! Repentance can also be as simple as correcting a misperception of Scripture. Do you agree? Of course, when one has naively misrepresented Scripture to others, and is so illuminated by the Holy Spirit… I think Jesus would simply say, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more” (John 8:11 KJV). Somewhere I read something along the lines, study to show thyself approved.
Is this an alter call? Or, were you using the word ‘you’ in a general sense? A few more Scriptural references will help us both better understand where you’re coming from. Good to hear from you, Nazaroo…
kayaker
Kayaker said:Those Ashkenazi Gentiles were the target population of Nimrod (Genesis 10:10 KJV), 'grandson' of Ham and his wife, who exploited the 'set aside' notion alleging that Gentiles were not loved by Almighty God, as were the Shemites. The mere fact there are Ashkenai Jews today testifies to Paul's selection to preach to the Gentiles: Ashkenazi, particularly. On the other hand, I proffer the Sephardic 'Jews' were/are Shelanites, who have their origin as descendants of Ham (maternally via Keturah) having usurped the Israelite's 'chosen' status hiding behind the ancestrally ambiguous title, 'Jew.'[/QUOTE]
Lets cut to the chase.
(1) You have eliminated Ashkenazi as (actual) descendants of Israel.
(2) You have eliminated Sephardim as racially acceptable descendants of Judah or Israel.
Comments:
(1) Ashkenazim not equal to Jews or Israel
This is a thesis from Arthur Koestler (The Thirteenth Tribe).
It should be noted that Koestler offered as a corollary
that the Sephardim were the "true" Jews.
(2) Sephardim are not proper "Jews".
This is a variation of a theme expressed by another author:
Paul Wexler (The Non-Jewish Origins of the Sephardic Jews).
Likewise, Wexler took the opposite view,
that the Sephardim were the fakes, and the Ashkenazim real.
(a) It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to notice that each author
rejects the other's racial theories.
(b) Logically, one is likely wrong, or both are wrong, but they both
can't be right.
(c) Its safe to say that neither author is a credible historian,
although both are very popular for obvious (anti-Semitic) reasons.
(d) Its also safe to say that neither author is a mainstream Christian.
Let readers of either book read the other, for a fair evaluation of both.
The main problem with the Overriding Thesis (yours)
will be this:
Where are the 'real' Jews?
i.e., now that you've eliminated all the Jews in the world from the contest.
I won't be holding my breath for this corollary.
You are a total hoot, Nazaroo, LOL! I've not read Koestler or Wexler, although I'm aware of the 13th tribe... but, I have scripturally documented my rendering. The Ashkenazim are Gentiles, with ancestral distinction, who converted to Talmudic Judaism. I proffer the Sephardic alleged 'Jews' are Shelanite descendants of Judah, prophesied progenitor of Messiah, via his Canaanite wife, contrary to Deuteronomy 7:1, 2, 3, Ezra 9:1, 2, 7. Shelanites are not Semites, but certainly can refer to themselves as 'Jews' for reasons other than ancestry... in fact, they do... but, you'd readily realize they are not authentic Israelites.
For some reason, you've clearly glossed over my obvious distinction to Chair between an Israelite Jew, and a Shelanite alleged 'Jew.' Did you miss the ancestral Israelite 'Jew' wondering who a 'real Jew' is? Jesus was a 'real Jew,' and the Shelanites instigated His crucifixion to shut Him up for unveiling their nefarious ancestry... which clearly escapes you. If you can't gather this "Jewish" distinction in Revelation 2:9, 3:9... then maybe you can write a book of your own after studying the finer distinctions found exploring the Good Book... you might capture THE breath of fresh air Ezekiel alluded to in Ezekiel 37:2, 3, 4, 5...
peace to you, Nazaroo!
kayaker
Nazaroo
New member
Greetings Kayaker.
I do sense you are willing to read Holy Scriptures,
even if you have erected a somewhat flimsy edifice with them.
Lets start first on what we can agree upon:
I'm afraid its a lot more serious than that.
Its not a case of mere "intermingling". There's hardly been enough of that.
There are nearly two billion Muslims on earth at the moment,
and I would estimate that less than 1% of them are Ishamaelites.
Please think before you type:
Its fair to say that NO real Arabs (i.e., Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait)
have any blood relation to Ishmael.
Its accurate to say that NO Iranians are even Arab,
let alone Ishaelite.
Its reasonable to postulate that NO Pakistanis or Indian Muslims
ever had any genetic relation to any Ishmaelites,
Its absolutely CERTAIN to maintain that NO Asians are descendents of Ishmael.
Its incredibly GENEROUS to suggest that there might be about .01%
of the Muslim population that could in a perfect world of perfect and
thorough records trace some relation to Ishmael.
Weigh those statements well.
Just for a bit more of a detailed breakdown:
Nobody in this list qualifies as an Ishmaelite.
We should be agreeing that Muslims have no claimof any kind to "promised lands",
historically promised conditionally,
and in which we cannot establish whether any of the strict conditions
have been adequately met.
We should also be agreeing that there can be no such thing as
a flat unconditional "ancestral right".
There are no rights at all, - only priviledges based on behaviour,
as the Bible makes clear.
more to follow.
I do sense you are willing to read Holy Scriptures,
even if you have erected a somewhat flimsy edifice with them.
Lets start first on what we can agree upon:
If you agree the Muslims are descendants of Ishmael, then I can discuss from this perspective. However, I think you suggested we must keep in mind the intermingling of people throughout the ages. |
I'm afraid its a lot more serious than that.
Its not a case of mere "intermingling". There's hardly been enough of that.
There are nearly two billion Muslims on earth at the moment,
and I would estimate that less than 1% of them are Ishamaelites.
Please think before you type:
Wikipedia: 'The largest Muslim population in a country is in Indonesia, a nation home to 12.7% of the world's Muslims, followed by Pakistan (11.0%), India (10.9%), and Bangladesh (9.2%). [thats about 45% right there!] About 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries.' |
Its fair to say that NO real Arabs (i.e., Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait)
have any blood relation to Ishmael.
Its accurate to say that NO Iranians are even Arab,
let alone Ishaelite.
Its reasonable to postulate that NO Pakistanis or Indian Muslims
ever had any genetic relation to any Ishmaelites,
Its absolutely CERTAIN to maintain that NO Asians are descendents of Ishmael.
Its incredibly GENEROUS to suggest that there might be about .01%
of the Muslim population that could in a perfect world of perfect and
thorough records trace some relation to Ishmael.
Weigh those statements well.
Just for a bit more of a detailed breakdown:
Top Ten Countries with Largest Muslim Population RankCountry Capital Estimated 2010 Muslim Population ------------ % of World Muslim Population 1 Indonesia Jakarta - 209,120,000 - 13.1% 2 India New Delhi - 176,190,000 - 11% 3 Pakistan Islamabad - 167,410,000 - 10.5% 4 Bangladesh Dhaka - 133,540,000 - 8.4 % 5 Nigeria Abuja - 77,300,000 - 4.8 % 6 Egyp tCairo - 76,990,000 - 4.8 % 7 Iran Teheran - 73,570,000 - 4.6% 8 Turkey Ankara - 71,330,000 - 4.5 % 9 Algeria Algiers 34,730,000 - 2.2 % 10 Morocco Rabat - 31,940,000 - 2 % = 64% of the World population of Muslims. |
Nobody in this list qualifies as an Ishmaelite.
We agree the Muslims have no direct claim to Promised Land... I suggested the Ishmaelite Muslims have "clearER ancestral rights" |
We should be agreeing that Muslims have no claimof any kind to "promised lands",
historically promised conditionally,
and in which we cannot establish whether any of the strict conditions
have been adequately met.
We should also be agreeing that there can be no such thing as
a flat unconditional "ancestral right".
There are no rights at all, - only priviledges based on behaviour,
as the Bible makes clear.
more to follow.
Last edited:
Nazaroo
New member
Lets look at the core ERROR in your thinking
First: there's no such thing as an "Ishamaelite/Muslim", since they are
entirely different things, even different categories.
You really must stop trying to deliberately BLUR some lines
while artificially exaggerating other lines.
If you want to talk about the Ishmaelites, and any historical or Biblical
"claims" they might have on the basis of THIS verse,
you'll have to IDENTIFY both the Israelites, and the Ishmaelites,
so we can point at both of them and say, "You are (sort of) brothers."
Unfortunately, you have no evidence whatever that I can see which
would convincingly and credibly identify EITHER PARTY.
Deuteronomy 23:7, 8, 9, KJV “Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite (of Esau); for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land. ... Therefore, the Ishmaelite/Muslims do indeed have some semblance of a claim, while the Shelanites have utterly none. |
First: there's no such thing as an "Ishamaelite/Muslim", since they are
entirely different things, even different categories.
You really must stop trying to deliberately BLUR some lines
while artificially exaggerating other lines.
If you want to talk about the Ishmaelites, and any historical or Biblical
"claims" they might have on the basis of THIS verse,
you'll have to IDENTIFY both the Israelites, and the Ishmaelites,
so we can point at both of them and say, "You are (sort of) brothers."
Unfortunately, you have no evidence whatever that I can see which
would convincingly and credibly identify EITHER PARTY.
Nazaroo
New member
Possibly I’m confused, Nazaroo… a couple quotes or so above, I read: Perhaps I missed something? Providing a few more Scriptural references would probably help me follow you better. |
No Biblical quotes are going to help you if you can't integrate these two ideas:
(1) Covenants are conditional and policed by the LORD God.
(2) There are no absolute rights of any kind for anyone.
Those two things go together,
and are prolifically illustrated in Holy Scripture.
There's no mystery here, and you really shouldn't be stumbling on this point.
Nazaroo
New member
Kayaker said:
Obviously, yes, in every normal way that we mean that expression today.
One might euphemistically say "tribal" but it amounts to the same thing.
Thats not to say 'racism' doesn't have a purpose in God's plan.
Thats another question, entirely.
I think especially and most blatantly that Ezra was a racist or tribalist.
He plainly took Moses' commandments seriously and literally.
You say that 'modern Jews' (Shelamites?) do the opposite,
which would be expected behaviour from someone already marginalized
by racism and /or categorized as a "mamzer".
Who is more righteous?
The racial/tribal purist, or the already mongrelized and racially/tribally mixed group?
That depends purely on your point of view on 'racism/tribalism'.
It is not a very clear issue in Holy Scripture for most people.
If the greatest sin (in your interpretation) is that the "Jews" are racially
mongrels, and therefore side with racial mixing (i.e., they side with themselves),
that doesn't seem to mean much one way or another.
It seems in your plan that NO "Jew" or not ANY kind of "Jew"
can win in this scenario.
If a Jew wants to maintain tribal purity, he's a nasty racist.
If a Jew wants to allow mixed racial marriages, he's destroying the West.
Its starting to sound a lot like "the only good Jew is a dead Jew" sentiments.
Nazaroo
New member
"...ancestral rights" ...the Shelanite-'Jews' who have none,... ... the Ishmaelite/Muslims do indeed have some semblance of a claim, while the Shelanites have utterly none. ... Please recall God utterly slew Shuah’s two eldest of three Canaanite grandsons via Judah r/t Deuteronomy 25:5, 6. ... 'I articulated a clear distinction between an Israelite-Jew, and a Shelanite ‘Jew’, with particular reference to Revelation 2:9, 3:9. The “Shelanites” are a clearly named and identified people (Numbers 26:20). Almighty God slew Shelah’s two elder Canaanite brothers Er, and Onan (Genesis 38:7, 8, 9, 10). A great sermon to a Shelanite instigator of the crucifixion! |
Honestly Kayaker.
Don't you think you're obsessing just a wee bit on "Shelanite"???
Here's my problem.
Yes there were Shelanites. I doubt there were very many.
Why would God bless and multiply the wrong branch?
That seems plainly to contradict Jesus' warning about branches.
You've discovered a sub-strain of Judahite called a Shelanite.
No one is really going to argue the point that some Judahites
would have been descendents of Shelah.
But you go WAY TOO FAR:
You make unreasonable claims, that are not Biblical in spite of the hand-waving:
'The “Shelanites” are a clearly named and identified people'
No. No they are not. Not by Holy Scripture certainly,
since there is no physical description or reliable drawings,
or wall-paintings, or geneaological records now.
You seem to want to claim that the very BULK of virtually ALL MODERN JEWS,
are now Shelanites.
All I can say is that this is pure BS.
First of all it CONTRADICTS Holy Scripture, wherein
God Promises Abraham, His chosen line, the literal and VALID descendants,
will be as numerous as the sands of the sea.
So I guess God really mucked up on this one, didn't He?
Both O.T. promises, to bless and prosper the obedient descendents,
and N.T. promises, to bless and keep alive those who remain in the Vine,
seem to be thoroughly negated by your claims that
"the Shelamite 'Jews' have overrun Judah and Israel'
and now represent 'the Seed of Cain/Satan' etc.
No one doubts there are fake "Jews", both religiously and racially.
Who cares?
There are lots of fake Christians and fake Muslims and Buddhists too.
There are fake "whites" and fake "Blacks" and fake everything.
YOU have FAILED to identify who the Ishmaelites are,
you have FAILED to identify who the "Shelanites" are.
You have failed to show any reason why we should even care which "Jews" are Shelanites,
and which aren't,
SINCE NO ONE can produce a lineage, or geneological record, or anything else
that would convince anyone else of either their descendency
or their "tribal purity".
Remember, that was only necessary up to the time of Jesus, the Messiah.
Is this an alter call? |
Soon.
Nazaroo
New member
This post is going to be special.
I'm going to humor you, Kayaker.
Lets entertain the idea for a moment,
that the Khazars in the 8th century
magically adopted 2nd century Judaism,
in order to avoid being killed as Christians or Pagans
by Muslim hoards, or Mongol hoards, or Barbarian hoards.
Then, they magically mass-migrated in hundreds of thousands,
perhaps millions to settle in Russia and Poland.
They even forgot they did this, and settled comfortably into
another 800 years of prejudice, persecution, pogroms and forced
emmigration all over Europe, resisted 90% of pressures to convert to
any brand of Christianity, without blinking an eye.
Then, thrilled by their popularity and the great respect they wielded
as bankers and government controllers, they sat down and wrote
The Protocols of Zion in a jargon resembling illiterate morons,
but sounding just crazy plausible enough to frame themselves for
plotting to take over the world.
Finally, they secretly worked with Hitler to kill themselves,
steal their own gold and open a country in the only land in the Middle East
without any oil under it.
lastly, these Khazar Shelanite "Jews" conveniently talked themselves
into moving to a central location where they can all be conveniently
killed with a mere handful of nukes, but...
...naturally after helping the USA invent the Atomic Bomb,
they put pressure using their feminine charms of oral sex in the White House,
to secure unlimited funding for a World War in which
the entire Middle East will be left UNinhabitable for the next 1000 years,
and perhaps snuffing out all life on the planet.
Cause if they can't own a desert, nobody can.
Crazy kids, those Shelanite Jews. And they are pretty naughty
and potty-mouthed as comedians too.
That leaves us with the obvious questions:
Is Jesus coming back or not?
Cause if He's going to be fashionably late, maybe we shouldn't
try to start WW3 just yet.
Ready for Alter Call.
I think when Yellowstone blows because some Jesuit maniacs
in the Pentagon think they can survive setting it off while
hiding in their underground bunkers,
you're going to be glad you had that extra chlorophyl protection in Certs.
Its two mints in one.
I'm going to humor you, Kayaker.
Lets entertain the idea for a moment,
that the Khazars in the 8th century
magically adopted 2nd century Judaism,
in order to avoid being killed as Christians or Pagans
by Muslim hoards, or Mongol hoards, or Barbarian hoards.
Then, they magically mass-migrated in hundreds of thousands,
perhaps millions to settle in Russia and Poland.
They even forgot they did this, and settled comfortably into
another 800 years of prejudice, persecution, pogroms and forced
emmigration all over Europe, resisted 90% of pressures to convert to
any brand of Christianity, without blinking an eye.
Then, thrilled by their popularity and the great respect they wielded
as bankers and government controllers, they sat down and wrote
The Protocols of Zion in a jargon resembling illiterate morons,
but sounding just crazy plausible enough to frame themselves for
plotting to take over the world.
Finally, they secretly worked with Hitler to kill themselves,
steal their own gold and open a country in the only land in the Middle East
without any oil under it.
lastly, these Khazar Shelanite "Jews" conveniently talked themselves
into moving to a central location where they can all be conveniently
killed with a mere handful of nukes, but...
...naturally after helping the USA invent the Atomic Bomb,
they put pressure using their feminine charms of oral sex in the White House,
to secure unlimited funding for a World War in which
the entire Middle East will be left UNinhabitable for the next 1000 years,
and perhaps snuffing out all life on the planet.
Cause if they can't own a desert, nobody can.
Crazy kids, those Shelanite Jews. And they are pretty naughty
and potty-mouthed as comedians too.
That leaves us with the obvious questions:
Is Jesus coming back or not?
Cause if He's going to be fashionably late, maybe we shouldn't
try to start WW3 just yet.
Ready for Alter Call.
I think when Yellowstone blows because some Jesuit maniacs
in the Pentagon think they can survive setting it off while
hiding in their underground bunkers,
you're going to be glad you had that extra chlorophyl protection in Certs.
Its two mints in one.
Last edited: