Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Christian Zionism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    You seem to think that the children of Israel that returned to the land of promise during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah are not really the children of Israel.
    Why do you say that?

    Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    You also seem to think that the Jewish communities that remained in Babylon were not really the children of Israel.
    Why do you say that?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
      Why do you say that?


      Why do you say that?
      The Ashkenazi and Edomite Jews that you claim are not real Jews are descended from the Jews that returned to the land of promise during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah as well as the Jews that lived in the Babylonian communities during the first-third centuries.

      These Jews wrote the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud to deal with trying to live by the Torah without a Temple to worship God in.

      If you knew more about Jewish history, you would not be making false statements about who is and who is not one of the children of Israel.
      Learn to read what is written.

      _____
      The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
      ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
        The Ashkenazi and Edomite Jews that you claim are not real Jews are descended from the Jews that returned to the land of promise during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah as well as the Jews that lived in the Babylonian communities during the first-third centuries.
        What's your source for that?

        Comment


        • #34
          I am an Ashkenazi Jew on my father's side, and a Levite.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
            What's your source for that?
            Keeping track of genealogy has been very important to many Jewish communities since the Babylonian captivity and that has continued to this very day.

            Here is an anecdotal accounts of the difference between Christian genealogical records and Jewish genealogical records.

            Jewish Genealogy: What is Possible?

            THERE ARE MORE RECORDS THAN YOU THINK
            Allow me one brief tangent: I do a great deal of work with early 19th-century New York City genealogy. One of the greatest challenges is the limited number of vital records (births, marriages, deaths). If an ancestor—typically Christian—did not belong to a church where their baptism or marriage was recorded, I’m left with limited options. I have even fewer paths forward if the person was female.

            By contrast, many Jewish communities were lousy with vital records (as in, there were tons).



            There is also this from an organization that specializes in genealogy

            Ackman & Ziff Family Genealogy Institute

            How far back do Jewish records go?

            Up to the 20th century, Jewish communities all over the world had an autonomous record-keeping tradition that stretched back to the Middle Ages. These local archives documented all aspects of life that were regulated by the Jewish community’s leadership, known as the kehillah or kahal, namely religion, education, communal arbitration, finance, and social welfare. Thus, the archive of a particular Jewish community may contain anything from marriage contracts, circumcision registers, and cemetery plot maps to business/property contracts, tax lists, court proceedings, and more. The oldest surviving community records come from the Sephardic and Mizrahi world, as early as the 10th century in Egypt, the 12th century in Spain, and the 13th century in Italy and Portugal. Jewish community records date back to 14th century in parts of Western and Central Europe (namely, France, Germany, and the former Czechoslovakia) and to the 15th and 16th centuries in much of Eastern Europe.

            Please note that the earliest dates of surviving Jewish community records listed above only apply to a selective group of towns within those regions; it is important to keep in mind that the extent of the survival, physical condition, and accessibility of Jewish community records varies widely from place to place. For example, in many parts of the Sephardic and Mizrahi world not mentioned above, the local archives are highly fragmentary and date back no further than the 19th century. In addition, tracing one’s ancestors in early Ashkenazi Jewish community records is severely hindered by the fact that most Ashkenazi families did not adopt surnames until the late 18th to mid-19th centuries.

            In contrast to the records maintained by Jewish communities themselves, the separate registration of Jews in government-mandated vital records (i.e. birth, marriage, and death registers) and population records (e.g. censuses) is a relatively recent phenomenon.

            Learn to read what is written.

            _____
            The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
            ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by chair View Post
              I am an Ashkenazi Jew on my father's side, and a Levite.
              How do you claim descent from Levi?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                Keeping track of genealogy has been very important to many Jewish communities since the Babylonian captivity and that has continued to this very day.
                That doesn't support you claim that Ashkenazi and Edomite Jews are descended from Jews of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and the Babylonian communities.
                Last edited by Theo102; February 5th, 2020, 12:13 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Theo102 View Post

                  How do you claim descent from Levi?
                  It's a tradition in our family. It comes with some honors in the synagogue.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by chair View Post
                    It's a tradition in our family. It comes with some honors in the synagogue.
                    You do realise that sometimes traditions have no relationship to the truth, right?

                    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

                    P.S. RationalWiki is usually wrong, but they're right about this.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Theo102 View Post

                      You do realise that sometimes traditions have no relationship to the truth, right?

                      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

                      P.S. RationalWiki is usually wrong, but they're right about this.
                      Perhaps. But that's what tribes and religions are about. And I do not expect or need others to accept my traditions.

                      Now, back to your ideas: You really think that the Jews are not Jews, and the British are the Real Jews?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by chair View Post
                        Now, back to your ideas: You really think that the Jews are not Jews, and the British are the Real Jews?
                        That's an absurd misrepresentation of what I wrote.

                        The name of Jew goes back to Judah, which was one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Judah was not one of the lost tribes of Israel (as far as I know).
                        My argument is that the tribe of Ephraim ended up in England, based on the words 'British' and 'Saxon' and the nations of Ephraim, and the presumption that the promise of Genesis 35:11 would not result in the lost tribes dying out.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                          That doesn't support you claim that Ashkenazi and Edomite Jews are descended from Jews of the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and the Babylonian communities.
                          The genealogies kept by the Jews in Diaspora do show where their ancestors are from.

                          Learn to read what is written.

                          _____
                          The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                          ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                            My argument is that the tribe of Ephraim ended up in England, based on the words 'British' and 'Saxon' and the nations of Ephraim, and the presumption that the promise of Genesis 35:11 would not result in the lost tribes dying out.
                            So, you are willing to ignore the actual records that show that the lost tribes were incorporated into the communities of Jews living in Babylon and in Judea before the first century in favor of a linguistic trick that can make it sound like unrelated words are related?

                            Learn to read what is written.

                            _____
                            The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                            ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                              The covenant of circumcision.
                              So, you've told me you "put" 'bryt' and 'eysh' "together" "because of" "the covenant of circumcision". What (if anything) do you imagine you mean by this?

                              In any case, so far, you've not handed out even a shred of an argument for your claim that the Hebrew 'bryt' and 'eysh' have anything, whatsoever, to do with the English word, 'British'.

                              Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                              Yeah, I'm sure everyone's very impressed by your superior grasp of the issues.
                              To what (if any) issues are you referring by your phrase, "the issues"?

                              Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                              What claim was that, specifically?
                              Hmmm. Did you really not read what I wrote? Here, again, is what I specifically wrote:

                              Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                              Oh? Then please do lay out for me your "research" as to why you claim that the word 'British' was derived from a combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh'.

                              Remember that? Yeah. It was in my previous post. Now, do you still have difficulty seeing specifically what claim I was specifically talking about? (For your convenience, I have now highlighted the text of the claim I was specifically talking about, as well as emboldened and underscored the word, 'claim', preceding it.)


                              Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                              You said that "you're motivated to have the word, 'British', be derivative of a combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh'", which is false.
                              Then you said that I claimed that the derivation existed, which is also false.
                              Well, here, again, is what you had written:
                              Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                              The Hebrew word for covenant is bryt, and circumcision is only applied to males, whe [sic] in Hebrew are called eysh. Put these two words together and you get bryt-eysh, or British.
                              So, by "put these two words together and you get bryt-eysh, or British", you did NOT mean that you derive the word, 'British', from the combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh'? What (if anything), then, did you mean by "put these two words together and you
                              get bryt-eysh, or British"?

                              How can you GET 'British', yet somehow not DERIVE 'British'?! How can a GETTING of the word 'British' from 'bryt' and 'eysh' somehow fail to be a DERIVATION of the word 'British' from 'bryt' and 'eysh'? In other words: No DERIVATION of 'British' from 'bryt' and 'eysh', then no GETTING of 'British' from 'bryt' and 'eysh'. Pretty simple.

                              At any rate, I guess, going forward, you now, especially, won't want to be claiming that the word, 'British', is to be thought derivative of a combining--a "putting together"--of 'bryt' and 'eysh'.

                              So, what (if any) point, then, do you imagine you're even trying to make by saying, "Put these two words together and you get bryt-eysh, or British"--since now you tell us that your point was not to claim that 'British' is derived from 'bryt' and 'eysh'?

                              Here's the thing: you know, as well as I, the truth that there is not a shred of relevance between 'bryt' and 'eysh' on the one hand, and 'British', on the other.


                              Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                              Derivations and associations are different things.
                              Well, you've already disowned derivations in relation to what you've written about "putting together" 'bryt' and 'eysh', and about "getting" 'British'. So now, I suppose you'll want to somehow try to tailor your silly discussion about "putting together" 'bryt' and 'eysh', and about "getting" 'British', around associations. Have fun with that.

                              Originally posted by Theo102 View Post
                              You're attempting to divert from they [sic] fact that you're just trolling.
                              Oh, so to ask Theo102 questions that Theo102 has no hope of answering, and which are fundamentally embarrassing to Theo102's silly claims, is what Theo102 calls "trolling". I read ya loud and clear, Theo102.
                              All my ancestors are human.
                              PS: All your ancestors are human.
                              PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                                The genealogies kept by the Jews in Diaspora do show where their ancestors are from.
                                So what? They fact that some Jews kept records doesn't mean that they were Ashkenazi or Edomite Jews.

                                Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                                So, you are willing to ignore the actual records that show that the lost tribes were incorporated into the communities of Jews living in Babylon and in Judea before the first century in favor of a linguistic trick that can make it sound like unrelated words are related?

                                First, prove that it happened.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X