Christian Zionism

[Theo102]

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.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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.

 

[genuineoriginal]

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?

:doh:

 

[7djengo7]

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'.

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"?

What claim was that, specifically?

Hmmm. Did you really not read what I wrote? Here, again, is what I specifically wrote:

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.)​

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:

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.​

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.

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.

 

[Theo102]

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.

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?

:doh:

First, prove that it happened.

 

[Theo102]

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?

What I imagine isn't relevant.

 

[7djengo7]

What I imagine isn't relevant.

If you really meant this, you'd not have started this thread in the first place.

 

[Theo102]

If you really meant this, you'd not have started this thread in the first place.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[chair]

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.

Hmm, you certainly said this:

No, some modern Jews are Ashkenazi, and they're not even semites, let alone descendants of Jacob. Also Edomite Jews are not descendants of Jacob. There are only twelve tribes, Dan isn't listed among the twelve, and Ephraim and Manasseh replace Joseph.

Are any modern Jews real Jews in your eyes?
What are "Edomite Jews" anyhow?

The only "evidence" that you have for the British being one of the 12 lost tribes are some very loose and creative associations.
So we have a situation like this:
A people who have identified as Israelites for many centuries, speak Hebrew (or at least pray in Hebrew), and observe Israelite customs- those are not really Israelites in your eyes.
A people who historically did not identify themselves as Israelites, have no Israelite traditions, and don't know any Hebrew at all, who have Celtic roots- those are really Israelites.

Do I have this right?

 

[Theo102]

Are any modern Jews real Jews in your eyes?

Yes, although the term "Jew" can also mean someone who is only culturally Jewish, i.e not observant of the Torah.

What are "Edomite Jews" anyhow?

They're Edomites who John Hyrcanus forced to convert to Judaism.

The only "evidence" that you have for the British being one of the 12 lost tribes are some very loose and creative associations.

In your opinion, which has no value. Occam's Razor says that it's the best explanation for the available facts.

So we have a situation like this:
A people who have identified as Israelites for many centuries, speak Hebrew (or at least pray in Hebrew), and observe Israelite customs- those are not really Israelites in your eyes.
A people who historically did not identify themselves as Israelites, have no Israelite traditions, and don't know any Hebrew at all, who have Celtic roots- those are really Israelites.

Do I have this right?

AFAIK modern Jews don't identify as Israelites; the houses of Israel and Judah were distinct from each other when the diaspora occurred.
People who don't know their own history are only going to identify according to more relatively recent cultural identifiers. What's important is their potential to realize the house of Israel in a modern context. This potential isn't limited by knowledge of language or tradition.

 

[chair]

Yes, although the term "Jew" can also mean someone who is only culturally Jewish, i.e not observant of the Torah.

no. Being Jewish is an ethnic identification. Not religious.

They're Edomites who John Hyrcanus forced to convert to Judaism.

Who are these people today?

In your opinion, which has no value. Occam's Razor says that it's the best explanation for the available facts.

Then you better buy yourself a new razor. There are much simpler explanations for everything you've posted. And much of what you wrote is in any case irrelevant.

AFAIK modern Jews don't identify as Israelites;

Take the time to open a modern Jewish prayer book. You'll find that we refer to ourselves as the House of Israel to this day.

Here, for example, is the kaddish: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/371110/jewish/Text-of-the-Mourners-Kaddish.htm

Exalted and hallowed be His great Name. (Congregation responds: "Amen.")

Throughout the world which He has created according to His Will. May He establish His kingship, bring forth His redemption and hasten the coming of His Moshiach. (Cong: "Amen.")

In your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of the entire House of Israel, speedily and soon, and say, Amen.

(Cong: "Amen. May His great Name be blessed forever and to all eternity, blessed.")

May His great Name be blessed forever and to all eternity. Blessed and praised, glorified, exalted and extolled, honored, adored and lauded be the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He. (Cong: "Amen.")

Beyond all the blessings, hymns, praises and consolations that are uttered in the world; and say, Amen. (Cong: "Amen.")

May there be abundant peace from heaven, and a good life for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen. (Cong: "Amen.")

He Who makes peace (Between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur substitute: "the peace") in His heavens, may He make peace for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen. (Cong: "Amen.")

 

[Theo102]

no. Being Jewish is an ethnic identification. Not religious.

Don't be stupid.

 

[chair]

Don't be stupid.

I am being accurate. I am quite sorry if it doesn't fit your ideology.
The Jewish people are a nationality. It is not a group of people who have the same religion the way Christians and Chrsitianity are.

You are only making yourself look more silly by calling me stupid or an idiot.

 

[chair]

Theo is talking about "British Israelism"

Here's some quotes from the wikipedia:

British Israelism has been criticized for poor research and scholarship. The Encyclopedia Britannica summarises in 1910 that: "The theory [of British-Israelism] rests on premises which are deemed by scholars—both theological and anthropological—to be utterly unsound".^[58] Current scholarship is not consistent with the claims of British Israelism, with scholars drawing attention to its "historical and linguistic inaccuracies" in addition to its links to antisemitism.^[1] Hale (2015) refers to "the overwhelming cultural, historical and genetic evidence against it."^[59]:181 [h=3]Research standards[edit][/h]
Critics of British Israelism note that the arguments presented by promoters of the teaching are based on unsubstantiated and highly speculative amateur research. Tudor Parfitt, author of The Lost Tribes: The History of a Myth, states that the proof cited by adherents of British Israelism is "of a feeble composition even by the low standards of the genre."^[8]:61
....

Parfitt suggests that the idea of British Israelism was inspired by numerous ideological factors, such as the desire for ordinary people to have a glorious ancestral past, pride in the British Empire, and the belief in the "racial superiority of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants",^[8]:62 and Aikau characterized the movement as "fundamentally about providing a rationale for Anglo-Saxon superiority."^[66] To Kidd, its theology represents a "quasi-heresy", serving to "blunt the universalist message apparent in the New Testament".^[11]:204 Its role in fostering anti-semitism in conservative Protestant Christianity has been highlighted,^[44]:57 as has a "racial chauvinism" that is "not always covert".^{[36]:121–122}

 

[Theo102]

I am being accurate. I am quite sorry if it doesn't fit your ideology.

No, it's not accurate to say that "Jew" isn't a religious identification.

If someone says "What's your religion" and someone else says "Jewish" or "I'm a Jew" then that's obviously a meaningful statament.

Theo is talking about "British Israelism"

Here's some quotes from the wikipedia:

Wikipedia is a cognitive infiltration operation. It's got a built-in bias towards corporate "fake news", and is therefore a hopeless source for anything that challenges the status quo. You might as will quote RationalWiki, it's just as bad in this respect.

 

[chair]

Theo, you are simply wrong on just about everything you've posted here. You're not going to be convinced by anything or anybody of that, so let's not waste each other's time on this.

Have a nice day.

 

[Theo102]

Theo, you are simply wrong on just about everything you've posted here.

Saying it doesn't make it true. You were obviously wrong when you said that being Jewish is not a religious identification.

Definition of Jew

1: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
2: one whose religion is Judaism
3a: a member of the tribe of Judah
b: ISRAELITE
4: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d.z

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Jew

 

[genuineoriginal]

First, prove that it happened.

There is much more proof that the Ashkenazi or Edomite Jews are descended from the Jews that lived in Babylonia and Judaea than there is proof that the British are the "lost tribes"

 

[Theo102]

There is much more proof that the Ashkenazi or Edomite Jews are descended from the Jews that lived in Babylonia and Judaea than there is proof that the British are the "lost tribes"

You are wrong because you've got nothing to support your position, but I've got the promise of Ephraim's nations (Genesis 18:19) and the fact that the British Commonwealth encompasses many nations, the language associations, and the hundred associations.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You are wrong because you've got nothing to support your position, but I've got the promise of Ephraim's nations (Genesis 18:19) and the fact that the British Commonwealth encompasses many nations, the language associations, and the hundred associations.

You are imagining things, but the historical records show that I am right and you are not.

Diaspora Diaspora, (Greek: Dispersion)Hebrew Galut (Exile), the dispersion of Jews among the Gentiles after the Babylonian Exile; or the aggregate of Jews or Jewish communities scattered “in exile” outside Palestine or present-day Israel. Although the term refers to the physical dispersal of Jews throughout the world, it also carries religious, philosophical, political, and eschatological connotations, inasmuch as the Jews perceive a special relationship between the land of Israel and themselves. Interpretations of this relationship range from the messianic hope of traditional Judaism for the eventual “ingathering of the exiles” to the view of Reform Judaism that the dispersal of the Jews was providentially arranged by God to foster pure monotheism throughout the world. The first significant Jewish Diaspora was the result of the Babylonian Exile (q.v.) of 586 BC. After the Babylonians conquered the Kingdom of Judah, part of the Jewish population was deported into slavery. Although Cyrus the Great, the Persian conqueror of Babylonia, permitted the Jews to return to their homeland in 538 BC, part of the Jewish community voluntarily remained behind. The largest, most significant, and culturally most creative Jewish Diaspora in early Jewish history flourished in Alexandria, where, in the 1st century BC, 40 percent of the population was Jewish. Around the 1st century AD, an estimated 5,000,000 Jews lived outside Palestine, about four-fifths of them within the Roman Empire, but they looked to Palestine as the centre of their religious and cultural life. Diaspora Jews thus far outnumbered the Jews in Palestine even before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thereafter, the chief centres of Judaism shifted from country to country (e.g., Babylonia, Persia, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, and the United States), and Jewish communities gradually adopted distinctive languages, rituals, and cultures, some submerging themselves in non-Jewish environments more completely than others. While some lived in peace, others became victims of violent anti-Semitism.