brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at
Thu Aug 29 22:13:56 EST 2002

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at> wrote in message
news:57vsmusep24737n242ou3rqkcjidtnfm07 at
> "John Knight" <jwknight at> wrote:
> >  "Zayton" <zayton at> wrote in message
news:mi9b9.86932$%v4.4664562 at
> >
> >    And why didn't you produce just ONE example of Holy Scripture where a
member of the Tribe of Benjamin who lived in Judaea was ever referred to as
a "jew"?
> >
> >    *Esther 2:5
> >
> >        "Now there was a Jew in Susa, the capital whose name was
Mordecah, the son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, a Benjaminite,...."
> >
> >      Because you cannot?
> >
> >    *But John, I just did.
> >
> >No, Zayton, what you DID do was produce the Holy Scripture which refers
to a JEW.
> >
> >Mordecai wasn't an Israelite--because he was a JEW.
> I repeat your question from above:
> >And why didn't you produce just ONE example of Holy Scripture where a
> > member of the Tribe of Benjamin who lived in Judaea was ever referred
> > to as a "jew"?
> He was a member of the Tribe of Benjamin, who lived in Judea, and was
> a Jew.

No, if he was a jew, he could NOT have been a member of the Tribe of
Benjamin, because only Israelites were members of the Tribe of Benjamin.

He DID have one great-grandparent out of 8 who was an Israelite, but this
does not make him an Israelite, particularly when the Holy Bible very
specifically states that he was a JEW.
> >ONE of Mordecai's four great-grand fathers was an Israelite, of the Tribe
of Benjamin.
> All of them were by your reasoning, since you've stated that all
> Israelites are racially pure and would never think of miscegenation.
> Therefore all of them must have been, and therefore Jews were
> Israelites.

Are you trying to demonstrate "women's intuition" again?  We already know
how circular and convoluted it is, so why keep on keeping in?

Nobody ever, ever, ever claimed that "Israelites are racially pure and would
never think of miscegenation".  They not only "thought" of it, they DID it,
many times.

But they also always "put away" the children of Israelites who married
non-Israelites--along with their foreign wives.

The jews didn't.  That's why jews are a mongrel race.  Even today, the only
requirement for a jew to be a jew is if the mother was a jew.  That's not
the way it works with Israelites, though.

> >But because the Holy Bible referred to Mordecai a JEW and not as an
> > Israelite, at least ONE of his other great-grandfathers, if not all
> > of the rest, had to have been JEWS.
> I'm sure they all were including Kish. Prove that Kish was NOT a Jew.

Already did.  He was an Israelite, of the Tribe of Benjamin, and NO jew was
ever a member of the Tribe of Benjamin.

What more proof do you need?

> >It's well documented throughout the Holy Bible that none of the
> > children of an Israelite who ever married a JEW was considered to be
> > an Israelite:
> Find any example in the Holy Bible where an Israelite married a Jew,
> and the resulting person was not considered an Israelite.

How about Mordecai?  We don't need to know the name of the Israelite who
married a jew to know that the great-grandson of an Israelite who was a JEW
had mixed-race ancestors.  This is true by definition.

How about Esau?  Do you believe Esau was an Israelite?  [we'll skip this for
a second to make the point].

Esau married Canaanite women and God hated him for it, so Esau and his
family were banished to Edom, never to associate with, inter-marry with, or
socialize with Israelites (other than to war with them).

> In any event, he remained a Benjaminite, because he was descended from
> the tribe of Benjamin.  You've placed great stock in the genealogies
> of the Holy Bible.  This one says that he was of the bloodlines of
> Benjamin.

Gee, should we believe you, or the Holy Bible?

The Holy Bible tells us precisely that the children of an Israelite who
marries a jew are NOT ever considered Israelites [or at best, only after ten
generations], but here you are claiming that a JEW was a Benjamite.

It's such a difficult choice, eh?

> >A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to
> > his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the
> > LORD, Deuteronomy 23:2
> Not relevant unless you can PROVE by a quote from the Bible that
> the word "bastard" would apply in the case of the genealogy quoted in
> Esther, even though there was no mention thereof, or of anyone being
> cut off from the congregation of the LORD

I see.  You believe this Israelite law applied only sometimes, and that it
didn't apply at other times?

Would you mind too terribly much explaining why Israelite law was suspended
for the JEW Mordecai?

Was it his pleasant personality?  Or his way with women?  Or how well he got
along with his neighbors (which is about the way the jews in Israel get
along with their neighborhood 12 year old boys)?

> >Perhaps you could argue that the descendants of such an Israelite could
re-enter "the congregation of the LORD" after ten generations, but not even
that would prove that they would be considered to be Israelites at that
> You have to prove that they were ever NOT Israelites.  After all,
> since WE claim that Jews and Israelites were the same people, the
> offspring of a Jew and an Israelite would not be miscegenation, and
> therefore there is not reason for them not to be considered
> Israelites.
> lojbab

Who's this "we"?  You mean jews?  Or feminazis?  Do your fellow jews or
feminazis believe this?

The problem is:  264 million CHRISTIANS in this country--disagree.

John Knight

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list