brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Thu Aug 29 23:59:38 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>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.

Tribal membership was determined by descent.

>He DID have one great-grandparent out of 8 who was an Israelite, 

Actually it has been argued that it was Mordacai himself that was of
the tribe of Benjamin.  But all of the descendants of even ONE member
of the Tribe of Benjamin, whether you think they are Israelites or
not, are descendants of Benjamin, and thence of Abraham.

>But this
>does not make him an Israelite, particularly when the Holy Bible very
>specifically states that he was a JEW.

But stating that he was a Jew does NOT equate to stating he was NOT an
Israelite.  You are attempting to assume your conclusion, arguing that
Jews were not Israelites solely because they were called Jews, and
therefore were not Israelites. That is nincompoop logic.  Just as
stating that someone is a "man" does not imply that he is not a "human
being" (not being a human being only applies to YOU, and that is by
your choice).  

>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.

Not always.  The Lost tribes did not.  ONLY the ones who returned to
Jerusalem and rebuilt the wall and worshipped again in the temple
under Ezra and Nehemiah, and in Nehemiah 4 and Nehemiah 20 they are
called JEWS as well as men of Judah as well as people of Israel, by
both Nehemiah and by the enemies of Nehemiah.

>The jews didn't.

But they did.  Read the ending of Nehemiah again.  It was JEWS that
followed Nehemiah, who put away foreign wives, etc.

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

Proof by nincompoop assertion.

>What more proof do you need?

Umm.  Something that makes sense, and which matches the Bible will do
for a starter.

>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.

But so to were all the people of Ezra and Nehemiah who lived in
Babylon and took up the ways of the stranger, married and had kids by
foreigners, and had to be returned to the Lord.

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

No.

>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).

Except that they did associate, intermarry and socialize with them in
the time of the captivity.

>> 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?

Since I agree with the Holy Bible that he was a Benjaminite and thus a
descendant of Abraham, my choice is "yes".

>The Holy Bible tells us precisely that the children of an Israelite who
>marries a jew are NOT ever considered Israelites

No it doesn't.  It commands that they not intermarry etc.  But you
have acknowledged that they did so, and only intermittently put away
the foreigners.  Well, sorry, but there were entire generations in
there between the intermingling and the putting away, and mongrels
stay mongrels.  All of the people of Israel were mongrels by the time
of Nehemiah, and the only saving grace was for them to put away the
foreigners and rededicate themselves to the Lord.  Some of the Jews,
the Benjaminites and the Levites did so, and they were the ones who
inherited the mantel of "the chosen people".

>[or at best, only after ten
>generations], but here you are claiming that a JEW was a Benjamite.

No. I am not.  The Bible is; I am just agreeing.  Meanwhile,
regardless of the laws of Israel, even if it were Mordecai's great
grandfather who was of the tribe of Benjamin, the great grandson of a
descendant of Benjamin remain a descendant of Benjamin, no matter how
many others he is ALSO a descendant of.

>> 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?

You admitted that it did.  Why else would the Israelites who returned
to Jerusalem who had violated the law, be allowed to *reestablish* the
congregation of the Lord.  The Israelites had STOPPED practicing the
law for a few generations, and thus if the law were upheld, then for
10 generations there could be no Israelites.  Yet the Jews rebuilt
Jerusalem, and are called Israelites.  NOT 10 generations later, but
merely upon separating themselves from the strangers.

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

It was suspended for ALL of the people who returned from the
captivity, because otherwise, there would have been no chosen people
at all.

>> 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.
>
>Who's this "we"? 

2 billion Christians, as well as a large number of non-Christians who
understand the Bible better than you do.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list