brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Sat Aug 31 15:11:04 EST 2002


"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kbq0nu0da04e1uo2232sc6ak9tfi3sip4d at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> >news:i8ttmug619v833acfff9gqi6f1129c1q9a at 4ax.com...
> >> "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.
> >
> >Golly, gee, whillickers.  Miracles never cease.
> >
> >Are you finally acknowledging that "races" do exist after all?
>
> No.  I said "tribal membership".  Not the same thing as biological
> race.  If a Benjaminite married an Ephraimite, then their offspring
> would be considered one of the two tribes, not both.  There was no
> rule even in Deuteronomy, about the tribes of Israel mixing together.
> Hence tribal membership was not the same as race.

"Tribal membership" is the very definition of "race".  Having a unique
patriarch is the only requirement for a family group to be considered a
"race", even by Noah Webster's definition, so you just admitted that
protecting the Israelite Race was a "racist" act, in your feminazi
vernacular.

Obviously there were restricions to marriages between these different "Races
of Israel".  The easiest way to restrict such marriages is to keep the
inheritance of a male who marries an Israelite from another race within his
own race [read: "tribe"], and this is exactly what the Israelites did:

Num 18:19  All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of
Israel offer unto the LORD, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy
daughters with thee, by a statute forever: it is a covenant of salt forever
before the LORD unto thee and to thy seed with thee.
Num 18:20  And the LORD spoke unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in
their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and
thine inheritance among the children of Israel.
Num 18:21  And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in
Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the
service of the tabernacle of the congregation.

>
> >> >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.
> >
> >Do you believe that argument?
>
> By definition, it was argued against YOU and hence is more believable.
> because you speak the words of your Father the Prince of Liars.
>
> >Can you produce the Holy Scripture that claims that Mordecai was an
> >Israelite rather than a Jew?
>
> Why would I need to, since the Jews WERE people of Israel according to
> the Bible?
>

This is the jewish LIE that you hope Christians will believe, but most are
wise to your lies by now.


> >There's only one way for a descendant of a Benjamite great-grandparent to
be
> >an Israelite, and that's for all 8 great-grandparents to be Israelites.
>
> Yep.  And hence Mordechai was an Israelite.
>
> And why would the story of Esther be part of Holy Scripture, if it
> were about non-Israelites?

It was about how the mongrel jew offspring of Israelites LIED, and DECEIVED,
and KILLED, to get their way--and then celebrated their KILLING for
millennia, with the Passover.

>
> >To this very day, jews and Israelites are two entirely separate and
distinct
> >races.
>
> To this day there are Jews, and there are non-Jews.  There are no
> Israelites.
>

You are so ignorant it's almost inconceivable how you could get this way.
The vast majority of the world knows exactly who today's descendants of the
Israelites are, so your ignorance is once again noted
http://www.kcnet.com/~denis/related/genealog/euro-her.htm

> >Most of the 15 million jews in the world claim to be descendants of
> >Ashkenaz,
>
> Not one Jew claims to be a descendant of Ashkenaz.
>

Not even Arthur Koestler?  Since we know that you've already seen
http://christianparty.net/koestler.htm we know that you are now LYING.


>
> >The only people who lived in Judaea who were called "jews" were jews.
You
> >cannot find one single scrap of Holy Scripture which ever calls an
Israelite
> >of any Tribe living in Judaea a "jew".
>
> Every reference to the Jews in the Bible is a reference to the people
> of the tribe of Judah.
>

There are 771 instances of the word "Judah" in the KJV, 762 in the Old
Testament which are translated from the Hebrew word "Jehudi", "Yhudah" or
"Yhehudah", and 9 which are translated from the Greek word "Iouda".  Each
instance is a reference to Judah, a son of Jacob, or his descendants who
lived in Judaea or Judea.
H3063
yehu^da^h
yeh-hoo-daw'
>From H3034; celebrated; Jehudah (or Judah), the name of five Israelites;
also of the tribe descended from the first, and of its territory: - Judah.
G2448
Iouda
ee-oo-dah'
Of Hebrew origin [H3063] or perhaps [H3194]; Judah (that is, Jehudah or
Juttah), a part of (or place in) Palestine: - Judah.
JEW OR YHUDIY
There are 276 instances of the words "jew" or "jews" in the KJV, 86 in the
Old Testament which are translated from the Hebrew word "Jehudi", "Yhudiy"
or "Yehudiy", and 190 in the New Testament which are translated from the
Greek word "Ioudaios"
H3064
yehu^di^y
yeh-hoo-dee'
Jew.
G2453
Ioudaios
ee-oo-dah'-yos
>From G2448 (in the sense of G2455 as a country); udaean, that is, belonging
to Jehudah: - Jew (-ess), of Juda.
There's never any indication in any of the Holy Scripture that any member of
the Tribe of Judah [read: a descendant of Judah] was ever referred to as a
"jew", nor is there any indication that any descendant of Jehudi was ever
referred to as a member of the Tribe of Judah.  Each original reference is
very clear, so it's revealing that Strong's has two different numbers for
the same word, and provides the same misleading "translation" for both
numbers.


> >> >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.
> >
> >NO.  It refers only to Israelites, not jews:
> >
> >Nehemiah 9:1 Now in the twenty and fourth day of this month the children
of
> >Israel were assembled with fasting, and with sackcloth, and earth upon
them.
> >
> >Nehemiah 9:2 And the seed of Israel separated themselves from all
> >foreigners, and stood and confessed their sins, and the iniquities of
their
> >fathers.
> >
> >Nehemiah 9:3 And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of
the
> >law of Jehovah their God a fourth part of the day; and another fourth
part
> >they confessed, and worshipped Jehovah their God.
> >
> >"Children of Israel" means Israelites, not jews.
> >
> >There are references in Nehemiah to jews.  But the word "jew" appears
> >NOWHERE in Nehemiah 9 which describes putting away the foreign wives of
> >Israelites and their children.
>
> I said the END of Nehemiah.  That is Neh. 13  Where he talks to the
> JEWS and the Levites:
> >[22] And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and
that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the sabbath day.
Remember me, O my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the
greatness of thy mercy.
> >[23] In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of
Ammon, and of Moab:
> >[24] And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not
speak in the Jews' language, but according to the language of each people.
> >[25] And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of
them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye
shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto
your sons, or for yourselves.
> >[26] Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many
nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made
him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause
to sin.
> >[27] Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to
transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?
> >[28] And one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest,
was son in law to Sanballat the Horonite: therefore I chased him from me.
> >[29] Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood,
and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites.
> >[30] Thus cleansed I them from all strangers, and appointed the wards of
the priests and the Levites, every one in his business;
> >[31] And for the wood offering, at times appointed, and for the
firstfruits. Remember me, O my God, for good.
>
> Read verses 23-27 again and again and again, because he is chastising
> JEWS for having strange wives, and making THEM swear by God, not
> anyone called "Israelites" who are not mentioned anywhere in the
> chapter.
>
> You've lost this one, loser.

You just made the point.

Chapter 13 of Nehemiah is about JEWS, not Israelites.  Chapter 9 is ONLY
about Israelites.  The word "jew" never even appears in Chapter 9.

There are 11 references to JEWS in Nehemiah, and 19 to Israel, and they are
NOT used interchangably.  When it's a reference to an Israelite, the term
"jew" is not used.   Why would it?

Nehemiah is exactly where you will see that the Israelites "put away" the
bastards who were born to the Israelites who married jews.


>
> >Why?  These are TWO DIFFERENT RACES.
>
> No.
>

Yes.

> >> >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.
> >
> >But the Israelite law never changed.  No children born to such marriages
> >(and there's no evidence that this occurred any more frequently then than
it
> >does now) were ever considered to be Israelites.
>
> David.
>

David was a pure Israelite, and this attempt by jews like the Rolls Royce of
Racists Buehler to "prove" that Christ was not a pure Israelite because
David and Christ were descendants of a "Moabite" named Ruth is just one more
classic jewish LIE which has been exposed for all to see.

> >You seem to always presume that all races are just one single racial
soup,
> >but there's no evidence that miscegenation was any worse then than it is
> >today (though it is bad enough today).
>
> The Bible says it was rampant.
>

It also describes the solution, and how it was implemented, over and over
and over again.

> >> Since I agree with the Holy Bible that he was a Benjaminite and thus a
> >> descendant of Abraham, my choice is "yes".
> >
> >Mordecai was not a Benjamite.  Only his great-grandfather was.  You
cannot
> >find a shred of Holy Scripture which proves otherwise.
>
> We already did.  You just don't believe it.  But that is YOUR problem,
> not ours.
>

We sure do agree on one thing:  Mordecai was definitely a jew.

> >> 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.
> >
> >Read it again.  ALL of the mongrels of the foreign wives and the foreign
> >wives were put away, en  masse, just as we're getting ready to do yet
again.
>
> But that was too late, because the northern tribes had been foreign
> wiving for hundreds of years and were no longer identifiable tribes.
> Of the southern tribes, only the 100,000 odd who returned to Judea
> took up the ways of the Lord, and it was not until 90 years later that
> Ezra got them to put away their foreign wives.  That is 4 generations
> of miscegenation, after 3 generations in Babylon.  Lots of time for
> mongrelization.

First you argue that Israelites weren't a "race", then you argue that they
were subject to "4 generations of miscegenation".

Which do you believe?

Were they a race, or not?

If you claim they weren't a race, then how could you also claim that they
were subject to "4 generations of miscegenation"?

Even with all the miscegenation which is occurring right now in the US,
something that must make you feminazis and "liberals" feel all warm and cozy
inside, still only 4% of the land of fruits and nuts [read: California]
classifies itself as "mixed-race", with an average in the US of 2%.

This IS a travesty.  It IS a lot of miscegenation.  It's probably even worse
than what happened after SOME of the Israelites came back to Judea.  But
what you ignore, something that feminazis and "liberals" and jews will
always "ignore", is that the vast majority of Israelites never did
miscegenate with other races, and their descendants have scattered all over
the world, mostly as an intact White Christian Israelite Race.

Probably the most intact race of White Christian Israelites are the Russians
who don't even want to miscegenate with fellow White Christian Israelites
from Europe, who don't have the nigger and jew and Mexican and Indian
problem that we have, who are now free of most external zionist control, who
will now restore this once-great Christian nation to its formerly pristine
condition.

Getting rid of the niggers and jews and other muds and "liberals" and
counterproductive elements is much easier than you might think.

John Knight









More information about the Neur-sci mailing list