brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Fri Sep 6 21:57:15 EST 2002


"Taliesin of Earthstar" <taliesin_o at hotmail.com> wrote in message news:784a6704.0209061404.4cd2bf83 at posting.google.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message news:<uxSd9.54015$Ic7.3895626 at news2.west.cox.net>...
> > "Taliesin of Earthstar" <taliesin_o at hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:784a6704.0209050514.2cb3504a at posting.google.com...
> > > "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
> >  news:<jjqc9.37905$Ic7.2564578 at news2.west.cox.net>...
> > > > "Zayton" <zayton at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:AF5c9.7167$vY2.161743 at e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
> >  
> > > > The
> > > > Old Testament Roots
> > > > of Celtic Mythology
> > > > FOUNDATIONS OF DRUIDISM IN THE BIBLE
> > >
> > > You might want to read http://www.religioustolerance.org/anglo_is.htm
> > > for something remotely resembling facts and modern research (rather
> > > than Romantic-era pseudo-historical twaddle).
> > >
> > > The Israelites were a Semitic tribe, not Caucasian. If you want to
> > > argue with that, the first piece of evidence you have to discard is
> > > your own Bible, and the second is history. Now, once you do that,
> > > you're free to believe whatever you wish -- but please keep your
> > > delusions to yourself. No one here (in any of the newsgroups but
> > > especially alt.religion.wicca) is buying.
> > >
> > > Justin / Taliesin of Earthstar
> > 
> > 
> > You're correct that the Israelites were descendants of Shem, which makes
> > them Semites.  And the jews who claim that they aren't Semites [read:
> > descendants of Shem] are correct, but it's not clear that their claim that
> > they're descendants of Ashkenaz is correct.
> 
> Laddiebuck, has anyone ever explained the concept of "Fallacy of
> ambiguity?"
> 
> OK, let's go back to step one. The Jews are a Semitic people, both by
> language (your definition) and by genetics. According to
> Judeo-Christian myth, they are physically descended from Abraham.
> 

Yes, according to "Judeo-Christian myth", this may be true.  But the term "Judeo-Christian" itself is an oxymoron, since jews and Christians are antipoles of each other, just as the Holy Bible and the Talmud are antipoles.

But according to the Holy Bible, "jews" are descendants of Jehudi, who was a descendant of Ham, not Shem.  As noted before in previous posts, these two very different races fought with each other for millennia, never intermarried with each other, and tossed the children born to any miscegenation between the races out of the community.

It's a jewish LIE that jews are Semites.  Not even during the time that Christ was born were they considered to be Semites, Hebrews, descendants of Abraham, and particularly Israelites:

John 8:39  "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham."



> > And the jews who claim that they aren't Semites [read:
> > descendants of Shem] are correct, but it's not clear that their claim that
> > they're descendants of Ashkenaz is correct.
> 
> What of it? In the first place, not all modern Jews claim descent from
> the Kazars. In the second place, if a person is born Jewish or adopted
> Jewish, they are still considered full Jew within the culture. 

According to a "jew" named "Dr. Laura", only a person with a jewish mother can be a jew.

> Read
> your Book of Ruth if you don't believe it - Ruth was a Moabite who had
> married into a Hebrew tribe, but she s still considered Jewish, else
> David (her descendant) could not also be Jewish. 

Ruth was an Israelite who lived in Moab, and when she returned to Judaea, her fellow Israelites recognized her as a fellow Israelite, by race.  They knew from her appearance and ancestry that she was not a racial jew nor a racial Moabite.

David was an Israelite, not a jew, and it's blasphemy for you to proclaim that Jesus Christ's ancestors were jews.

  Rth 4:7 Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbor: and this was a testimony in Israel. 

  Rth 4:8 Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe. 

  Rth 4:9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi. 

  Rth 4:10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day. 

  Rth 4:11 And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem: 

  Rth 4:12 And let thy house be like the house of Pharez, whom Tamar bore unto Judah, of the seed which the LORD shall give thee of this young woman. 

    Rth 4:13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son. 


Israelite law prohibited miscegenation with racial Moabites, but it didn't prohibit marriage with Israelites who had been residents of Moab and who were called "Moabites" because of their residence in Moab.

Israelite law doesn't get changed just by ignoring it, as you infer.


> It doesn't matter if
> a person was descended from Ashkenaz or or from Joe Schmoe from
> Kokomo, if they convert to Judaism, they become Jewish -- and hence,
> by their myths, become inheritors of the Covenant made with Abraham.


No Israelite ever converted to being "jewish", because Israelites can't change their race any easier than niggers can become White men.  The Covenant made with Abraham applied only to descendants of Jacob, and nobody else, which is why they were called Israelites.

Jews were never and could never be Israelites, because any children of an Israelite who married a non-Israelite were "put away", or couldn't enter the congregation of the LORD to the tenth generation:

Deu 23:2 A [mamzer] shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. 



> In that context, you're left with one inescapable conclusion: Hebrews
> = Jews = Israelites.
> 

All Israelites were Hebrews, but not all Hebrews were Israelites.  Descendants of one of Abraham's other son Ishmael [read: Arabs] were Hebrews, but not Israelites.  Descendants of his grandson Esau, the Eddomites, were Hebrews, but not Israelites.

NO jew was ever an Israelite, by Israelite law.  The only jews in the world who can even claim Abraham as an ancestor are the Sephardic jews.  But they are less than 2% of the jews in the world.  They are 99.99999% Canaanite and 0.000001% Abrahamite.  They aren't in power, and are treated just as bad if not worse than the Christians and Muslims, in Palestine, by the "jews" who have zero Hebrew or Israelite or Semite ancestry.
http://christianparty.net/noahgenealogy.htm

> (I guess I need to define a term here. The word "myth" means "a story
> that is culturally significant." It has nothing to do woth historicity
> -- butthere are many "myths" that Judaism and Christianity both
> share.)

Most of the myths are in serious conflict with each other.  The Talmud is the only "religious" document in the world which claims that Jesus Christ was the illegitimate child of a Roman soldier who was hanged on a tree for blasphemy and is now boiling in hot excrement.

Quite different from the myths in the Holy Bible, eh?

> 
> Guess what, John -- the Jews who inhabit Israel, and other countries,
> share this ancestry, either biologically (physical descendants of
> Israel), or legally (adopted people of the tribes). If you want to be
> Jewish, that's on your own nickle, and I respect your right to the
> choice. But you need to go through the proper steps, such as
> converting to Judaism or marrying into a Jewish family.
> 

There's absolutely no common ground between a jew and a Christian.  The Holy Bible describes how they've been at war with each other for millennia, and describes exactly how to deal with it.

> If you want a _tribal_ identification, then call them Hebrews.
> 
> > However, there were several million Israelites with Moses when he left
> > Egypt, and it was the Israelites who dispersed to all parts of the world,
> > particularly to Europe and Ireland.  Every European nation is aware of it's
> > Israelite ancestry, so you're going to have a hard time convincing them
> > otherwise
> > http://christianparty.net/gaelic.htm
> 
> If the Celts were of Hebrew ancestry (there is, incidentally, no
> genetic link, but let's be hypothetical for a moment, shall we), they
> had abandoned the Covenant long before they moved to Galicia. They
> worshipped multiple Gods, ate pork, collected the heads of their
> enemies, some of them ran around naked except for the lime or woad
> they had painted on their bodies. Prostitution and concubinage were
> not only allowed, but legally sanctioned, and they may have engaged in
> human sacrificial rites. (Historic evidenceis a bit unclear on that
> last point). Assuming that the Judeo-Christian myths are the proper
> context here, if the Celts had been the purported "10 Lost Tribes,"
> Yahweh would have booted their asses out of the Covenant so fast that
> their descendant's still would not have hit the ground.
> 

It's easy enough for some STUPID jew to write stories like this, which of course they do daily in this country, so this has zippo credibility.  What's a bit more difficult to LIE about and get away with is the DNA studies which prove the genetic link between the descendants of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.  The Celts were just one such group, and are most likely descendants of the Tribe of Ephraim


> John, I've noticed that some Christians are able to accept that they
> (again, according to their myths) are "adopted" sons of Abraham
> without trying to push the "firstborn" out of the way. And I've
> noticed that some who claim to be Christian seem to think that the
> only way that they can "prove" their "fitness" is to dispariage the
> Jews. Which category do you fall in?
> 
> That's a serious question, John -- not a flame, an insult, or a troll.
> 

The Holy Bible is the only authority here, and it clearly states that the Covenant of Abraham applies ONLY to the genetic descendants of Jacob [read: Israelites], period.

1Ch 16:16 Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; 

  1Ch 16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, 

  Act 7:8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.

Most attempts to convert non-Israelites to "Christianity" have failed miserably.  It's a hereditary issue.  It's only the descendants of the Israelites who comprehend and appreciate Christianity, and thus are heirs to this everlasting covenant.


John Knight
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20020907/39da45a3/attachment.html


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list