brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Fri Sep 13 10:50:44 EST 2002


"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:iqa3ou8ilrcjcoclnb3o1fnp261gla92g0 at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >Moses married an Israelite who was a descendant of the Israelite named
> >Cushi.
>
> But you've claimed that Cushi was NOT an Israelite, because he was
> descended from Cush, who was descended from Ham.  Are you admitting
> that all your prior posts on Cushi were lies?
>

Read the posts.  Read the Holy Bible.  Nobody ever claimed that there
weren't two different Cushi described in the Holy Bible.

The point you studiously ignore is that it's impossible that Moses would
have married the Cushi who were descendants of Ham, because they were
niggers.  It's equally  impossible that a jew could be a descendant of the
Israelite named Cushi, because then these morons called "jews" would be only
the descendant of ONE Israelite, who was one of hundreds of thousands or one
of millions of Israelites.

What possible reason could there be for referring to .00000032% of all
Israelites as "jews"?  http://christianparty.net/cush.htm

What would that do to your claim that 30% of the population were jews, as
ridiculous as it already is?

> >Why do you think they would have made an exception for Ruth?
>
> They didn't.  Therefore the law was not what you have claimed that it
> is.
>

The law never changed.  It's still law to this very day.  To the 2 billion
Christians in the world, it's more important than ever:

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,
Deuteronomy 23:2

Had the Israelites made an exception to the law for Ruth, there would have
had to have been MANY people involved--but only Boaz is mentioned.  Why?
Because Boaz recognized that Ruth was a kindred:

Rth 3:12  And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a
kinsman nearer than I.

Kindred
KIN'DRED, n. [from kin, kind.]

1. Relation by birth; consanguinity.

Like her, of equal kindred to the throne.

2. Relation by marriage; affinity.

3. Relatives by blood or marriage, more properly the former.

Thou shalt go unto my country and to my kindred. Gen 26.

4. Relation; suit; connection in kind.

KIN'DRED, a. Related; congenial; of the like nature or properties; as
kindred souls; kindred skies.

In other words, Boaz recognized Ruth as one of his Israelite "kindred" who
was living in Moab, not a descendant of Moab.


> >And if they did
> >make an exception for her, which would have altered thousands of case
> >history to the contrary, where was the dialog with God that would have
been
> >required to make such a huge exception?
>
> Far simpler to accept that you are wrong about what the law means, and
> that miscegenation was NOT the sin.  Ezra and other instances where
> Israelites and Jews were chastened to put away foreign wives were NOT
> about the fact that they WERE foreign, but about the fact (generally
> stated quite clearly) that the foreign wives practiced foreign ways,
> worshipped foreign gods, and hence were not fit to share in the
> inheritance of Israel.

Israelite and jewish law are different, to this very day.  To be a jew
requires only that the mother be a jew, but to be an Israelite requires both
parents to be Israelites.

Of course the ways of the foreign wives were wicked--they were jews, and
they were no less wicked then than they are today.  You keep "forgetting"
that "bastard" was translated from "mamzer":

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,
Deuteronomy 23:2


H4464
????
mamze^r
mam-zare'
>From an unused root mian. to alienate; a mongrel.



Mongrel
MONGREL, a. [See Mingle.] Of a mixed breed; of different kinds.

ANY child of an Israelite who married a non-Israelite was a mamzer, and
mamzers couldn't enter the congregation of the LORD to the tenth generation,
then and now.  This law hasn't changed.


> When foreigners adopted the ways of Israel NOT
> through force, but by realization that the Lord was God, and kept the
> covenant of Moses, then they were regardless racial birth inheritors
> of the covenant.  And the Lord explicitly SAYS this in a passage I
> quoted to you a couple of days ago.
>

Absolutely not.  You could not have quoted any such thing, because it
doesn't exist.  Here's what Christ said about Israelites:

He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel." Matthew 15:24

"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the  Samaritans enter
ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And  as ye
go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand."  Matthew 10:5-9

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and said about him, "Behold, an Israelite
indeed, in whom is no deceit!" John 1:47

And here's Paul:

I ask then, Did God reject his people? May it never be! For I also am an
Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, Romans 11:1

"who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the
giving of the law, the service, and the promises; of whom are the fathers,
and from whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God,
blessed forever. Amen", Romans 9:4-5

And here's Luke:

"Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel," he said, "Because He has not
forgotten His people but has effected redemption for them", Luke 1:68


> >Descendants of Judah are never referred to as jews in any place in the
Holy
> >Bible, because they were Israelites.
>
> They are referred to as Jews, because the Hebrew word for a descendent
> of Judah is precisely the word which is translated as "Jew".

Just because you keep repeating the same old tired jewish LIE is no reason
for you to believe that it will some day come true.

The ONLY word the Hebrew word "Yhudah" was ever translated into, even by the
KJV translators, was "JUDAH".

The ONLY word the Hebrew word "Yhudiy" was ever tranlsated into, even by the
KVJ translators, was "JEW".

The KJV translators DID translate the Hebrew word "yhud" and the Greek word
"ioudaia" to mean "jewry" on three different occasions, but now modern
translators have corrected that error and translate it as "Judah".

Whether or not this was an intentional "error" is something it would really
be nice to know.


>
> >Yes, the country was known as "Judea" [or Judaea], and most of the
> >Israelites who lived there were known as "Judah", because they were
> >descendants of Judah, but there were also Israelites of the Tribe of
> >Benjamin (like Paul), as well as jews who were descendants of Jehudi.
The
> >Holy Bible never confuses Judah with Jehudi.
>
> Because the one refers to the other.
>

And I repeat:  "The Holy Bible never confuses Judah with Jehudi."
http://christianparty.net/kjv.htm

> >> All of the residents who claimed
> >> Hebrew descent (with or without genealogical records) were known as
Jews.
> >> Even the Hebrews scattered abroad ("diaspora") were known by this name
> >> (compare Esther).
> >
> >No.  By both Hebrew and Israelite law, mamzers born of an adulterous
> >marriage with non-Hebrews or non-Israelites had to be put away.  There's
no
> >way that jews could have legally been either.  Besides, most jews today
> >claim to be descendants of Ashkenaz,
>
> No they don't.  You have yet to come up with a quote that Kostler
> claims that Jews are descendants of Ashkenaz, much less that any other
> Jew does.

It's certainly not White Christian Israelites making this claim, because
it's most likely yet one more jewish LIE.

>
> >Maybe the Talmud says this, but if it does, it's in direct conflict with
the
> >Holy Bible.
>
> This from the guy who just posted agreeing with the claim that Paul
> was a false prophet and that therefore most of the New Testament is
> not scriptural.
>

If what Christ spoke conflicts with what Paul wrote, who do you think is the
final authority?

Was Thomas Jefferson right or wrong?  Was he a "real Christian" as he wrote
by his own hand, or do you still "think" he was a "deist"?

> >Disagreed.  You WANT Christ's ancestry to be impure,
>
> You want it to be pure
>

Of course.  And the Holy Bible proves that it is.  It proves that jews are
just what Christ claimed they are:  LIARS, father of LIES, and MURDERERS.
They LIED about Christ, His ancestry, they claim He's now boiling in hot
excrement, and they still LIE about it.  They LIE about Muslims and hope the
American sheeple will just go along with one more jewish con game.  But the
jig is up for the jews http://christianparty.net/poll.htm

> >and will go to great lengths to discredit it,
>
> and will go to great lengths to invent reasons to believe it, none of
> which are really supported by the Bible or by non-Biblical sources
> that otherwise agree with the Bible.
>
> lojbab

Of the 2 billion Christians in the world, how many do you think agree with
you "liberals", feminazis, and jews? Three?  One percent?  Two percent?
Probably not even one.

In any event, at least you now know from the polls and surveys that the vast
majority of Americans thankfully disagree with this slutty amoral minority
on every key moral issue http://christianparty.net/christianissues.htm

John Knight






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list