"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
news:UpBb9.23963$Ic7.1915699 at news2.west.cox.net...
>> "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> news:57vsmusep24737n242ou3rqkcjidtnfm07 at 4ax.com...> > "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> > > "Zayton" <zayton at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:mi9b9.86932$%v4.4664562 at e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...> > >
> > > 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.
Oh, I see the source of your problem. Some idiot has given you the idea that
Jews and Israelites are not the same people. They are. They always have
been. They always will be.
>> He DID have one great-grandparent out of 8 who was an Israelite,
One would reasonably assume that they were all Israelites, and therefore all
Jews.
but this
> does not make him an Israelite, particularly when the Holy Bible very
> specifically states that he was a JEW.
Of the tribe of Benjamin, and an Israelite. Now, what part of that are you
having trouble with?
> > >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?
No, John, It's called Logic. He pointed out that the inescapable logical
conclusion of your earlier statements about Israelites preserving the prity
of the "race" require that if one of Mordechi's grandfathers was an
Israelite, all of them would have had to have been. Intuation has nothing to
do with it. It's all about logic, but then you've never quite gotten logic,
have you?
>> 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.
Ah, so you admit that you lied about that.
> But they also always "put away" the children of Israelites who married
> non-Israelites--along with their foreign wives.
That's a rather desperate invention, isn't it?
>> 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.
The Jews are the Israelites, John, and the Israelites are the Jews. They're
just two different names for the same people.
>> >
> > >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 is Mordechi who is said to be of the t5ribe of Benjamin. In all
likleyhood, his listed fathers also were, but the text doesn't actually say
so. Only the Jew Mordechi is specifically said to be of the tribe of
Benjamin.
>> > >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.
No it isn't.
>> 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,
How dare you presume to speak for God.
so Esau and his
> family were banished to Edom,
The Bible says that he chose to go to Edom because the land around Hebron
was becoming too crowded for both his flocks and those of his brother as
well (Genesis 36:8)
never to associate with, inter-marry with, or
> socialize with Israelites (other than to war with them).
Once again, you assert a lot of garbage without any references. Put up or
shut up, John. Noo one is going to tke your word for anything.
>> >
> > 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?
That's not a choice. He just repeated shat the Bible says. You are the one
desputing the 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.
Esther 2:5 specifically says that this Jew was a Benjamanite. You are
desputing this, and giving no reference. Do you think that you are the Holy
Bible, John? That must be it. Well, I'm sorry John, you are far, far from
being the Holy Bible.
>> It's such a difficult choice, eh?
Believing you or believeing, the Bible? John, I don't think even the Pagans
hereabouts will have any problems with that one!
>> > >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?
What Israelite Law, John? Do you have your own quaint definition of a
bastard which somehow applies to this situatin?
>> Would you mind too terribly much explaining why Israelite law was
suspended
> for the JEW Mordecai?
No Law needed to be suspended for Mordechi. He was a Jew of the tribe of
Benjamin, a fourth generation Israelite, just as the Bible says. All quite
Legal.
>> 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)?
Trying to change the subject, John?
>> > >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
> point.
Descensants of an Israelite such as what, John? You seem to be crumbling
mentally., losing track of what you're trying to say.
> >
> > 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?
Intelligent human beings, John; surely you've heard of those. Well, maybe
not.
>> The problem is: 264 million CHRISTIANS in this country--disagree.
No, John almost all the millions of Christians in this country, as well as
those in the rest of the world do not agree. Only a pathetic handful of
loosers such as yourselves subscribe to the sort of delusions you suffer
from.
Joe
>> John Knight
>>
