"Zayton" <zayton at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:izCb9.98702$%v4.5387982 at e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
>> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote in message
> news:UpBb9.23963$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.
Israelites and jews are two completely different and separate people today,
and they have been for several millennia.
Most of the White Races of the world are descendants of the Israelites,
NEVER from jews, and most jews today CLAIM to be descendants of Ashkenaz
(who was a descendant of Japeth, a brother of Shem, which means it's
impossible for them to have been Semites, Hebrews, children of Abraham, or
Israelites) http://christianparty.net/noahgenealogy.htm
> > > 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?
Your "logic" is even worse than your inability to comprehend the written
word, which is even worse than you spelling, which is even worse than your
grammar.
You claim that somebody wrote somewhere that "if one of Mordechi's
grandfathers was an Israelite, all of them would have had to have been".
This is not correct.
Read the following post again, very carefully:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
ONE of Mordecai's four great-grand fathers was an Israelite, of the Tribe of
Benjamin. 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.
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:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What you *claim* was written is exactly the *opposite* of what *was*
written, right? You claim "if one of Mordechi's grandfathers was an
Israelite, all of them would have had to have been", but the original
statement was "because the Holy Bible referred to Mordecai a JEW ... at
least ONE of his other great-grandfathers ... had to have been JEWS".
These are entirely contradictory statements, right?
Do you deny this? Do you see the difference between your inaccurate
paraphrase and the original post?
Let's re-read lojbab's STUPID statement once again:
> > > 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.
It's hard to imagine that this is so difficult to grasp. It's also hard to
imagine how you could believe this totally baloney paraphrase when it's
exactly the opposite of what was originally posted.
Exactly who said "Israelites ... would never think of miscegenation"?
Nobody. This is not correct. It's either disingenuous, or a bald-faced
lie, because it's exactly the opposite of what was written. Israelites did
"think of miscegenation" and in fact engaged in miscegenation, and the
adverse effects of that miscegenation are abundantly documented in the Holy
Bible, as is the solution.
What they did "think of miscegenation" is that it was a violation of God's
Law, so they put away any bastard born to an Israelite who miscegenated with
anyone (jews or otherwise).
Yes, "Israelites are racially pure", but that means that they can not be
jews, not that they must be.
So to claim that this proves that "all of them must have been, and therefore
Jews were Israelites" is exactly the opposite of what was originally posted.
John Knight
