"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
news:qblvmu8ed6rkev1pq3e15knu8ntpugaa7h at 4ax.com...
> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
> >Israelites and jews are two completely different and separate people
today,
> >and they have been for several millennia.
>> There are NO "Israelites" today.
>
Where did they go?
If jews and Israelites were the "same", as you claim, then how did the
Israelites separate themselves from the jews and just evaporate?
Most of the 2 billion Christians today are the direct descendants of the
Twelve Tribes of Israel. NONE of the jews are considered to be Israelites,
because of the Israelite law which never evaporated. NONE of today's
Israelites are descendants of any jew, no matter where they are.
> >Most of the White Races of the world are descendants of the Israelites,
>> Pure nonsense with no scriptural basis.
Prove it.
>> >NEVER from jews, and most jews today CLAIM to be descendants of Ashkenaz
>> Prove that ANY jew claims to be a descendant of Ashkenaz.
>http://christianparty.net/koestler.htm or
http://biblebelievers.org.au/13trindx.htm
> You've been told time and again that Ashkenazi refers to the ritual
> that they practice and not to their ancestry (though usually
> traditions are passed down in families, they are really more
> geographical in nature), and the Ashkenazi practices are those of the
> land of Ashkenaz or Northern Europe.
So a moron "liberal" repeating something time and time again doesn't change
a single word in the Holy Bible no matter how many times you repeat a LIE,
does it?
Gen 10:1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and
Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.
Gen 10:2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and
Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.
Gen 10:3 And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
Note that Ashkenaz was a son of Gomer, a grandson of Japheth, a
greatgrandson of Noah, and thus his descendants could NOT be descendants of
Shem [read: Semites], nor Eber [read: Hebrews], nor Abraham, nor Jacob
[read: Israelites].
Yes? or no?
>> >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.
>> All of which is still better than your logic.
>> >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"?
>> You have.
Not only did I directly refer you to the Holy Scripture (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) that
describes what shall happen to the bastards who are the product of that
miscegenation that you claim that I denied the Israelites engaged in, but
this prior statement REQUIRED an act of miscegenation by an Israelite, proof
that I do NOT believe what you claim I believe:
"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.
"He DID have one great-grandparent out of 8 who was an Israelite, but this
does not make him an Israelite, particularly when the Holy Bible very
specifically states that he was a JEW."
In order for Mordecai to have been a jew and to have had one Israelite
great-grandfather, there MUST have been miscegenation between an Israelite
and a jew.
>> >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).
>> But they did NOT put away products of miscegenation EXCEPT at one
> particular point when Ezra and Nehemiah told them to after the exiles
> returned to Jerusalem (at which point the Israelites who returned to
> Jerusalem were called "Jews"). They had been practicing miscegenation
> for generations while in exile and probably before they went into
> exile.
These are just a few examples of when the Israelites upheld their law--and
for most of the last several thousand years, the vast majority of them HAVE
upheld the law.
The few who didn't were suitably punished, far more often than could be
described in a religious document as abbreviated as the Holy Bible.
This is just more of your "women's intuition" kicking in--and as usual, it's
landing 180 degrees from the truth.
> Wither the exception of the Jews who purified themselves of
> strangers on the return to Jerusalem, the people of Israel, the
> "Israelites" were LOST. They ceased to exist as a distinct people.
> They are ALL mongrels.
>
Where's your proof? For what reason would Israelites completely abandon
God's Law when it had served them so well for thousands of years. Where in
the Holy Scripture is this STUPID claim supported?
> But the Jews who returned were mongrels as well; there are NO "pure"
> bloodlines. They merely put away their foreign relatives and
> rededicated themselves to the traditional religion. But this does not
> purify the genetic line.
The jews started out as mongrels. They have never been a pure race, because
they were an admixture of descendants of Cain and Canaanites (who may be one
and the same), Cushites [read: Negroids of Ethiopia], Amorites, Edomites,
Moabites, Ashkenazis, and a whole host of other races which the Israelites
prohibited miscegenation with.
They didn't kill an Israelite who married a foreign woman--they merely
exiled the children and the foreign wives. There may have been plenty of
Israelites who followed their families into exile, but it's obvious that the
vast majority of Israelites managed to preserve TWELVE different and
distinct races [read: tribes] for many centuries, right through to the time
of Christ, all the way to Russia.
Just because they were dispersed from Israel doesn't mean that they
miscegenated with foreign women. To this very day, White Races like the
Russians, the Danes, the Germans, the French, the English, the Irish (many
of whom are the descendants of Christ's mother, Mary), the Scottish, all the
way to the US and Australia, and even parts of Africa and South America,
have done an excellent job of protecting and preserving the White Race.
It's alarming enough that 4% of the population in states like California
report that they're "mixed-race" [read: products of miscegenation], but even
in California, half of the population is still pure White Christian
Israelites.
>> >Yes, "Israelites are racially pure",
>> No.
>> >but that means that they can not be jews, not that they must be.
>> It is your pure imagination that "Israelites" and "Jews" in the Bible
> are not near-synonyms.
>> lojbab
The jews and Israelites in the Holy Bible are absolute antonyms. There
hasn't been a better documented race difference than the race difference
between jews and Israelites. The difference between jews and Israelites is
even bigger than the difference between jews and niggers.
Ezr 5:1 Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of
Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name
of the God of Israel, even unto them.
Neh 1:2 That Hanani, one of my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah;
and I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of
the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem.
Jer 40:11 Likewise when all the Jews that were in Moab, and among the
Ammonites, and in Edom, and that were in all the countries, heard that the
king of Babylon had left a remnant of Judah, and that he had set over them
Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan;
Jer 40:12 Even all the Jews returned out of all places whither they were
driven, and came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah, unto Mizpah, and
gathered wine and summer fruits very much.
Dan 5:13 Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spoke and
said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the
captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry?
Note this last word "jewry" is one of the most serious of the
mistranslations in the KJV:
Per ISBE:
Jewry
ju?´ri, jo?o?´ri: In Dan_5:13 the King James Version, where the Revised
Version (British and American) has "Judah"; in the New Testament, in two
places in the King James Version, Luk_23:5; Joh_7:1, where the Revised
Version (British and American) has correctly "Judaea" (Ioudai?a) (which
see).
Per Strong's:
H3061
?????
yehu^d
yeh-hood'
(Chaldee); contracted from a form. corresponding to H3063; properly Judah,
hence Judaea: - Jewry, Judah, Judea.
It's easy enough for the KJV translators to get tripped up over this Hebrew
word "yhud" because it sounds so similar to "Yhudiy".
But they ARE two separate and distinct Hebrew words. Just because they
sound similar is NO reason to believe that one is derived from the other,
any more than you'd have a reason to believe that "sands" and "sans" are
derived from each other.
You can see from the above that the the English words "Judah" and "jew",
which are the Hebrew words "Yhudah" and "Yhudiy", appear in the very same
paragraphs. If they were one and the same, why would they switch in the
same paragraph from one to the other? The point is that they are obviously
DIFFERENT words describing very different people who had very different
ancestors.
John Knight
