← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Petrocco
Thread ID: 17289 | Posts: 47 | Started: 2005-03-13
2005-03-13 14:00 | User Profile
I find I can't reconcile Anti-Semitism and Christian Faith. Pick up your bible and hold it in your hands; open it up and page through it; the first thing you notice is that the bulk of the thing is Jewish Scripture. The bible is carrying Jewish Scripture to the four corners of the globe. How can I participate in that and be Anti-Semitic at the same time?
2005-03-13 14:14 | User Profile
The term "anti-Semitism" is a piece of very modern jargon, and increasingly meaningless at that. Even "Jews" is an anachronistic term to use when speaking about ancient Israelites.
Petr
2005-03-13 14:36 | User Profile
Petrocco, This question has been discussed here before, but it is an important one. In times past, when Christendom was healthier and more robust, this was not such a dilemma, because the Church spoke with one voice. From St. Chrysostom in the East, to Augustine in the West, and even later with Luther among the Protestants, Christian thought was in agreement concerning the Jews -- namely, that they had been used as a tool by which the Messiah was brought forth, that they had been offered the chance to accept that Messiah, that they had refused, and that they now constitute enemies of the Faith. Christians still held out hope for them to convert, but until (and unless) they do, they are enemies. Throughout history, there have always been those who hate Christ, who therefore wish to destroy Christianity by subsuming it to Jewish ideology. There were the Judaizers mentioned in the Pauline epistles, there were the 'Christian' Kabbalists during the Renaissance, and there are the Rapture/Left-Behinders in the modern age. These are but different manifestations of the same heresy. As for your objection to propagating Jewish scriptures, a few things should be kept in mind. Firstly, modern Jews are not the same as the Israelites of the Old Testament. While they may (or may not) be of the same lineage, their religion has completely changed. The Old Testament Israelites and the New Testament Christians were of the same faith; they were just on opposite sides of the Incarnation. Modern Jews are descendants of the Pharisees, and their scripture is the Talmud. Secondly, the importance of the Old Testament is mainly twofold. It provides an historical framework for understanding the history of God's dealings with humanity, and (most importantly) it shows the preparation for the Incarnation, including the numerous Messianic prophecies of the OT prophets. The Old Testament is not, in general, to be used for questions of Christian dogma or faith, and this is the reason the Church has traditionally been somewhat circumspect about its interpretation. You may find this essay by Yggdrasil concerning this topic interesting -- [url="http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-18.htm"]Christ the Tiger[/url]
2005-03-13 15:34 | User Profile
Define, "anti-Semitic."
2005-03-13 15:45 | User Profile
Quantrill said it all beautifully and cogently. I'm tempted to take his post and make it into a tract and hand it on street corners and the Christian Coalition convention! But I'll resist, knowing this is a violation of copyright and I'd rather not by hounded by some kinky-haired, shister lawyer.:cowboy:
2005-03-13 15:49 | User Profile
Quantrill,
I am very proud to be a part of the same forum you post on. A marvelous post...Thank you sir!
2005-03-13 16:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka]Define, "anti-Semitic."[/QUOTE] To hold beliefs that challenge, or even question, the legitimacy of Jewish power over gentiles.
2005-03-13 16:17 | User Profile
Roughly 90% of all Jews in the world are Ashkenazic Jews, aka Eastern Jews, aka Russian Jews. As Quantrill said, they are not the Biblical Jews.
The Ashkenazic Jews are a hybrid race of swindlers, mostly.
2005-03-13 17:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill] You may find this essay by Yggdrasil concerning this topic interesting -- [url="http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-18.htm"]Christ the Tiger[/url][/QUOTE]
Given the calibre of your reply, I figured it would be an interesting link ... but had no idea I'd get a page of thought-provoking articles. Thanks!
Believe it or not, a guest homilist (soon-to-be ordained) who was at the Tridentine Mass last week used the term "spiritual Semites" (as in we Catholics are "spiritual Semites" ...).
Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know what word you'd used instead of "Semites" (if one exists) and I'd also like to know how you distinguish the enemy. Zionist?
Thanks again for an elegant post.
2005-03-13 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Petrocco, This question has been discussed here before, but it is an important one. [/QUOTE]
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question in a serious manner. I asked it in all seriousness and I deeply appreciate your response.
[QUOTE=Quantrill] In times past, when Christendom was healthier and more robust, this was not such a dilemma, because the Church spoke with one voice. From St. Chrysostom in the East, to Augustine in the West, and even later with Luther among the Protestants, Christian thought was in agreement concerning the Jews -- namely, that they had been used as a tool by which the Messiah was brought forth, that they had been offered the chance to accept that Messiah, that they had refused, and that they now constitute enemies of the Faith. Christians still held out hope for them to convert, but until (and unless) they do, they are enemies. [/QUOTE]
Nowhere in modern Christendom do I hear this message. Certainly not in the Church of Luther, where I currently worship. Inter-religious dialogue with the Jew is all the rage there.
[QUOTE=Quantrill] Throughout history, there have always been those who hate Christ, who therefore wish to destroy Christianity by subsuming it to Jewish ideology. There were the Judaizers mentioned in the Pauline epistles, there were the 'Christian' Kabbalists during the Renaissance, and there are the Rapture/Left-Behinders in the modern age. These are but different manifestations of the same heresy. [/QUOTE]
One thing is a constant for me in the Church of Luther - whenever I encounter the words of Luther himself, or of Melanchthon his spiritual heir and the principal author of the Augsburg Confession, I find inspiration. It is only when I encounter more modern writings that I find myself disturbed or at best unmoved at all.
[QUOTE=Quantrill] As for your objection to propagating Jewish scriptures, a few things should be kept in mind. Firstly, modern Jews are not the same as the Israelites of the Old Testament. While they may (or may not) be of the same lineage, their religion has completely changed. The Old Testament Israelites and the New Testament Christians were of the same faith; they were just on opposite sides of the Incarnation. Modern Jews are descendants of the Pharisees, and their scripture is the Talmud. [/QUOTE]
But the Talmud is a long treatise on the meaning of the Tanakh - our Old Testament. The Talmud without the Tanakh is unthinkable. Yet perhaps you're saying that where Christians interpret the Tanakh via the New Testament, modern Jews interpret it via the Talmud, and that makes all the difference. Would you say the Tanakh is holy but the Talmud is unholy? Perhaps so. Or perhaps you would say the Tanakh is only holy if taken together with the New Testament - that if taken alone it isn't holy?
[QUOTE=Quantrill] Secondly, the importance of the Old Testament is mainly twofold. It provides an historical framework for understanding the history of God's dealings with humanity, and (most importantly) it shows the preparation for the Incarnation, including the numerous Messianic prophecies of the OT prophets. The Old Testament is not, in general, to be used for questions of Christian dogma or faith, and this is the reason the Church has traditionally been somewhat circumspect about its interpretation. [/QUOTE]
The Tanakh taken alone, without the New Testament, leads nowhere but perdition - correct?
[QUOTE=Quantrill] You may find this essay by Yggdrasil concerning this topic interesting -- [url="http://home.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-18.htm"]Christ the Tiger[/url][/QUOTE]
Later today I'll read the suggested article.
Your response to me has made my little thread important - not my post but yours has made it so. Thank you for writing it and I hope others will benefit from it.
2005-03-13 18:00 | User Profile
*Quantrill: In times past, when Christendom was healthier and more robust, this was not such a dilemma, because the Church spoke with one voice. From St. Chrysostom in the East, to Augustine in the West, and even later with Luther among the Protestants, Christian thought was in agreement concerning the Jews -- namely, that they had been used as a tool by which the Messiah was brought forth, that they had been offered the chance to accept that Messiah, that they had refused, and that they now constitute enemies of the Faith. Christians still held out hope for them to convert, but until (and unless) they do, they are enemies.
Petrocco:Nowhere in modern Christendom do I hear this message. Certainly not in the Church of Luther, where I currently worship. Inter-religious dialogue with the Jew is all the rage there.*
I put more weight in the words of [U][B]Luther himself [/B][/U]than I do in "modern Christian" dialog.
[COLOR=Red][B]"Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune."[/B][/COLOR]
Martin Luther -- Angel to the Fifth or Sardis Church Age 1520-1752
[URL=http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm]Martin Luther: The Jews and Their Lies[/URL]
2005-03-13 19:12 | User Profile
Jack, Vytis, Askel5-- Thank you very much for the kind words. I'm grateful that you found my reply useful.
[QUOTE=Petrocco]Thank you for taking the time to answer my question in a serious manner. I asked it in all seriousness and I deeply appreciate your response. Petrocco -- You're very welcome. I am happy to discuss the Faith with anyone who is sincere.
[QUOTE=Petrocco] Nowhere in modern Christendom do I hear this message. Certainly not in the Church of Luther, where I currently worship. Inter-religious dialogue with the Jew is all the rage there. This is all too true, and it is what has driven most orthodox Christians into the catacombs, so to speak.
[QUOTE=Petrocco] But the Talmud is a long treatise on the meaning of the Tanakh - our Old Testament. The Talmud without the Tanakh is unthinkable. Yet perhaps you're saying that where Christians interpret the Tanakh via the New Testament, modern Jews interpret it via the Talmud, and that makes all the difference. You have answered you own question correctly. The Talmud is the result of the turning away of the Jews from God. Their rabbis (the spiritual and intellectual descendants of the Pharisees) obsessed over every legalistic eventuality, while losing sight almost completely of the original purpose of the law. The Talmud contains some very vile material, including charges that the Virgin Mary was a prostitute, and the Jesus Christ is boiling in feces in hell for all eternity. It also forbids saving the life of a Gentile in most cases. You may wish to read [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0745308198/qid=1110741041/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-6596385-5745761?v=glance&s=books&n=507846"]Jewish History, Jewish Religion[/url] by Israel Shahak, who discuss much of this. He is a liberal Jew, but he is willing to address the Talmud's contents openly, which most Jews shy away from. (The contents of this book are also available free online [url="http://www.ety.com/HRP/racehate/shahakfw.htm"]here[/url])
[quote=Petrocco]Would you say the Tanakh is holy but the Talmud is unholy? Perhaps so. Or perhaps you would say the Tanakh is only holy if taken together with the New Testament - that if taken alone it isn't holy? I would say that the Talmud is definitely unholy. As for the Old Testament, it is holy in its own right, but it is incomplete. It is a precursor, which points to the fulfillment in the New Testament. Taken alone, without the New Testament to illumine and enlighten, is like reading just the introduction to a great book and then trying to guess how the story ends. It is no great wonder that the Jews (and the Muslims) came up with the wrong ending.
I hope you do get a chance to read the article I linked, as it is one I enjoyed. Christ preached love and humility, not weakness and surrender. Different times call for us to emphasize different aspects the Christian tradition, and in our times, I think the soldier-saint might be the most needed of all.
2005-03-13 21:44 | User Profile
Whenever the subject of Jews comes up, the most common accusation I hear is this: "How can you be against the Jews?! Jesus Himself was a Jew!"
2005-03-13 21:52 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Roughly 90% of all Jews in the world are Ashkenazic Jews, aka Eastern Jews, aka Russian Jews." [/I] [/B]
Perhaps this is a slight exaggeration, but I do tend to believe in the "Khazar Hypothesis", and I have actually gathered some evidence for it to this thread here:
[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13415&highlight=balaban[/url]
Also check out this article by a non-Christian, non-WN (and Finnish, not Jewish) scholar Antero Leitzinger:
[url]http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/issue2/kazar.htm[/url]
[SIZE=3][B]The Heritage of the Khazars in Europe[/B][/SIZE]
[COLOR=DarkRed]"Koestler refers to the study of Mieses, according to which Yiddish mainly resembles German spoken in Austria." [/COLOR]
(that is, [U]not[/U] the dialect of Rhineland where the Eastern Jews originated from according to the establishment version)
...
[COLOR=DarkRed]"In the historical documents, after the destruction of the Khazar Empire, individual Jews are mentioned in Hungary (1154), Kiev (about 1160) and Chernigov (1181). About in this time the Jews had been expelled from England (in 1096), and in Germany they only lived in the cities along the Rhine, in Magdeburg and Merseburg on the Elbe (from the 900s on), and in the Bavarian city of Regensburg.
Although Merseburg had some importance in populating Bohemia, and the Magdeburg court ruled in many Polish cities from the 1200s onwards, [B]the Jews would not seem to have had such a role and settlement that it would explain the massive Jewish settlement in Poland-Lithuania. As Koestler has pointed out, there was an anxiously large vacuum between the West European Sephards and the East European Ashkenazies, considering Jewish immigration[/B].[/COLOR]
...
By the way, Khazars would very nicely fulfill prophet Ezekiel's (chapters 38-39) prophecy of "Gog and Magog" invading the land of Israel - the Western Caucasus ("Tubal and Meshech") is [U]precisely[/U] the area where the Khazars are supposed to have started moving north- and westwards!
[B]The very first appearance of the Khazar tribe [/B] on the pages of history (and when they were not yet converted to Judaism) occurred in the 620s AD, when they allied themselves with the Byzantine emperor Heraclius in his war against the Persians - and they met the emperor precisely in this area:
[COLOR=Purple]"This alliance suggested to Heraclius the counterstroke of allying himself with the Turkish freebooters, who in like manner, as stationed above the Caspian, were impending over Persia. [B]Accordingly the horde of Chozars, as this Turkish tribe was called, at the Emperor's invitation,[/B] [B]transported their tents from the plains of the Volga through the defiles of the Caucasus into Georgia[/B]." [/COLOR]
[url]http://www.newmanreader.org/works/historical/volume1/turks/lecture3.html[/url]
Petr
2005-03-13 22:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka]Whenever the subject of Jews comes up, the most common accusation I hear is this: "How can you be against the Jews?! Jesus Himself was a Jew!"[/QUOTE]
I find it most effective with Christians to call down fire and brimstone on "the Pharisees." Jesus didn't like the Pharisees, as you know, and the NT is so choked full of curses called down on the Pharisees that no bible believing Christian could deny that they are the spawn of Satan.
Then it's a simple matter of pointing out that most Jews are Pharisees, the Talmud being Pharisaical tradition in written form. There are plenty of references to reputable Jewish authorities proclaiming this fact. It's inescabable.
Hasten to point out that not all Jews religious Jews accept the Talmud, especially the Karaites, who are certainly worthy of heightened respect from Christians, even as we pray for their conversion.
This approach is effective because it flies in under their doublethink radar. The sheeple are conditioned not to think in terms of warring tribes, but rather only in terms of conflicting ideologies. If you can plant in them the syllogism that (1) Christ hated Pharisses because they are the children of Satan and agents of his will on Earth, (2) most modern Jews claim to be Pharisees, and their book, the Talmud, is filled with the very evil Jesus rejected, therefore (3) Christians must regard most (but not all) Jews as the collective enemy of the Gospel.
Say a few nice things about non-Talmudic Jews t grease their mental skids.
After they've digested that, give them Israel Shahak's book "Jewish History, Jewish Religion."
I've done this, and it works pretty well. They may not want to admit it, but after they've read Shahak's book, they'll never take what they hear at face value again.
2005-03-14 09:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill] I would say that the Talmud is definitely unholy. [/QUOTE]
Yes - as I suspected you would say. Luther would have agreed, I'm sure, and more importantly, Christ would have.
[QUOTE=Quantrill] As for the Old Testament, it is holy in its own right, but it is incomplete. It is a precursor, which points to the fulfillment in the New Testament. Taken alone, without the New Testament to illumine and enlighten, is like reading just the introduction to a great book and then trying to guess how the story ends. It is no great wonder that the Jews (and the Muslims) came up with the wrong ending. [/QUOTE]
Yes - and I'll go a little further, because to me, something can only be holy if it is whole. Therefore I don't believe the Tanakh is holy in its own right, but only if understood in the light of the Gospel. The only correct way to read the Tanakh is to ask after every passage, silently or out loud, "What does this teach me about Christ?"
[QUOTE=Quantrill] I hope you do get a chance to read the article I linked, as it is one I enjoyed. Christ preached love and humility, not weakness and surrender. Different times call for us to emphasize different aspects the Christian tradition, and in our times, I think the soldier-saint might be the most needed of all.[/QUOTE]
I was edified by [u]Christ the Tiger[/u] and now have it on my list of Favorites.
This thread has helped me greatly to get my head together. Christianity has been disappointing to me for a while now, but I realize thanks to this thread that it isn't Christianity that is failing me but Christians - Christians who lack the courage to think biblically instead of as the world does.
Two things are clear: [list=1] []Christ is against Judaism and Islam. []Salvation outside of Christ is impossible - there is only damnation outside of Christ. [/list]Modern Christians are afraid to affirm either one of these truths. They want their Christ to be "nice." They want Him politically correct.
It's good to be among those who think otherwise.
2005-03-14 10:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Valley Forge]I put more weight in the words of [u]Luther himself [/u]than I do in "modern Christian" dialog.
[color=red]"Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune."[/color]
Martin Luther -- Angel to the Fifth or Sardis Church Age 1520-1752
[url="http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/luther.htm"]Martin Luther: The Jews and Their Lies[/url][/QUOTE]
Yes - my fellow Lutherans cringe at what they consider Luther's fall from grace; namely, his Anti-Semitism; whereas I applaud it as I applaud everything he wrote that I have yet laid eyes on.
What is the context of your "Angel to the Fifth or Sardis Church" designation? It gives me the impression of a system of thought on which it rests. For example I would like to know who the other Angels were/are and what/when the other Ages were/are and how many there have been, per this system of thought.
Oh! [u]Book of Revelation[/u], yes? You're attributing Church Ages to each of the Seven Churches that Christ had messages for. Ha! I knew Sardis sounded familiar. :smartass:
Yet that realization only makes me more curious at to whom you would designate as the other Angels and where on the time line you would position each of the Ages.
2005-03-14 10:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr]*** - *** ...I do tend to believe in the "Khazar Hypothesis", and I have actually gathered some evidence for it to this thread here:
[url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13415&highlight=balaban"]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13415&highlight=balaban[/url]
[/QUOTE]
Regarding the Khazars, here's a Koestler link I had previously found on the web and added to my favorites:
[url="http://198.62.75.1/www2/koestler/"]http://198.62.75.1/www2/koestler/[/url]
It makes a lot of sense as the Jews I meet in the USA look European to me - yet Jews as a rule don't intermarry so how could they look European? They must [u]be[/u] European. So there are at least three groups - the Khazars, the Jews who settled Canaan, and the Ethiopians.
2005-03-14 10:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petrocco]Yes - my fellow Lutherans cringe at what they consider Luther's fall from grace; namely, his Anti-Semitism; whereas I applaud it as I applaud everything he wrote that I have yet laid eyes on.[/QUOTE]
Luther's anti-Jewish commentary is in the tradition of Christian commentators going back many centuries. What is unprecedented is that the Lutheran leaders decided to disavow their own founder's writings!
2005-03-14 12:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petrocco] This thread has helped me greatly to get my head together. Christianity has been disappointing to me for a while now, but I realize thanks to this thread that it isn't Christianity that is failing me but Christians - Christians who lack the courage to think biblically instead of as the world does. I think that is what has driven many of us together. We have realized the modern crisis has not been caused by Christianity, but by the West's abandonment of it. Or as Chesterton said, 'Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found hard and left untried.'
[QUOTE=Petrocco] Two things are clear:
[list=1] []Christ is against Judaism and Islam. []Salvation outside of Christ is impossible - there is only damnation outside of Christ.
[/list]I would say rather, that Judaism and Islam are against Christ, but you are essentially correct. [quote=Petrocco]Modern Christians are afraid to affirm either one of these truths. They want their Christ to be "nice." They want Him politically correct. Modern Christianity, I'm extremely sad to say, is often nothing more than the cherry-picking of Bible verses or Church teachings to confirm the leftist, materialist, secular outlook of both the priest and the congregation. These people derive their beliefs from our modern culture, and then look for ways to rationalize them within a Christian framework. Of course, this is incorrect, since they should derive their beliefs from Christianity, and then look for ways to shape the culture to reflect them. [quote=Petrocco]It's good to be among those who think otherwise.[/QUOTE] Yes, it is, and this forum keeps me sane. It reminds me that the whole world has not gone mad, just most of it. There are still some people out there who can see things clearly, and discern their meanings. Welcome to the board. We all learn from each other here.
PS -- I'm glad you enjoyed Christ the Tiger. The writer has quite a few good links on his site.
2005-03-14 13:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]Luther's anti-Jewish commentary is in the tradition of Christian commentators going back many centuries. What is unprecedented is that the Lutheran leaders decided to disavow their own founder's writings![/QUOTE]This is what I don't understand. Why isn't there one version of the Luthern Church that incorporates Martin Luther's anti-Semitic sentiments? How do modern-day Lutherns just disregard what he said about the Jews?
2005-03-14 13:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=albion]This is what I don't understand. Why isn't there one version of the Luthern Church that incorporates Martin Luther's anti-Semitic sentiments? How do modern-day Lutherns just disregard what he said about the Jews?[/QUOTE]
I think there is.
Ask Centinel about that.
2005-03-14 13:59 | User Profile
[B][I] - "Regarding the Khazars, here's a Koestler link I had previously found on the web and added to my favorites:"[/I][/B]
Hey Petrocco, here you can find a [B]much[/B] better online version of Koestler's book:
[COLOR=Navy][SIZE=4]"The Thirteenth Tribe"[/SIZE][/COLOR]
[url]http://abbc.net/koestler/index.htm[/url]
[B][I] - "It makes a lot of sense as the Jews I meet in the USA look European to me - yet Jews as a rule don't intermarry so how could they look European? They must be European." [/I] [/B]
That is indeed just plain common sense - [U]where did all these blond Ashkenazim come from[/U]? From Turkic Khazars [I]and[/I] members of their Slavic subject nations who sometimes also converted to Judaism.
Petr
2005-03-14 14:39 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html]Khazaria.com[/URL]
[QUOTE]This section is the most comprehensive summary of Jewish genetic data. In recent years, advances in genetic technology and the broadening in scope of genetic studies to encompass more ethnic groups have allowed scientists to come to more accurate conclusions. Nevertheless, not all questions have been answered fully, and followup studies are necessary. [B]At the present time, it is known that Eastern European Jews have a significant Eastern Mediterranean element which manifests itself in a close relationship with Kurdish, Armenian, Palestinian Arab, Lebanese, Syrian, and Anatolian Turkish peoples. [/B] This is why the Y-DNA haplogroups J and E, which are typical of the Middle East, are so common among them. At [B]the same time, there are traces of European (including Western Slavic) and Khazar ancestry among European Jews.[/B] Ethiopian Jews mostly descend from Ethiopian Africans who converted to Judaism, but may also be related to a lesser extent to Yemenite Jews. Yemenite Jews descend from Arabs and Israelites. North African Jewish and Kurdish Jewish paternal lineages come from Israelites. Additional research is necessary, and it will certainly take several more years to sort it all out. What we can say for sure is that Jewish Y-DNA tends to come from the Middle East, and that studies that take into account mtDNA show that many Jewish populations are related to neighboring non-Jewish groups maternally. All existing studies fail to compare modern Jewish populations' DNA to ancient Judean DNA and medieval Khazarian DNA, but in the absence of old DNA, comparisons with living populations appear to be adequate to trace geographic roots. [/QUOTE]
I had read other studies about genetic tests of Jews.
This all makes sense. Jews are a peripatetic group, and they move to where the pickings are the best at any time. I don't blame them for that, I'm just saying that it stands to reason that as a group they picked up genes along that way that reflect their history.
Thus, they have Semitic genes, and are closely related to the Palestinian Arabs. They also have Khazar genes, which is probably why they're so closely related to the Armenians, Greeks and Anatolian Turks (who were really just culturally assimilated Greeks and Armenians with strong Turkic influences.
It is thought that Kiev conquered Khazaria, and so it should come as no surprise that they have some Slavic genes.
It's one of those "all of the above" deals.
No question in my mind that modern day Jews are the decendants of the Israelites, but with large admixtures of their host populations. Walter
2005-03-14 14:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Stuka]Define, "anti-Semitic."[/QUOTE]
this is easy: Anti-semitism is any criticism of Jews, whether direct or indirect. It is nearly impossible to be free without being anti-semitic.
2005-03-14 14:49 | User Profile
[B][I] - "No question in my mind that modern day Jews are the decendants of the Israelites, but with large admixtures of their host populations."[/I][/B]
I'd say that today's Ashkenazim are "Israelites" only in the same sense as today's Mexicans are "Spaniards" - an about 10 % stratum of them might literally descend from people hailing from the Iberian peninsula, but not more.
Petr
2005-03-14 18:05 | User Profile
ââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬â¢In times past, when Christendom was healthier and more robust, this was not such a dilemma, because the Church spoke with one voice. From St. Chrysostom in the East, to Augustine in the West, and even later with Luther among the Protestants, Christian thought was in agreement concerning the Jews ââ¬â namely, that they had been used as a tool by which the Messiah was brought forth, that they had been offered the chance to accept that Messiah, that they had refused, and that they now constitute enemies of the Faith. Christians still held out hope for them to convert, but until (and unless) they do, they are enemies.ââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬â¢
.....Iââ¬â¢m afraid I have to disagree; our forebears knew the antiChrist ââ¬Åjewsââ¬Â were the kenites, (sons of Cain, ergo, sons of satan, per Genesis, 3:15), just as Scripture declares... their role was to disrupt the scarlet thread bloodline, beginning with the murder of Abel, (ââ¬Åall the righteous blood shed on the earth, from Abel to Zachariasââ¬Â); the second attempt was to inculcate the nephilim in Genesis, six, and again in Numbers with the sons of Anak... this war has raged, even since the garden...
.....Yes, Our Christ had to provide direct testimony to these serpents, so they would have no excuse; Jeremiah himself told us not to pray for ââ¬Åthis peopleââ¬Â, and that they could not be saved... Christ called them ââ¬Åof their father, the devilââ¬Â, and explains the entire thing in Matthew thirteenââ¬â¢s parable of the tares, which some versions of Scripture directly cross-reference to Genesis, 3:15, wherein two literal seedlines are mentioned, one of ââ¬Åthe womanââ¬Â and one of ââ¬Åthe serpentââ¬Â...
ââ¬ÂThe Talmud is the result of the turning away of the Jews from Godââ¬Â
.....They never ââ¬Åturned awayââ¬Â, as they have hated Him from the beginning; the only reason they incorporate any version of Scripture into their ââ¬Ådoctrineââ¬Â is to fool Christians...
ââ¬ÂIt also forbids saving the life of a Gentile in most cases.ââ¬Â
.....There is no such thing as a ââ¬Ågentileââ¬Â; the evry term denotes plurality, and the term is Scripturally invalid, at any rate... they used the term from Latin, (gentilis), to subvert Scripture; it does not mean ââ¬Ånon-jewââ¬Â, and was used inconsistently... could you imagine if Abraham were told ââ¬Åtwo gentiles shall come from your loinsââ¬Â?
2005-03-14 19:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Patrick] .....Iââ¬â¢m afraid I have to disagree; our forebears knew the antiChrist ââ¬Åjewsââ¬Â were the kenites, (sons of Cain, ergo, sons of satan, per Genesis, 3:15), just as Scripture declares... their role was to disrupt the scarlet thread bloodline, beginning with the murder of Abel, (ââ¬Åall the righteous blood shed on the earth, from Abel to Zachariasââ¬Â); the second attempt was to inculcate the nephilim in Genesis, six, and again in Numbers with the sons of Anak... this war has raged, even since the garden... Paul quite clearly holds out hope for the Jews to convert in a number of his epistles. I don't doubt your sincerity, but 'dual-seedline Christian Identity' falls outside the realm of traditional Christian orthodoxy, and Christendom is precisely the realm which I inhabit and defend.
2005-03-14 19:48 | User Profile
ââ¬ÂPaul quite clearly holds out hope for the Jews to convert in a number of his epistles.ââ¬Â
Quantrill...
.....Paulââ¬â¢s use of the term ââ¬Åjewââ¬Â was typically ââ¬ÅJudeanââ¬Â, and merely spoke to the geography of the people of whom he spoke, as we understand Ohioan to be one from Ohio; those he spoke of were Israelites...
ââ¬ÂI donââ¬â¢t doubt your sincerity, but ââ¬Ëdual-seedline Christian Identityââ¬â¢ falls outside the realm of traditional Christian orthodoxy, and Christendom is precisely the realm which I inhabit and defend.ââ¬Â
.....With all due respect, Sir, I spoke much the same before fully investigating the veracity of the claims made by the seedliners, albeit, years ago; you use the term ââ¬Åtraditionalââ¬Â with which to qualify your term ââ¬ÅChristianityââ¬Â, and that always raises a red flag... the RCC, being fully in the hands of the antiChrist ââ¬Åjewsââ¬Â by 1530, in the wake of Lutherââ¬â¢s departure, werenââ¬â¢t content with their lot; they had also infiltered the protestant movement from the beginning... indeed, we see the sorry shape it today is in; to whit:
.....ââ¬ÂWe Jews can boast of being the Creators of the Reformation! Calvin was one of our Children; he was of Jewish descent, and was entrusted by Jewish authority and encouraged with Jewish finance to draft his scheme in the Reformation. From a series of speeches at the Bââ¬â¢nai Bââ¬â¢rith Convention in Paris, published shortly afterwards in the London Catholic Gazette, February, 1936; Paris Le Reveil du Peuple published similar account a little later and Phillip II, by William Thomas Walsh)...
.....I just donââ¬â¢t find a way around the tie-in between the literal application of Genesis, 3:15 and the complete elaboration thereof throughout the whole of Scripture, (Matthew, 13, 23; John, 8, Malachai, 1, Obadiah, the Psalmist repeatedly, as well as the four major prophets of the Old Testament) ; the Hebrew/Phoenician term for ââ¬Åseedââ¬Â here is zera, and it speaks to oneââ¬â¢s issue, or, better said, progeny... if the serpent were to have progeny, as this verse clearly states, as Our Christ reiterates in John, 8:44, and the prophetic utterance details, as History documents, the utterly destructive nature of these, (abaddon, in the Hebrew, appollyon, in the Greek), I find myself hard-pressed to argue with such... further, they fill not a single mark of Israel, yet every one of the adversary; I believe for one to fully understand Christianity, one must throw off all tradition...
2005-03-14 19:55 | User Profile
[B][I].....”We Jews can boast of being the Creators of the Reformation! Calvin was one of our Children; he was of Jewish descent, and was entrusted by Jewish authority and encouraged with Jewish finance to draft his scheme in the Reformation. From a series of speeches at the B’nai B’rith Convention in Paris, published shortly afterwards in the London Catholic Gazette, February, 1936; Paris Le Reveil du Peuple published similar account a little later and Phillip II, by William Thomas Walsh)...[/I][/B]
Pfffft.
Do you believe in every tall tale that some loud-mouthed, megalomaniacal Zionist tells you - assuming that this quotation is even genuine?
Smells actually like a cheap Catholic propaganda.
Petr
2005-03-14 20:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Patrick]”Calvin was...of Jewish descent, and was entrusted by Jewish authority and encouraged with Jewish finance to draft his scheme in the Reformation. From a series of speeches at the B’nai B’rith Convention in Paris, published shortly afterwards in the London Catholic Gazette[/QUOTE]
:lol: Unbiased source, you think?
2005-03-14 20:24 | User Profile
*ââ¬ÂDo you believe in every tall tale that some loud-mouthed, megalomaniacal Zionist tells you - assuming that this quotation is even genuine?
Smells actually like a cheap Catholic propaganda.ââ¬Â*
.....Perhaps; however, Our Christ told us there was but one we would know them, no? ââ¬ÅBy their fruits shall ye know themââ¬Â; what were Calvinââ¬â¢s ââ¬Åfruitsââ¬Â? He made it acceptable for Christians to practice usury! What did Our Father say the penalty was for practising usury against your brethren? Death... Have you ever read Thomas Jeffersonââ¬â¢s opinion of Calvin? It is used today to further the canard that Jefferson was a ââ¬Ådeistââ¬Â, when, in Jeffersonââ¬â¢s own words, he said ââ¬ÅI am a true Christianââ¬Â; he wasnââ¬â¢t railing against Chrisitanity, but against the sorry shape he preceived it to be in, even back in his day...
ââ¬ÂUnbiased source, you think?ââ¬Â
.....Iââ¬â¢ve actually seen this from a second source, but donââ¬â¢t recall if it were a ââ¬Åjewishââ¬Â source...
2005-03-14 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Patrick]... the RCC, being fully in the hands of the antiChrist ââ¬Åjewsââ¬Â by 1530, in the wake of Lutherââ¬â¢s departure, werenââ¬â¢t content with their lot; they had also infiltered the protestant movement from the beginning... indeed, we see the sorry shape it today is in; to whit: If this were indeed the case, then wouldn't there be some record of the widespread acceptance of 'dual-seedline' ideology in Christianity before 1530? Something a little more explicit than creatively-interpreted Bible verses?
2005-03-14 20:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Patrick] .....Perhaps; however, Our Christ told us there was but one we would know them, no? ââ¬ÅBy their fruits shall ye know themââ¬Â; what were Calvinââ¬â¢s ââ¬Åfruitsââ¬Â? He made it acceptable for Christians to practice usury! What did Our Father say the penalty was for practising usury against your brethren? Death[/QUOTE] For the record, I agree that usury is wrong.
2005-03-14 20:43 | User Profile
"f this were indeed the case, then wouldn't there be some record of the widespread acceptance of 'dual-seedline' ideology in Christianity before 1530? Something a little more explicit than creatively-interpreted Bible verses?"
Yes...
.....The dead sea scrolls speak to this Doctrine; further, were we not told there were things that were to be "shut up" until the end?
2005-03-14 21:03 | User Profile
[url]http://www.childrenofyahweh.com/Two%20Seedline/two_seedline_2.htm[/url]
2005-03-14 21:38 | User Profile
If Calvin was a Jew I know not, however my sources tell me that a close associate of his, Jew John Immanuel Tremellius translated Calvin's Catechism into Hebrew. Tremellius was also associated with John Cranmer in England, helping produce the Book of Common Prayer.
There are even claims that Luther's side-kick Melanchthon (Schwarzert) was also a Jew.
On the Catholic side, Jews Juan Polanco and Diego Lainez played prominent roles in the Jesuits. Polanco was Ignatius Loyola's personal secretary, and Lainez succeeded Loyola as head of the Jesuits.
The notorious 'Grand Inquisitor,' Tomas de Torquemada was Jewish, as was his successor Diego de Deza.
How did all this effect the Catholic & Protestant churches? Take a look at modern Christianity.
'Next to Satan the Christian has no greater enemy than the Jew.' ~Martin Luther
2005-03-14 22:05 | User Profile
.....ââ¬ÅMrs. Van Hyning, I am surprised at your surprise. You are a student of history -- and you know that both the Borgias and the Mediciis are Jewish families of Italy. Surely you know that there have been Popes from both of these house. Perhaps it will surprise you to know that we have had 20 Jewish Popes, and when you have sufficient time, which may coincide with my free time, I can show you these names and dates. You will learn from these that: The crimes committed in the name of the Catholic Church were under Jewish Popes. The leaders of the inquisition was one, de TorQuemada, a Jew.ââ¬Â (Womanââ¬â¢s Voice, November 25, 1953)
2005-03-14 22:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=vytis]The notorious 'Grand Inquisitor,' Tomas de Torquemada was Jewish...[/QUOTE]
Rumor has it that Marlon Brando (Rebelstein), who played Torquemada in the 1992 film 'Christopher Columbus: The Discovery', was also jewish!
This thread has descended into kookery, which is the usual destination once "Identity" tenets start getting bandied about.
2005-03-14 23:15 | User Profile
Kookery!!! My post has nothing to do with kookery. I have source to back up everything I posted.
Tex, I'm surprised at you. I would never post anything that I could not back up with a source. And Just for the record I am not aligned in anyway with Christian Identity. I am a Traditional Catholic.
2005-03-15 03:02 | User Profile
More people have being killed in the name of "religion" than for all the world wars that we have had till now.......and all in the name of "God".
Religion is supposed to be about love and understanding and yet man use it as the excuse and not the reason to kill.
Man in their insecurity and because they are scared of death created religion and "heaven" and yet no one has ever come back from the dead in order to tell us all about "heaven".
Anyway, if you feel good by having a religion then carry on and be happy but don't talk about the religions of others in a bad way, by talking bad about theirs you are talking also bad about your own.
2005-03-15 03:47 | User Profile
"Anyway, if you feel good by having a religion then carry on and be happy but don't talk about the religions of others in a bad way, by talking bad about theirs you are talking also bad about your own."
.....But what of those of us that abhorr "religion", as does Our Father, but claim to be Christian, (of the "take-no-prisoners" variety, mind you)? What of those of us that tell folks how the cow ate the cabbage and risk the hatred of our brethren by proclaiming truth, (no, Virginia, truth is not the least bit subjective)? Are we not to blow the trumpet when we see the sword, lest we risk their blood being required of our head, (Scripturally speaking)?
vytis...
.....For the record, I have never aligned with any one camp, but two-seedline certainly is the label for my Doctrine, and I don't believe there's a soul here that could fully illustrate wherein I may have made an error in such acceptance of Doctrine; if there were, I would certainly appreciate being shown the error of my thinking in these vital matters...
2005-03-15 11:02 | User Profile
I'm a very proud Christian.
And on the Jewish question they are descendants of Japath.
2005-03-15 12:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]More people have being killed in the name of "religion" than for all the world wars that we have had till now.......and all in the name of "God".[/QUOTE] Ponce, it's time to put this old canard down. Chairman Mao probably killed more people by himself than have been killed in the name of 'religion' in history.
2005-03-15 12:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Ponce, it's time to put this old canard down. Chairman Mao probably killed more people by himself than have been killed in the name of 'religion' in history.[/QUOTE]
Chairman Mao did kill people in the name of his religion.
2005-03-15 15:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Chairman Mao did kill people in the name of his religion.[/QUOTE] Well, yes, in the sense of 'religion' as 'all-encompassing ideological system,' but not for 'religion' as Ponce defines it, which is 'a particular system of theism.'
2005-03-15 17:01 | User Profile
The information from my post #39 was gleaned from the following sources:
The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, Jacob Jocz, 1949, S.P.C.K. London Publishers. The Rise and Destiny of the German Jew, Jacob R. Marcus, 1934, American Hebrew Congregations Publishers. The Encyclopedia of the Renaissance, Thomas G. Bergin & Jennifer Speaks, 1987, Facts on File Publications. Scapegoat of Revolution, Judd L. Teller, 1954, Charles Scribner's Sons. The Spanish Inquisition, Cecil Roth, 1964, W.W. Norton & Company. The Plot Against the Church, Maurice Pinay, 1967, Chtristian Book Club of America Secrecy and Deceit: The Religion of the Crypto Jews, David M. Gitlitz, 1996, The Jewish Publication Society. The Secret Jews, Joachim Prinz, 1973, Random House. The Jesuits, David Mitchell, 1981, Franklin Watts. A History of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), William V. Bangert, 1972, Institute of Jesuit Sources. Nazi Germany and the Jews (Volume I), Saul Friedlander, 1997, Harper Collins. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1981, G & C Merriam Company. A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker, 1918, Charles Scribner's Sons.
'The Armour of God begins with Truth'