Christian/Jew organization?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Peter, welcome to the fiery furnace! ;) Of course Christ was a Jew. He has the pedigree to prove it.

The Messiah's Family Tree

The Family Tree from Adam to Jesus by Arthur Custance

But the dispersed Jews mingled with more than proselytes. Dr. Laura Schlessinger claims to be a Jew although she says her father was not religious and her mother was a Catholic. She married an "Episcopalian" who later converted. As she tells the story it wasn't until she was watching a program on the Holocaust that her young son asked her who the Jews were, to which she responded "they are your people. You are a Jew." Orthodox Jews deny her claim of being Jewish based on the fact that her mother wasn't a practicing Jew. Even after her conversion many... well, nevermind...

As I said, I care less about the Khazars than I do about the claims of modern Jewry. I just threw that out there for the historical information. If you are prepared to show an unbroken line from a Jewish family PRIOR TO the Khazars came on the scene and that continued beyond the Khazars then I am perfectly willing to look at your documentation. The Jews in Spain (and presumably elsewhere) were quite interested in the claims of the Khazarian king because they NEEDED a link to ancient Judaism (see the Khazar Correspondence).

I don't have the time tonight to get into the supposed genetic connection between modern Jews and ancient Israelites based upon evolutionary theories of DNA, but I will caution you that modern genetics can in no way prove the connection that they sought out to prove without a DNA sample from someone like Abraham or Aaron or David to compare to. I have a funny story in my archives of a man named Cohen who interviewed an African from the Bubba-Lemba tribe who had more Cohen genetic markers than he did. I believe it was on the Microsoft Network. Perhaps you can find it by doing a google search.

Grace and Peace,
--C
 
Cheri,

I think you have an axe to grind against the Jews and I think your posts have reflected an arrogant and condescending attitude towards me personally. I do not think you are sincere in wanting to discuss this issue; I think you are spoiling for a fight. It is not profitable for either of us to discuss this issue and thefore my involvement in this thread is over.

Peter,

You and I agree on many, many issues, but on this issue we do not see eye to eye. The links that you gave are some of the most hate-filled and misinformed anti-Semitic literature (some from Marxist and liberal anti-Christian sources I note) that I have had occasion to read. And I have read quite a bit of anti-Semitic literature.

I pray that all who read this thread will not be encouraged to despise and hate the Jews but will rather join with Paul in saying, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." (Rom. 10.1)

For a more enlightened view on some of the issues raised in this thread, see: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/Khazars.html
 
One thing that's a bit interesting is that if no Jews today can trace their lineage to Abraham then can modern Jews in any way lay any claim to being "God's people" or any claim to land? Also, if there are those who converted to modern "Judaism" then they are converting to a false religion (not really Judaism at all) so they have no claims either, correct?
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Cheri, I think you have an axe to grind against the Jews and I think your posts have reflected an arrogant and condescending attitude towards me personally. I do not think you are sincere in wanting to discuss this issue; I think you are spoiling for a fight. It is not profitable for either of us to discuss this issue and thefore my involvement in this thread is over.

I suppose I do have a theological axe to grind. I want the weapons of my warfare - i.e. my understanding of Scripture (and history) - to be extremely sharp. I apologize if I have come across as arrogant or condescending. Hopefully you will forgive me. I have nothing against Jews as people. My interest is solely in their theology and how it affects and impacts the church and society at large. For instance, I believe that had these issues been resolved previously in the mind of the church then the Holocaust need never have happened IF the church could have been the salt and light that she is called to be and have proven through various means that modern Jews living in Europe were not truly an ethnic group.

The only fight that I'm spoiling for is one in which iron rubbing against iron would sharpen our collective understanding. I think you are comfortable believing what you believe and for whatever reasons do not wish to engage in a discussion - whether it is because of my gender, your perception of my attitude, my intentions or whatever. Again, I am sorry if I have offended you. Since your original post was the most detailed it gave me a platform from which to open up a discussion about these things. As I said, I bear you no ill will.

Grace and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,
--C

P.S. Oh yeah, I know that I'm :deadhorse: but to be "anti-semitic" one would have to know who the descendants of Shem are... If the Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael, the other son of Abraham, then they too are of Semitic stock and it would be just as "anti-semitic" to attack either their person or their religion. FYI the term "Semite" was a recent invention by a German fellow.
 
Originally posted by john_Mark
One thing that's a bit interesting is that if no Jews today can trace their lineage to Abraham then can modern Jews in any way lay any claim to being "God's people" or any claim to land? Also, if there are those who converted to modern "Judaism" then they are converting to a false religion (not really Judaism at all) so they have no claims either, correct?

Hi Mark. Well that's exactly what I'm arguing against and for 1) modern Jews have no valid claim to being the people of God or of any claim to the land promised to the ancient people of God (which was a type anyway) and 2) modern converts to Judaism ARE converting to a false religion (Gal 1:13, 14 KJV). Of course they are. The Abrahamic Covenant found its fulfillment in the New Covenant instituted by the blood of Christ. The Old Covenant became just that - old. It was abrogated and passed into oblivion (Heb 8:13). Even IF modern Jews were the direct descendants of Abraham they would have no claim to either the title of the people of God or to the land because of this one fact: an obsolete covenant cannot replace that by which it was superseded.

--Cheri

Postscript to Andrew: I recently received a good book from the Christian Research Institute (aka BibleAnswerMan) by Colin Chapman called "Whose Promised Land? The Continuing Crisis Over Israel and Palestine." While I've found a few things in it that I disagree with, it is an excellent read and I would highly recommend it. See if you can find the table of contents online (maybe at equip.org) and check it out. If you're interested in reading it (?) then I would love to buy you a copy as a peace offering.
 
I haven't read it Jacob. I don't read a whole lot of theological books. I mainly use theology books to supplement something that I'm studying or researching. Very few books can hold my attention all the way through.

I did read Hank Hanagraaf's new book "The Last Disciple" all the way through (which was very tedious reading with all the flashback devices), but only because I've yelled at him through the radio for years and was curious to see how his newfound eschatology would play out.

And I do have quite an extensive library that I've stolen/borrowed/inherited from my father or picked up at yard sales, thrift shops, seminary libraries... (paid for, of course!) :D I thought one day I'd get around to reading them all, but as my father gets up in years he, like Paul, clings more to
"the scrolls, but especially the parchments."

I tend toward that too. Sorry.

[Edited on 1-10-2005 by VERITAS]
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
For a more enlightened view on some of the issues raised in this thread, see: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/Khazars.html

Since Andrew prefers not to discuss this topic with me, then he can just consider this as me talking out loud (or the rantings of a lunatic, whichever he prefers).

His link said:
"the word Ashkenaz means Germany in Hebrew" Ashkenaz is the name of Japeth's grandson in Gen 10:2-3 (see also Jer 51:27). Did Japeth's son Gomer name his kid "Germany"?!? Wow, wasn't he a far-thinking, ahead-of-his-time kind of dude?!? (BTW, the king of Khazaria claimed to be a descendant of Japeth not Shem - i.e. not Abraham.)

The link also asserted:
"even if a group of Khazars abandoned their own homeland and adopted Jewish peoplehood by conversion it still doesn't negate their right to the land of Israel." But the fact of the matter is that ethnicity (i.e. the family group that begins a nation) is not something that a person can convert to. A person can convert to a religion or a dogma (as Ruth the Moabitess and possibly Naaman the Syrian apparently did), but that does not take away their nationality, their ethnicity. Nor does it convey upon them a right to the land of Palestine apart from the Divine Will of God. God fulfilled His promises to Abraham and the children of Israel and abrogated the Old Covenant (Heb 8:13). No one can resurrect an obsolete, dead covenant and partake of its blessings - whether they are the physical descendants of Abraham OR converts. The Khazarian-Jews (and modern "Israel") came on the scene well after the dissolution of the Old Covenant.
 
"A Syrian ready to die was my father..."
Who cares if they're Jews or Khasars? God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. Is this some essential of Gospel faith that the whole church has to close with?

Oh, and while I'm having an attack of text fragments, isn't there something in the epistles to Timothy about avoiding debates over endless geneaologies?

My, do I feel spiritual!:deadhorse:

[Edited on 10-1-2005 by turmeric]
 
Originally posted by turmeric
Cheri, Please beware of the errors of Marcion.

Ok. What do you mean by that? Are you suggesting that I'm a closet Gnostic and am purporting to have "secret knowledge"?

"...I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden...; for this thing was not done in a corner. ...believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest." (Acts 26:26-27)

"...as his manner was, went in unto them, and...reasoned with them out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2)

"Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should"
abrogate the Old Covenant and fulfill His promises in Jesus Christ? And "if it be CONFIRMED, then no man disannulleth or ADDETH thereto."

Meg, I'm not setting forth some strange or "new doctrine" (Acts 17:18-20) nor "opening and alleging" anything except that "which is written in the Law and the prophets" (Acts 17:3; 24:14).

I am more than willing to support my premises from Scripture. Marcion rejected the Old Testament. I'm appealing to the Old Testament as the basis for my claims; however no one has asked me for Biblical support. It seems that I'm bringing certain strange things to the ears of my readers... Perhaps I should just post a verse and ask for comment?


"These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: THEREFORE were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood." --Ezra 2:62

If a person's genealogy/pedigree was unimportant to God then why were these "children of the priests" excluded from the priesthood? Why did Nehemiah pull out their hair (Neh 13:25-27)? Why does Shechaniah ben Jehiel say to Ezra:

"We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the peoples around us..." (Ezra 10:1-3)

Or why does Ezra pray: "But now, O our God, what can we say after this? For we have disregarded the commands {11} you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: 'The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. {12} Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, THAT you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.' {13} "What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins have deserved and have given us a remnant like this. {14} Shall we again break your commands and intermarry with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would you not be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us NO remnant or survivor? {15} O LORD, God of Israel, you are righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in your presence." --Ezra 9:10-15


[Edited on 1-10-2005 by VERITAS]
 
"It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel." -- Colin Powell

It seem's were a t a bit of a crossroads here. On one hand the original hebrews were God's Chosen vessel in ancient times and their descendants whomever they may be Lord willing will one day if not allready be saved. If that is the Lord's will.

We as many here are from a dispensational background which concludes to put a lot of weight on the Jews as Gods chosen people. But as we know God has chosen an 'Israel'
Romans 9:6
Israel's Rejection and God's Purpose
(A) 6But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.

So it should be common knowledge here that Israel spiritually speaking means that both me and everyone else here who is not a ethnic Hebrew are part of Gods Chosen people and always have been from before the foundation of the earth was set.

The Problem here is how do we deal with an american nation which is politically influenced by dispensational christians who put forth a selfish gospel trying to forward their eschatological agenda. There tryin to herald in the end of the world in vain.

As allready stated it was the UN that establishen a new Israely State. Remember the UN that is anti-american most of all anti-christian. RED FLAG.

Political Dispensationalism

1947 Partition Plan

Why should we american christians aka calvinist's support to forward movement of Dispensationalism a system devised in the 1800's as well as support a movement by the United Nations a proven anti-christian organization. See Link

Not to mention are United States has blatent ancient egyptian religous symbols in its land used by freemasons who were are apart of the fabric of this nations founding. So why would egypt so to speak with its partner Rome who has its egyptian symbol want to form a state of israel for?

it sure does cleverly wisk christians off their feet in a romantic clamour to to save Gods people with a false gospel.

So Israel today is no more better than the Muslims who fight them and the American and Brits who support them. All (not all of course) are terrorists and anti-Christ.

They do much to fufill there foolish fantasies whether it be virgins or mary or a god with only one attribute(love).

Religions of Israel

Very Diverse. I would say.

http://www.obelisken.com/ashdod.htm

http://members.aol.com/Sokamoto31/obelisk.htm#alllist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk

The defeat of Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Titus

Blade

p.s. Ive been sick and grown tired forgive I may have emant to write more let me know if I didnt add any comments that I said I would.
 
Note I in no way want to mean that there are no christians in america,britain,Israel or the ME. Are say that God cant save people from thses situtations. I mean to us ALL in general minus the true christians caught in the crossfire.

blade:detective:
 
Hey Peter, I found a post I had made on another forum about DNA (i.e. "genetic testing") and am just going to copy what I had said there. So, don't take it as an attack on you.

--begin paste--

I cannot believe that a Christian - much less a Christian Creationist-website - would appeal to such inconclusive, biased, evolutionary drivel!

I read Dr. Hammer, et. al.'s paper and that is the best that I can say about it. (Have you read it Socrates? Or have you just read their conclusions reguritated by Answers In Genesis? And what eschatological ax do they have to grind, I wonder...? )

In case you need the link it is: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/12/6769. Just a few items should suffice to question AIG's conclusions:

1) The study itself lacked was conducted on evolutionary principles. (See the several comments about "natural selection" under the Introduction. The reference to "homologous NRY sequences from great apes" and "evolutionary relationships" in the Results section for examples. Note also that the lead researcher works in the "Laboratory of Molecular Systematics and Evolution" at the Univ. of Arizona.)

2) The study's conclusion begged the question. It concluded that Jews and non-Jews "descended from a common Middle-Eastern ancestral population." Well, duh! Have they not ever heard of Noah? The problem is (besides the fact that we don't know if Noah wasn't a widower twice before his youngest son was born and he and his "wife," singular, entered the ark...) that the researchers are presupposing this link to be Abraham when they have no genetic material by which to make this comparision. There are no direct male descendants of Abraham who can document their ancestry for comparision against modern claimants and there isn't any genetic material from a grave or such that is identifiably Abraham's. So, the study's conclusion is flawed from the get-go.

3) Two of the researchers are Israelis. Do you not think that their conclusions would tend toward substantiating a genetic claim to the land they now possess?

I could go on and rip that study apart phrase-by-phrase, but I trust that this is sufficient to dissuade a Christian from being a Jewish apologist for an evolutionary study on genetics?

The following was in the same post but were responses to some comments he had made earlier:

1) HOW can modern genetics "apply" their techniques to "members of the ancient institution"? The members of that ancient institution are dead without any clearly definable graves and/or biological substance upon which to "apply" modern genetic techniques. (There are some studies being carried out on some ancient ancestors, but even they have problems of their own in that department.) IF you are trying to EQUATE/IDENTIFY/MAKE EQUAL the ancient members of the priesthood with those who today SIMPLY PROFESS a connection, then you have made a tremendous leap that sound logic can't bear!

2) Your inclusion of the phrase "the Jewish priesthood which predates the present system of Rabbi" is instructive in itself! Think about it. IF the Jewish priesthood HAD continued uninterrupted throughout these 2,000+ years, THEN there would have been no reason for the rabbinical system to have usurped the levitical system. Since it has, it stands to reason that we have no guarantee those who presently (or in the past) have simply called themselves or thought themselves to be somebody actually makes them somebody! That was my whole point in another post regarding Ezra and Nehemiah's day. Those Jews had only been living outside of the promised land for 70 years and yet they couldn't account for their heritage. Oh, they BELIEVED they were descendants of Aaron, but without REAL, GENEALOGICAL proof "they were rejected as defiled."

3) Also your statement that "genetics has allowed them to trace their origins back 3300 years" is a bald-faced lie. You might not have intended it as such, but there it is. All the DNA research has done is concluded that SOME of those who CLAIM to be "Cohen" have a common genetic marker. Other people who neither claim to be a Cohen or even a Jew also have this same genetic marker! Note:


"...it soon became apparent that the CMH is NØT specific to Jews or descendants of Jews. In a 1998 article in Science News, Dr. Skorecki indicated (in an interview) that some non-Jews also possess the Cohen markers, and that the markers are therefore not "unique or special". The CMH is very common among Iraqi Kurds, according to a 1999 study by C. Brinkmann, et. al. And in her 2001 article, Oppenheim wrote: "the dominant haplotype of the Muslim Kurds (haplotype 114) was only one microsatellite-mutation step apart from the CMH..." (Oppenheim 2001, page 1100). Furthermore, the CMH is also found among some Armenians, according to Dr. Levon Yepiskoposyan (Head of the Institute of Man in Yerevan, Armenia), who has studied genetics for many years. Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin wrote: "The suggestion that the 'Cohen modal haplotype' is a signature haplotype for the ancient Hebrew population is also NØT supported by data from other populations." (Zoossmann-Diskin 2000, page 156)."

Skorecki and Oppenheim are two of the original scientists your link uses to support their hypothesis!

--end paste--

I also addressed how many ancestors a single person would have if you went back 31 generations, which is just over 1200 yrs (here's a chart: http://www.endlessgenealogies.com/images/GenTree31.png). Modern Jews would need to have an unbroken link going back 4,000 yrs.
 
Cheri,
Believe it or not, I actually agree with much of what you say. The reason that Andrew or I will not interact is that you tend toward overkill. Don't get me wrong; I am a theonomist; we love debate and dying on hills, but this is an issue that I am not emotionally committed to. Don't get me wrong. I do like the way you incorporate Scripture into your very thought pattern, and I agree with a few of your analyses. I can't debate every thread because I am taking 20 hours this semester and my time is limited. Other than that,
have a good day

Jacob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top