274 replies to this topic

[viceroy]

In an append to the previous post # 50 of this thread, the charts and graphs of the thread TABERNACLE IS GREATER THAN KAABA in posts # 58 - 62 clearly illustrated the sheer deception, fraud, and hoax of many Judeo-Christian, Christian Zionist, and Judaic Talmudic scholars who have been passing off the various dialects of MIDDLE PHOENICIAN, LATE PHOENICIAN, MIDDLE ARAMAIC, and LATE ARAMAIC as the various forms of "Ancient Hebrew".

Below is the URL which leads to posts # 58 - 62 of the thread TABERNACLE IS GREATER THAN KAABA which display the various ancient Near Eastern languages in graphs and charts:

http://www.shiachat....ba/page__st__50

Edited by viceroy, 03 August 2011 - 10:39 PM.

[Servidor]

Leslie P, on 26 July 2011 - 11:40 AM, said:

The idea that Hebrew isn't an ancient language is...somewhat unorthodox. I'll not get into that debate, if you don't mind.

Where I would agree with you is that Christianity has removed Jesus far too much from his First Century Jewish context, and has been quick to refashion him to fit our ideas. We have, as you say, made Jesus more Eurocentric than he was, and our understanding of the New Testament has been the poorer for it.

Recently there have been major moves (such as the Third Quest) to understand Jesus as a Jew in the context of his culture. These approaches are filtering through, but this process will take time.

For example, it used to be thought that the account of   Martha and Mary was about the value of listening to God above doing basic work. However set in its C1 Jewish context, it is less about Mary not being where she should be (doing work), and more about Mary being where she shouldn't be (with the men). Jesus was prepared to defy his societies convention, so she could learn from him.

The "authentic Jewish Jesus". While I have always been for appreciating historical context - the "Jewish" line of scholarship is more reductionist than helpful or even well-intended. Why the chief priests saw it expedient to extort "Jesus" the everyday, uncontroversial Second Temple first century Jew's crucifixion from their Roman procurator - is to me a perennially awkward question. Not least of all because it was a populist surge that secured it. The socially eccentric explanation is less credible than the historical religious explanation of the Church - an explanation first found in the writings of first century Christians who were themselves ethnically Jewish in the first century Anno Domini.

As things are presently - most of the historical treatments along these lines have been bent on making Christ acceptable to modern Jews (it mars much work on the Septuagint as well and especially the NETS translation of it) and not authentically aimed at seeing Him in the context of historical Judaism (not quite the same as what you shall find among Orthodox Jews or Hasidics today). Some quite consciously trying to make Him look more like a tzadiq from seventeenth or eighteenth century Ukraine - but most trying to adjust Him to fit into the rabbinical Judaism from about the second century onward (anachronism).

It would be interesting to see what comes after the marginal Jew strain of critical historiography loses novelty and hegemony and goes the way of the pagan mythology re-worked strain of the nineteenth century.

As well - do you truly believe we are better for that re-reading of that incident in the Gospel involving Martha and Mary? Aside from that I think it is quite clear that the evangelist intended that sitting at the Lord's feet was what was better. Heeding Him the one thing necessary. Not violating social conventions for a little stimulating conversation. Mark well already that in any event the social-centered re-reading requires that we presuppose marginal Jew historiography. It does not prove it.

As for Euro-centric. I believe Christ began this when He said publically that He had not found faith in all Israel equal to that of a Roman centurion.

Edited by Servidor, 13 September 2011 - 11:10 PM.

[viceroy]

Chrestus began Eurocentrism ??? LOL !

Mythogenic, semi-fallacious NT Biblical narratives excluded, the historical ISA (IESOUS/JESUS) was not at all liked by any European Roman. There absolutely is no historio-archaeological evidence that even a SINGLE Roman ever liked Chrestus (as the Romans actually called him).

Again, ISA (JESUS) WAS A LEVANTINE (SHAMI) ARAB OF THE PALESTINIAN (FALASTEEN) VARIETY.

Europeans and Eurasians have the utmost difficulty in wanting to accept this historicity.

It is the same CENTRIST delusion shared by many Negrocentrists in their claim that anceint Egyptians and Carthaginians were Black (Negro).

P.S. - The NT quote in reference is this :

"And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." —Matthew 8:5-10

First of all, in historicity, Romans never called the land I-S-R-A-E-L. It was always PALESTINE. To the Greeks before them, it was PHILISTIA. To the Egyptians, it was PELESET. To the Akkadian Ancient Iraqis, it was PALASTU. To the Sumerian Ancient Iraqis, it was PALUSATA. There exist tablet inscriptions in cuneiform, hieroglyphics, etc. which scientifically substantiate this fact. I-S-R-A-E-E-L is a tribal appellation, not a geographic one.

Edited by viceroy, 19 September 2011 - 01:19 PM.

[Servidor]

viceroy, on 19 September 2011 - 01:08 PM, said:

Chrestus began Eurocentrism ??? LOL !

Mythogenic, semi-fallacious NT Biblical narratives excluded, the historical ISA (IESOUS/JESUS) was not at all liked by any European Roman. There absolutely is no historio-archaeological evidence that even a SINGLE Roman ever liked Chrestus (as the Romans actually called him).

Pagan Romans mistakenly called him Chrestvs - yes. Roman Christians did not. Tertullian in his Apologia goes hard at them for attacking us without even knowing His or our name (Christiani not Chrestiani). The centurion called Him Lord - κύριε. Domine.

No historio-archaeological evidence that a single person liked someone else two thousand years ago. I do not even know what to say.

viceroy, on 19 September 2011 - 01:08 PM, said:

Europeans and Eurasians have the utmost difficulty in wanting to accept this historicity.

It is the same CENTRIST delusion shared by many Negrocentrists in their claim that anceint Egyptians and Carthaginians were Black (Negro).

P.S. - The NT quote in reference is this :

"And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." —Matthew 8:5-10

First of all, in historicity, Romans never called the land I-S-R-A-E-L. It was always PALESTINE. To the Greeks before them, it was PHILISTIA. To the Egyptians, it was PELESET. To the Akkadian Ancient Iraqis, it was PALASTU. To the Sumerian Ancient Iraqis, it was PALUSATA. There exist tablet inscriptions in cuneiform, hieroglyphics, etc. which scientifically substantiate this fact. I-S-R-A-E-E-L is a tribal appellation, not a geographic one.

You said first of all. There is only one extended consideration on what the Romans (and others) called their province. Ivdea. You can read Ivdea Capta on Vespasian's coins (immediately comes to mind). There are other historico-archaeological examples that the Romans did not call it Palestine until Hadrian. He also re-named Ierusalem to Aelia Capitolina. Both re-namings were to forcibly dislocate Jews from the land and it was coupled with an edict that it was illegal for a Jew to enter the city. Quite an aside.

Christ, I believe, was referring to the people and not the land.

You also cut the text off.

Dico avtem vobis qvod mvlti ab oriente et occidente venient et recvmbent cvm Abraham et Isaac et Iacob in regno caelorvm.

But I say to you that many shall come from the East and the West and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Iacob in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Edited by Servidor, 20 September 2011 - 12:56 AM.

[viceroy]

Servidor, on 20 September 2011 - 12:50 AM, said:

Pagan Romans mistakenly called him Chrestvs - yes. Roman Christians did not. Tertullian in his Apologia goes hard at them for attacking us without even knowing His or our name (Christiani not Chrestiani). The centurion called Him Lord - κύριε. Domine.

No historio-archaeological evidence that a single person liked someone else two thousand years ago. I do not even know what to say.

You said first of all. There is only one extended consideration on what the Romans (and others) called their province. Ivdea. You can read Ivdea Capta on Vespasian's coins (immediately comes to mind). There are other historico-archaeological examples that the Romans did not call it Palestine until Hadrian. He also re-named Ierusalem to Aelia Capitolina. Both re-namings were to forcibly dislocate Jews from the land and it was coupled with an edict that it was illegal for a Jew to enter the city. Quite an aside.

Two points:

One - Even a general source such as Wikipedia knows that Palestine was what the Romans called Palestine...Your statement that it was called Palestine since Hadrian's time IS OUTRIGHT FALSE.

[copy-paste]

Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el, formerly also פלשת, Peleshet; Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) was a conventional name, among others, used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}
The boundaries of the region have changed throughout history, and were first defined in modern times by the Franco-British boundary agreement (1920) and the Transjordan memorandum during the British Mandate for Palestine. Today, the region comprises the country of Israel and the Palestinian territories.
Today, the term Palestine is also used to refer to either the Palestinian territories or the State of Palestine.
Other terms for the same area include Canaan, Zion, the Land of Israel, Syria Palaestina, Southern Syria, Jund Filastin, Outremer, the Holy Land and the Southern Levant.^[6]

Etymology

Further information: Definitions of Palestine and History of the name Palestine

The term Peleset (transliterated from hieroglyphs as P-r-s-t) is found in numerous Egyptian documents referring to a neighboring people or land starting from c.1150 BCE during the Twentieth dynasty of Egypt. The first mention is thought to be in texts of the temple at Medinet Habu which record a people called the Peleset among the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in Ramesses III's reign.^[7] The Assyrians called the same region Palashtu or Pilistu, beginning with Adad-nirari III in the Nimrud Slab in c.800 BCE through to emperor Sargon II in his Annals approximately a century later.^[8][9][10] Neither the Egyptian or Assyrian sources provided clear regional boundaries for the term.

The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the region synonymous with that defined in modern times was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece. Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.^{[11][12][13][14][15][16]} Approximately a century later, Aristotle used a similar definition in Meteorology, writing "Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them," understood by scholars to be a reference to the Dead Sea.^[17] Later writers such as Polemon and Pausanias also used the term to refer to the same region. This usage was followed by Roman writers such as Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Plutarch as well as Roman Judean writers Philo of Alexandria and Josephus^[18]. Other writers, such as Strabo, a prominent Roman-era geographer (although he wrote in Greek), referred to the region as Coele-Syria around 10-20 CE.^[19][20] The term was first used to denote an official province in c.135 CE, when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, combined Iudaea Province with Galilee and other surrounding cities such as Ashkelon to form "Syria Palaestina" (Syria Palaestina), which some scholars state was in order to complete the dissociation with Judaea.^[21][22]

The Hebrew name Peleshet (פלשת Pəlésheth)- usually translated as Philistia in English, is used in the Bible more than 250 times. In the Torah / Pentateuch the term is used 10 times and its boundaries are undefined. The later Historical books (see Deuteronomistic history) include most of the biblical references, almost 200 of which are in the Book of Judges and the Books of Samuel, where the term is used to denote the southern coastal region to the west of the ancient Kingdom of Judah.^{[23][8][9][18]}

During the Byzantine period, the entire region (Syria Palestine, Samaria, and the Galilee) was named Palaestina, subdivided into provinces Palaestina I and II.^[24] The Byzantines also renamed an area of land including the Negev, Sinai, and the west coast of the Arabian Peninsula as Palaestina Salutaris, sometimes called Palaestina III.^[24] The Arabic word for Palestine is فلسطين (commonly transcribed in English as Filistin, Filastin, or Falastin).^[25] Moshe Sharon writes that when the Arabs took over Greater Syria in the 7th century, place names that were in use by the Byzantine administration before them, generally continued to be used. Hence, he traces the emergence of the Arabic form Filastin to this adoption, with Arabic inflection, of Roman and Hebrew (Semitic) names.^[8] Jacob Lassner and Selwyn Ilan Troen offer a different view, writing that Jund Filastin, the full name for the administrative province under the rule of the Arab caliphates, was traced by Muslim geographers back to the Philistines of the Bible.^[26] The use of the name "Palestine" in English became more common after the European renaissance.^[27] It was officially revived by the British after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and applied to the territory that was placed under The Palestine Mandate.

References

• ^ "The Palestine Exploration Fund". The Palestine Exploration Fund. http://www.pef.org.u...site/Paldef.htm. Retrieved 2008-04-04.
  
• ^ "Palestine:". JewishEncyclopedia.com. http://www.jewishenc...tid=31&letter=P. Retrieved 2011-09-15.
  
• ^ Pappe, Ilan (2006). A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521683157. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521683157. Retrieved 6 Feb 2011.
  
• ^ Kramer, Gudrun (2008). A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691118973. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691118973. Retrieved 6 Feb 2011.
  
• ^ Ahlstrom, Gosta (1993). The History of Ancient Palestine. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 0800627709. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0800627709. Retrieved 6 Feb 2011.
  
• ^ de Geus, 2003, p. 7.
  
• ^ ^{a b} Fahlbusch et al., 2005, p. 185.
  
• ^ ^{a b c d} Sharon, 1988, p. 4.
  
• ^ ^{a b} Room, 1997, p. 285.
  
• ^ ^{a b} Carl S. Ehrlich "Philistines" The Oxford Guide to People and Places of the Bible. Ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. Oxford University Press, 2001.
  
• ^ Jacobson, David M., Palestine and Israel, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 313 (Feb., 1999), pp. 65–74
  
• ^ The Southern and Eastern Borders of Abar-Nahara Steven S. Tuell Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 284 (Nov., 1991), pp. 51–57
  
• ^ Herodotus' Description of the East Mediterranean Coast Anson F. Rainey Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 321 (Feb., 2001), pp. 57–63
  
• ^ In his work, Herodotus referred to the practice of male circumcision associated with the Hebrew people: "the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians, are the only nations who have practised circumcision from the earliest times. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves confess that they learnt the custom of the Egyptians.... Now these are the only nations who use circumcision." The History of Herodotus
  
• ^ Beloe, W., Rev., Herodotus, (tr. from Greek), with notes, Vol.II, London, 1821, p.269 "It should be remembered that Syria is always regarded by Herodotus as synonymous with Assyria. What the Greeks called Palestine the Arabs call Falastin, which is the Philistines of Scripture."

[end copy-paste]

Point Two - As for the TOTALLY FALLACIOUS, FALSE MYTH of dislocated Palestinians (i.e. "Jews"...the word "Jew" literally means LICE in Hindi and Urdu, a language spoken by roughly a half-billion people worldwide)...READ an Israeli historical professor Dr. Shlomo Sand. Here is an excerpt from his bestselling book:

[copy-paste]

Shattering a 'national mythology' By Ofri Ilani

Of all the national heroes who have arisen from among the Jewish people over the generations, fate has not been kind to Dahia al-Kahina, a leader of the Berbers in the Aures Mountains. Although she was a proud Jewess, few Israelis have ever heard the name of this warrior-queen who, in the seventh century C.E., united a number of Berber tribes and pushed back the Muslim army that invaded North Africa. It is possible that the reason for this is that al-Kahina was the daughter of a Berber tribe that had converted to Judaism, apparently several generations before she was born, sometime around the 6th century C.E.

According to the Tel Aviv University historian, Prof. Shlomo Sand, author of "Matai ve'ech humtza ha'am hayehudi?" ("When and How the Jewish People Was Invented?"; Resling, in Hebrew), the queen's tribe and other local tribes that converted to Judaism are the main sources from which Spanish Jewry sprang. This claim that the Jews of North Africa originated in indigenous tribes that became Jewish - and not in communities exiled from Jerusalem - is just one element of the far- reaching argument set forth in Sand's new book.

In this work, the author attempts to prove that the Jews now living in Israel and other places in the world are not at all descendants of the ancient people who inhabited the Kingdom of Judea during the First and Second Temple period. Their origins, according to him, are in varied peoples that converted to Judaism during the course of history, in different corners of the Mediterranean Basin and the adjacent regions. Not only are the North African Jews for the most part descendants of pagans who converted to Judaism, but so are the Jews of Yemen (remnants of the Himyar Kingdom in the Arab Peninsula, who converted to Judaism in the fourth century) and the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe (refugees from the Kingdom of the Khazars, who converted in the eighth century).

Unlike other "new historians" who have tried to undermine the assumptions of Zionist historiography, Sand does not content himself with going back to 1948 or to the beginnings of Zionism, but rather goes back thousands of years. He tries to prove that the Jewish people never existed as a "nation-race" with a common origin, but rather is a colorful mix of groups that at various stages in history adopted the Jewish religion. He argues that for a number of Zionist ideologues, the mythical perception of the Jews as an ancient people led to truly racist thinking: "There were times when if anyone argued that the Jews belong to a people that has gentile origins, he would be classified as an anti-Semite on the spot. Today, if anyone dares to suggest that those who are considered Jews in the world ... have never constituted and still do not constitute a people or a nation - he is immediately condemned as a hater of Israel."

According to Sand, the description of the Jews as a wandering and self-isolating nation of exiles, "who wandered across seas and continents, reached the ends of the earth and finally, with the advent of Zionism, made a U-turn and returned en masse to their orphaned homeland," is nothing but "national mythology." Like other national movements in Europe, which sought out a splendid Golden Age, through which they invented a heroic past - for example, classical Greece or the Teutonic tribes - to prove they have existed since the beginnings of history, "so, too, the first buds of Jewish nationalism blossomed in the direction of the strong light that has its source in the mythical Kingdom of David."

So when, in fact, was the Jewish people invented, in Sand's view? At a certain stage in the 19th century, intellectuals of Jewish origin in Germany, influenced by the folk character of German nationalism, took upon themselves the task of inventing a people "retrospectively," out of a thirst to create a modern Jewish people. From historian Heinrich Graetz on, Jewish historians began to draw the history of Judaism as the history of a nation that had been a kingdom, became a wandering people and ultimately turned around and went back to its birthplace.

Actually, most of your book does not deal with the invention of the Jewish people by modern Jewish nationalism, but rather with the question of where the Jews come from.

Sand: "My initial intention was to take certain kinds of modern historiographic materials and examine how they invented the 'figment' of the Jewish people. But when I began to confront the historiographic sources, I suddenly found contradictions. And then that urged me on: I started to work, without knowing where I would end up. I took primary sources and I tried to examine authors' references in the ancient period - what they wrote about conversion."

Sand, an expert on 20th-century history, has until now researched the intellectual history of modern France (in "Ha'intelektual, ha'emet vehakoah: miparashat dreyfus ve'ad milhemet hamifrats" - "Intellectuals, Truth and Power, From the Dreyfus Affair to the Gulf War"; Am Oved, in Hebrew). Unusually, for a professional historian, in his new book he deals with periods that he had never researched before, usually relying on studies that present unorthodox views of the origins of the Jews.

Experts on the history of the Jewish people say you are dealing with subjects about which you have no understanding and are basing yourself on works that you can't read in the original.

"It is true that I am an historian of France and Europe, and not of the ancient period. I knew that the moment I would start dealing with early periods like these, I would be exposed to scathing criticism by historians who specialize in those areas. But I said to myself that I can't stay just with modern historiographic material without examining the facts it describes. Had I not done this myself, it would have been necessary to have waited for an entire generation. Had I continued to deal with France, perhaps I would have been given chairs at the university and provincial glory. But I decided to relinquish the glory."

Inventing the Diaspora

"After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people remained faithful to it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom" - thus states the preamble to the Israeli Declaration of Independence. This is also the quotation that opens the third chapter of Sand's book, entitled "The Invention of the Diaspora." Sand argues that the Jewish people's exile from its land never happened.

"The supreme paradigm of exile was needed in order to construct a long-range memory in which an imagined and exiled nation-race was posited as the direct continuation of 'the people of the Bible' that preceded it," Sand explains. Under the influence of other historians who have dealt with the same issue in recent years, he argues that the exile of the Jewish people is originally a Christian myth that depicted that event as divine punishment imposed on the Jews for having rejected the Christian gospel.

"I started looking in research studies about the exile from the land - a constitutive event in Jewish history, almost like the Holocaust. But to my astonishment I discovered that it has no literature. The reason is that no one exiled the people of the country. The Romans did not exile peoples and they could not have done so even if they had wanted to. They did not have trains and trucks to deport entire populations. That kind of logistics did not exist until the 20th century. From this, in effect, the whole book was born: in the realization that Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled."

If the people was not exiled, are you saying that in fact the real descendants of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah are the Palestinians?

"No population remains pure over a period of thousands of years. But the chances that the Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Judaic people are much greater than the chances that you or I are its descendents. The first Zionists, up until the Arab Revolt [1936-9], knew that there had been no exiling, and that the Palestinians were descended from the inhabitants of the land. They knew that farmers don't leave until they are expelled. Even Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, the second president of the State of Israel, wrote in 1929 that, 'the vast majority of the peasant farmers do not have their origins in the Arab conquerors, but rather, before then, in the Jewish farmers who were numerous and a majority in the building of the land.'"

And how did millions of Jews appear around the Mediterranean Sea?

"The people did not spread, but the Jewish religion spread. Judaism was a converting religion. Contrary to popular opinion, in early Judaism there was a great thirst to convert others. The Hasmoneans were the first to begin to produce large numbers of Jews through mass conversion, under the influence of Hellenism. The conversions between the Hasmonean Revolt and Bar Kochba's rebellion are what prepared the ground for the subsequent, wide-spread dissemination of Christianity. After the victory of Christianity in the fourth century, the momentum of conversion was stopped in the Christian world, and there was a steep drop in the number of Jews. Presumably many of the Jews who appeared around the Mediterranean became Christians. But then Judaism started to permeate other regions - pagan regions, for example, such as Yemen and North Africa. Had Judaism not continued to advance at that stage and had it not continued to convert people in the pagan world, we would have remained a completely marginal religion, if we survived at all."

How did you come to the conclusion that the Jews of North Africa were originally Berbers who converted?

"I asked myself how such large Jewish communities appeared in Spain. And then I saw that Tariq ibn Ziyad, the supreme commander of the Muslims who conquered Spain, was a Berber, and most of his soldiers were Berbers. Dahia al-Kahina's Jewish Berber kingdom had been defeated only 15 years earlier. And the truth is there are a number of Christian sources that say many of the conquerors of Spain were Jewish converts. The deep-rooted source of the large Jewish community in Spain was those Berber soldiers who converted to Judaism."

Sand argues that the most crucial demographic addition to the Jewish population of the world came in the wake of the conversion of the kingdom of Khazaria - a huge empire that arose in the Middle Ages on the steppes along the Volga River, which at its height ruled over an area that stretched from the Georgia of today to Kiev. In the eighth century, the kings of the Khazars adopted the Jewish religion and made Hebrew the written language of the kingdom. From the 10th century the kingdom weakened; in the 13th century is was utterly defeated by Mongol invaders, and the fate of its Jewish inhabitants remains unclear.

Sand revives the hypothesis, which was already suggested by historians in the 19th and 20th centuries, according to which the Judaized Khazars constituted the main origins of the Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.

"At the beginning of the 20th century there is a tremendous concentration of Jews in Eastern Europe - three million Jews in Poland alone," he says. "The Zionist historiography claims that their origins are in the earlier Jewish community in Germany, but they do not succeed in explaining how a small number of Jews who came from Mainz and Worms could have founded the Yiddish people of Eastern Europe. The Jews of Eastern Europe are a mixture of Khazars and Slavs who were pushed eastward."

'Degree of perversion'

If the Jews of Eastern Europe did not come from Germany, why did they speak Yiddish, which is a Germanic language?

"The Jews were a class of people dependent on the German bourgeoisie in the East, and thus they adopted German words. Here I base myself on the research of linguist Paul Wechsler of Tel Aviv University, who has demonstrated that there is no etymological connection between the German Jewish language of the Middle Ages and Yiddish. As far back as 1828, the Ribal (Rabbi Isaac Ber Levinson) said that the ancient language of the Jews was not Yiddish. Even Ben Zion Dinur, the father of Israeli historiography, was not hesitant about describing the Khazars as the origin of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and describes Khazaria as 'the mother of the diasporas' in Eastern Europe. But more or less since 1967, anyone who talks about the Khazars as the ancestors of the Jews of Eastern Europe is considered naive and moonstruck."

Why do you think the idea of the Khazar origins is so threatening?

"It is clear that the fear is of an undermining of the historic right to the land. The revelation that the Jews are not from Judea would ostensibly knock the legitimacy for our being here out from under us. Since the beginning of the period of decolonization, settlers have no longer been able to say simply: 'We came, we won and now we are here' the way the Americans, the whites in South Africa and the Australians said. There is a very deep fear that doubt will be cast on our right to exist."

Is there no justification for this fear?

"No. I don't think that the historical myth of the exile and the wanderings is the source of the legitimization for me being here, and therefore I don't mind believing that I am Khazar in my origins. I am not afraid of the undermining of our existence, because I think that the character of the State of Israel undermines it in a much more serious way. What would constitute the basis for our existence here is not mythological historical right, but rather would be for us to start to establish an open society here of all Israeli citizens."

In effect you are saying that there is no such thing as a Jewish people.

"I don't recognize an international people. I recognize 'the Yiddish people' that existed in Eastern Europe, which though it is not a nation can be seen as a Yiddishist civilization with a modern popular culture. I think that Jewish nationalism grew up in the context of this 'Yiddish people.' I also recognize the existence of an Israeli people, and do not deny its right to sovereignty. But Zionism and also Arab nationalism over the years are not prepared to recognize it.

"From the perspective of Zionism, this country does not belong to its citizens, but rather to the Jewish people. I recognize one definition of a nation: a group of people that wants to live in sovereignty over itself. But most of the Jews in the world have no desire to live in the State of Israel, even though nothing is preventing them from doing so. Therefore, they cannot be seen as a nation."

What is so dangerous about Jews imagining that they belong to one people? Why is this bad?

"In the Israeli discourse about roots there is a degree of perversion. This is an ethnocentric, biological, genetic discourse. But Israel has no existence as a Jewish state: If Israel does not develop and become an open, multicultural society we will have a Kosovo in the Galilee. The consciousness concerning the right to this place must be more flexible and varied, and if I have contributed with my book to the likelihood that I and my children will be able to live with the others here in this country in a more egalitarian situation - I will have done my bit.

"We must begin to work hard to transform our place into an Israeli republic where ethnic origin, as well as faith, will not be relevant in the eyes of the law. Anyone who is acquainted with the young elites of the Israeli Arab community can see that they will not agree to live in a country that declares it is not theirs. If I were a Palestinian I would rebel against a state like that, but even as an Israeli I am rebelling against it."

The question is whether for those conclusions you had to go as far as the Kingdom of the Khazars.

"I am not hiding the fact that it is very distressing for me to live in a society in which the nationalist principles that guide it are dangerous, and that this distress has served as a motive in my work. I am a citizen of this country, but I am also a historian and as a historian it is my duty to write history and examine texts. This is what I have done."

If the myth of Zionism is one of the Jewish people that returned to its land from exile, what will be the myth of the country you envision?

"To my mind, a myth about the future is better than introverted mythologies of the past. For the Americans, and today for the Europeans as well, what justifies the existence of the nation is a future promise of an open, progressive and prosperous society. The Israeli materials do exist, but it is necessary to add, for example, pan-Israeli holidays. To decrease the number of memorial days a bit and to add days that are dedicated to the future. But also, for example, to add an hour in memory of the Nakba [literally, the "catastrophe" - the Palestinian term for what happened when Israel was established], between Memorial Day and Independence Day."

[end copy-paste]

Btw, Professor Shlomo Sand is a Tel Aviv history professor.

Edited by viceroy, 20 September 2011 - 08:51 AM.

[Servidor]

The wikipedia article confirmed what I had written. I did not take issue with your pan-linguistic account concerning the term Palestine. Only that at the time Christ came that was not what the Romans called their province. The Roman province was called Ivdea until Hadrian suppressed the Bar-Kochbah revolt and re-named it and Ierusalem.

As stated in your quotation - The term was first used to denote an official province in c.135 CE, when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, combined Iudaea Province with Galilee and other surrounding cities such as Ashkelon to form "Syria Palaestina" (Syria Palaestina), which some scholars state was in order to complete the dissociation with Judaea.

Mark the word "first" and the date circa one hundred and thirty five Anno Domini. This was during the reign of Hadrian.

For the rest. I shall leave it. If you truly believe that - what chance do I or anyone else stand of convincing you otherwise?

Edited by Servidor, 20 September 2011 - 10:46 AM.

[aladdin]

^^^^^ Long, long before the birth of Jesus, Hebrew was a dead language. The people around Jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew. Aramaic a sister language of Arabic.

During the late 19th century, Hebrew resurrected from Arabic language.

Edited by aladdin, 20 September 2011 - 10:40 AM.

[viceroy]

Servidor, on 20 September 2011 - 10:03 AM, said:

The wikipedia article confirmed what I had written. I did not take issue with your pan-linguistic account concerning the term Palestine. Only that at the time Christ came that was not what the Romans called their province. The Roman province was called Ivdea until Hadrian suppressed the Bar-Kochbah revolt and re-named it and Ierusalem.

As stated in your quotation - The term was first used to denote an official province in c.135 CE, when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, combined Iudaea Province with Galilee and other surrounding cities such as Ashkelon to form "Syria Palaestina" (Syria Palaestina), which some scholars state was in order to complete the dissociation with Judaea.

Mark the word "first" and the date circa one hundred and thirty five Anno Domini. This was during the reign of Hadrian.

For the rest. I shall leave it. If you truly believe that - what chance do I or anyone else stand of convincing you otherwise?

[copy-paste]

Other writers, such as Strabo, a prominent Roman-era geographer (although he wrote in Greek), referred to the region as Coele-Syria around 10-20 CE.^[19][20] The term was first used to denote an official province in c.135 CE, when the Roman authorities, following the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, combined Iudaea Province with Galilee and other surrounding cities such as Ashkelon to form "Syria Palaestina" (Syria Palaestina), which some scholars state was in order to complete the dissociation with Judaea.^[21][22]

[end copy-paste]

Perhaps, you might try paying a little closer attention to the paragraph. The term used is COELE-SYRIA by Strabo and some "other" un-named writers circa 10-20 A.D. The term COELE-SYRIA was first used to denote an official province by Roman authorities circa 135 A.D. (i.e. Hadrian's reign). This was when Roman authorities combined Iudaea (Yahuda) Province with Galilee, and other surrounding cities such as Ashkelon to form SYRIA PALAESTINA, which some scholars [no citation which scholars] state was in order to complete the dissociation with Judaea (Yahuda).

You and your fellow Europeans stand no chance in your pseudo-cultural attempt in stealing the indigenous Middle Eastern/Near Eastern world's cultural, social, religious, and historical heritage...Reinventing it and claiming ownership over it.

Let's face it, neither Nuh, Ibrahim, Ismail, Ishaq, Musa, Harun, Isa, Muhammad were EUROPEANS or Westerners/Occidentals. Yet, the persistent European colonialist mentality has not only geographically invaded the Middle/Near East, but has systematically HIJACKED the Middle Eastern/North African people's historicity and social, religious, and cultural HERITAGE. This is plain and simple.

It is time that the Levantine (Shami) Arabs RECLAIM their heritage and stop allowing Europeans to continually STEAL it and claim as it  their own.

Isa (Jesus) and Maryam (Mary) were NOT Romans, Greeks, Scythians (i.e. Ashkenazi "Jews"), or any other Europeans or Eurasians. ISA (JESUS) and MARYAM (MARY) WERE SYRO-PALESTINIANS [aka LEVANTINE ARABS].

The biggest ethnocentric FRAUD and DECEPTION perpertrated is the Ashkenazim "Jewish" (aka Scythian/Khazar) claim in being genealogical descendants of Syro-Palestinans (i.e. Levantine Arabs). The Ashkenazi "Jews" are historically Scythians/Khazars of Southern Russia.

Even an Israeli citizen and Tel Aviv University professor Dr. Shlomo Sand has finally come out and stated this.

Do you realize that many West African Blacks and North American Blacks (Negroes) are making a similar FRAUDULENT, DELUSIONAL claim ?? They claim that ancient Egyptians and Carthaginians (Tunisia-Libya) were Sub-Saharan Negroes. That the Islamo-Arab invasion of the 7th Century C.E. caused the supposed "indigenous black" Egyptians to be exiled into Sub-Saharan Africa, who were then sold as slaves to the Europeans who brought them to the Americas. They share the same DELUSION as the Ashkenazi/Khazar "Jews" that they were DISLOCATED from their "native" Egypt by the Islamo-Arab invaders...It never occurs to these Negrocentrists that indigenous North Africans have always been IMAZIGHEN [i.e. Berbers]. Most of whom converted to Islam. Tunisia's ancient name was IFRIQIYAH [which is AFRICA in Latin]. The very appellation AFRICA derives from the ancient Amazigh (Berber) cave-dwelling goddess AFAR.

Edited by viceroy, 20 September 2011 - 01:37 PM.

[viceroy]

@Sevidor & BostonJew

[copy-paste]

The first clear use of the term Palestine to refer to the region synonymous with that defined in modern times was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece. Herodotus wrote of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories, the first historical work clearly defining the region, which included the Judean mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.^{[11][12][13][14][15][16]} Approximately a century later, Aristotle used a similar definition in Meteorology, writing "Again if, as is fabled, there is a lake in Palestine, such that if you bind a man or beast and throw it in it floats and does not sink, this would bear out what we have said. They say that this lake is so bitter and salt that no fish live in it and that if you soak clothes in it and shake them it cleans them," understood by scholars to be a reference to the Dead Sea.^[17]

[end copy-paste]

So you see, the outright PATHETIC LIE of pro-Israelis that Palestine was undefined in ancient times is FALSE.

Recognized ancient Greeks such as Herodotus and Aristotle were well aware of PALESTINE (and its ancient geographical boundaries).

In Levantine Arab culture, Palestine and Jordan were always considered extensions of SYRIA. Together, these three geographical regions [Syria-Palestine-Jordan] were identified as SHAM. This is the reason why ARAMAIC (and its dialects) was the indigenous language of both Palestine & Jordan. ARAM is the ancient name of a region of Central Syria.

Only Phoenicia (Ancient Lebanon) was always regarded as a separate country from Syria and its southern provinces: Palestine & Jordan.

There is a solid reason why many modern European and Non-European academicians refer to historio-archaeological studies of Sham (Levant) as SYRO-PALESTINIAN archaeology, instead of the misnomered Biblical archaeology.

Edited by viceroy, 22 September 2011 - 10:11 AM.

[viceroy]

There is a historio-geographic similarity between Syria and Arabia in Near/Middle Eastern culture. Southern Arabia comprised Yemen and Oman (UAE included). However, down the ages, Southern Arabians established their own autonomous regional rulerships. Syria was of the very same geo-cultural nature. Southern Syria comprised Palestine (Philistia) and Jordan (Urdunn). As with Arabia and Southern Arabia, Southern Syrian regions of Palestine & Jordan established their own autonomous regional rulerships.

Edited by viceroy, 25 September 2011 - 01:31 PM.

[viceroy]

It is very true that Westerners (i.e. Europeans & Eurasians) do not have the grasp of ancient Near Eastern cultural traditions from an ethno-anthropological perspective.

They don't understand that the appellation Ebrani (Hebrew) is a tribal one, pertaining to the genealogical descendants of Eber (i.e. Ebrani/Bani Eber or Chidren of Eber).

The same goes for the tribe of Bani Luayy (Levites) or Children of Luayy (Levi), to whom Nabih Musa(Moses) & Nabih Harun(Aaron) belonged. It is further true that neither Prophet Musa(Moses), nor Prophet Harun(Aaron) were Yahudi (Judahites) or of the Bani Yahudah (Children of Yahudah); the Bani Yahudah being the tribal descendants of Yahudah bin Yaqub (Judah ben Jacob).

A common fallacy regarding the appellation of Jesus is that its "Hebrew" version is Yashua or Yeshua or Yeshiva:

Jesus = Latin
Iesous = Koine Greek
Isa = Syriac Aramaic
Isa= Classical Arabic

Joshua = Roman English
Yashua = Tiberian Hebrew
Y'Hoshua = Modern Hebrew
Yusha = Classical Arabic

Another similar example is the Quranic Arabic appellation Yahya. It has been commonly mistaken to be the Arabic adaptation of the Biblical John. This is most certainly not the case:

[Classical Arabic]
Yahya = Long life
Haya = Life
Huyayy = Young Life
Hayy = Alive

John is the Roman English adaptation of the Syriac Aramaic Yuhannah.

For example, the Syriac Aramaic & Classical Arabic personage of Shamun al-Butrus bin Yuhannah translates as Simon the Peter, son of John.

Indo-European & Cyrillic variations of the Syro-Palestinian (i.e. Aramaean) first name Yuhannah include:

John/Johann/Johannes/Joanes/Joan/Juan/Jean/Giovanni/Gian/Gianni/Jan/Hans/Janos/Sean/Jannis/Ioannes/Iohannes/Euan/Evan/Ivan etc...


[copy-paste]

One branch of the Tsabians were King Herod's Hodites evicted from Jerusalem by the Romans. According to the Hodites of Mecca their scriptures stated that a Prophet would arise there who would bring about the dawn of a new age and take them back to Jerusalem. "Synagogues" incorporating pagan motifs found all over the Holy Land are the last remnants of Herod's "Hodite" Tsabian community. The most common form of σεβεια was a kind of syncretism. While the church draws a sharp distinction between Emperor Constantine and Julian the Apostate, there is no evidence that the religious beliefs of both men were not exactly the same. It is clear only that that their views on who exactly Jesus was differed, Constantine seeing him as an incarnation of Mithras, Julian seeing him as nothing but a 1st century Jewish teacher. Constantine was interested in bringing out Mithraic symbolism in rituals of Jewish origin, while Julian clearly respecting Jewish ritual saw no reason for syncretism and preferred not to blur the line between his own ethnic rituals and rituals of Jewish origin. This distinction makes Constantine the heretic from a Jewish perspective while Julian was firmly within Theosebeia even though his ritual observances were further away from Judaism.

[end copy-paste]

I came across this excerpt from an encyclopaedic article entitled Theosebeia.

It is very interesting to note that there is a clear distinction between the appellation Yahudi (i.e. Judahites or Bani Yahudah/Children of Yahudah/Judah) and Huuda (Hodites). In the Holy Qur'an, it is Huuda (Hodites) that is actually mentioned. This is in direct reference to a proselytizing monotheist religious sect of the descendants of the Bani Israeel (Children of the Journeyers) from Jerusalem, Palestine. The Nasaraeans were Nazarenes of Nazareth (Nasar). The Nasaraeans are the Nasaara of the Qur'an. The Nasaara were the very first Messianic sect of Isa Masih (Jesus Chrestus-Latin or Iesous Christos-Koine Greek). Identical to the Huuda (Hodites), the Nasaara (Nasaraeans) of Nasar (Nazareth) were indigenous Palestinians. The Nasaara eventually spread their beliefs to the Greeks and Romans. The Greco-Roman converts to the doctrines of the Nasaara came to be called CHRISTIANS (i.e. Messianists).

The Huuda (Hodites) first went south to Arabia (in the Hejaz and Yemen) and proselytized their doctrines, which rejected Isa as the promised Messiah of Bayt Al-Dawood (House of David). The Huuda (Hodites) allegedly embellished much in their doctrines about their history which very quickly came to be known as JUDAICA in the Greco-Roman world. The Huuda (Hodites), having being evicted by the pagan Romans, naturally went outside the boundaries of Roman territory. Arabia was not under pagan Roman control. When the Romans converted to Christianity, there commenced a big push by the Huuda (Hodites) to rival the fervour of Christian proselytism. Also, with the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity, some of the Huuda (Hodites) were tentatively permitted back into Palestine. However, by then, the Huuda (Hodites) were fully committed to the expansion of their religious sect. The Huuda (Hodites) proselytized in Tamazgha (North Africa) and to the Khazarian Empire of the Scythians in Eurasia. The conversion of the Eurasian people of Khazaria (formerly called Scythia) in 740 CE, was the greatest prize for the widely expanding Huuda (Hodite) religious sect. The Huuda (Hodites) had to ensure that their religious sect would not be marginalized with the conversion to Christianity by the mighty Roman Empire. Due to their expansion, the Huuda (Hodites) inevitably wound up being subdivided into several breakaway sects. Some of these were the Kiraite, the Massorah, etc. It was the Massorah of Tiberias, Palestine who devised the "Hebrew" or "Ebrani" language from Koine Greek, Syriac Aramaic, and Classical Arabic circa 750-850 CE; the Massorah had settled upon adapting the Imperial Aramaic script for their newly invented "Hebrew" or "Ebrani" language (aka Tiberian Hebrew). Finally, some extremist members of the widespread Huuda (Hodites) deified one of their ancestral leaders, the scribe Uzair (Ezra), to counter and consciously emulate the way Isa (Jesus) had been transformed into the 'Son of God' in Greco-Roman Christianity.

In the language of Middle Farsi(Persian), the Quranic Arabic appellation Huuda (Hodite) becomes Yahudi, while Nasaara (Nasaraean) becomes Nasrani with Nasar (Nazareth) becoming Nasr. In English translation, the appellations Yahudi = Judean & Nasrani = Christian. In Quranic Arabic, Isra = Journey; Isra-il = Journeyer; Isra-eel = Journeyers. Consequently, the Quranic personage of Shaykh Yaqub Isra-il bin Ishaq = Elder Jacob the Journeyer, son of Isaac. The epithet of "Journeyer" became the cognomen for Yaqub (Jacob) because of his desert journey across the Sinai Peninsula from Madyan (Midian), NW Arabia to Lower Egypt, to be reunited with his long-lost son Yusuf (Joseph).

Edited by viceroy, 06 November 2011 - 02:17 AM.

[viceroy]

[Append to earlier posts]:

Huuda (Arabic) = Ioudaia (Greek)

Ioudaia (Greek) = Iudaea (Latin)

Iudaea (Latin) = Judea (Roman English)

Huuda (Arabic) = Hodite (English) / Judean (Roman English)

Yahudah (Aramaic / Aramaya) = Judah (English) / Judas (Roman English)

Yahudah (Arabic / Arabiyy) = Judah (English) / Judas (Roman English)

Yahudah (Persian / Farsi) = Judah (English) / Judas (Roman English)

Yahudah (Hebrew / Ebrani) = Judah (English) / Judas (Roman English)

Yahudah (Aramaic / Aramaya) = Youdas / Ioudas (Greek)

Yahudah (Aramaic / Aramaya) = Yudas / Iudas (Latin)

Yahudi (Arabic / Arabiyy) = Judahite (English)

Yahudi (Persian / Farsi) = Judean (Roman English)

* In the language of Classical Arabic, Yahudi is a TRIBAL appellation, not a GEOGRAPHICAL one. Whereas Huuda is a GEOGRAPHICAL appellation, identical to Nasaara (Nasaraean / Nazarene).

** The English appellation Hodite is derived from the Greek Hodos = Way / Road. It is from Hodos that the Greek word Exhodos or Exodus is derived. Ex = Out + Hodos = Way / Road.

Edited by viceroy, 06 November 2011 - 02:25 PM.

[viceroy]

An encyclopaedic excerpt regarding Uzair (Ezra) and his significance within the Huuda (Hodite) community.

[copy-paste]

The apocalyptic Ezra traditions

The apocalyptic fourth book of Ezra (also called the second book of Esdras) was written c.AD 100, probably in Hebrew-Aramaic. It was one of the most important sources for Jewish theology at the end of the 1st century. In this book, Ezra has a seven part prophetic revelation, converses with an angel or God three times and has four visions. Ezra, thirty years into the Babylonian Exile (4 Ezra 3:1 / 2 Esdras 1:1), recounts the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of Solomon's Temple.[2] This would place these revelations in the year 557 BC, a full century before the date given in the canonical Ezra. The central theological themes are "the question of theodicy, God's justness in the face of the triumph of the heathens over the pious, the course of world history in terms of the teaching of the four kingdoms,[10] the function of the law, the eschatological judgment, the appearance on Earth of the heavenly Jerusalem, the Messianic Period, at the end of which the Messiah will die,[11] the end of this world and the coming of the next, and the Last Judgment."[2] Ezra restores the law that was destroyed with the burning of the Temple in Jerusalem. He dictates 24 books for the public (i.e. the Hebrew Bible) and another 70 for the wise alone (70 unnamed revelatory works).[12] At the end, he is taken up to heaven like Enoch and Elijah.[2] Ezra is seen as a new Moses in this book.[2] There is also another work, thought to be influenced by this one, known as the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra.

[end copy-paste]

[alimohamad40]

this is one of those topics that seem fishy

quraan says ismail is the one..   the bible says isaac !!!!

its like the mahdi
sunies say he is from the sons of hasan
shias say he is from the sons of hussain


these sorts of things seem like lies consciously  inserted to mislead and create Tashabuh (confusion)

Edited by alimohamad40, 07 November 2011 - 10:39 AM.

[viceroy]

The widespread religious sect of the Huuda (Hodites) eventually left Palestine due to severe persecution by pagan Roman emperor Hadrian in 136 A.D.; contrary to some popular traditions, they were not actually "evicted". The Huuda (Hodites) are the ones who were actually mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, along with the Nasaara (Nasaraeans / Nazarenes) and the Sebomenoi / Sebeoi. The Sebemenoi (Sebeoi) were a monotheistic community called Theo-Sebeia ("God Fearers") who were referred to by Greek manuscripts from the Hellenistic-Roman period, generally considered the same as the Sabians of the Holy Qur'an.

According to Alberto Fratini and Carl Prato, the Quranic Sabaeen & Hellenistic-Roman Sebemenoi corresponded to Ger Toshav of Rabbinical tradition.

The deification of Isa Masih (Jesus Chrestus / Iesous Christos) as the 'Son of God' originated from an extremist element within the Nasaara (Nasaraeans / Nazarenes). This concept transferred to the Greco-Roman world upon their conversion to "Chrisitianity".

Edited by viceroy, 07 November 2011 - 08:26 PM.

[viceroy]

An interesting article which offers an in-depth alternative Western/Occidental perspective on the modern concept of "Judaism":

[copy-paste]


          
"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all," The Jewish Almanac (1980)

Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a "Jew," moreover, that he was "King of the Jews." Thus, by inference, that the "Jews" were the "Chosen People" of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ's Mission and Passion no such people existed called "Jews" nor indeed did the word "Jew." In short: Jesus was NOT a "Jew" nor was he "King of the Jews."

In fact, Jesus is referred as a "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word "Jew" is quit clear. Although "Jew" is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word "Ioudaios." The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word "Jew" found in the Latin word "Iudaeus" but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. Thus, from the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then, finally, the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."

For example: two of the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition and both contain the word word "Jew." Yet, when the English language version of the Rheims (Douai) New Testament was first printed in 1582 the word "Jew" did NOT appear in it. Similarly the King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English (begun in 1604) and first published in 1611, here too the word "Jew" did NOT appear. That is, the word "Jew" first appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions. The combination of the Protestant Reformation, the publication of the revised English language 18th century editions and the printing press (allowing unlimited quantities of the New Testament to be printed) meant the wide distribution of these English language Bibles throughout the English speaking world. That is, among people who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language but who were now in possession of one in their native tongue. And, although these 18th century editions first introduced the word "Jew" to the English language the word as it was used in these has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language.

Numerous copies of these revised 18th century English editions ( especially the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament) were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. And so, the new readers of these 18th century editions were introduced to a new word both to them and the English language, the word "Jew." For, these readers did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" and accepted it as the legitimate modern form of the ancient Greek "Ioudaios" and the Latin "Iudaeus." Thus, these new readers did not understand or care to question the meaning and use of the word "Jew" since it was a new English word to them. Consequently, the use of the word "Jew" was not only stabilised by these 18th century editions but also its anachronistic application to people and places fully established.

The original chroniclers used the Greek "Ioudaios" to denote people who lived in Judaea, that is, in English, for "Judaeans." Thus: "Ioudaia" in Greek is, in English, "Judaea" ( or "Judea") while "Ioudaios" in Greek is, in English, "Judaeans" (or "Judeans") Moreover, when the word "Jew" was first introduced by the redactors into the English language in the 18th century they intended its one and only application was to denote "Judaeans" (or "Judeans"). That is, they deemed them cognates (conveying identical implications, inferences and innuendoes) and so interchangeable. Thus, they meant that it makes no difference which of these two words is used when referring to the inhabitants of Judaea during the time of Christ's Mission. However, since this time the implications, inferences, and innuendoes conveyed by these two words have radically changed and are now as different as black is from white. In short: today, the word "Jew" is never regarded as a synonym for "Judaean" (or "Judean") nor is "Judaean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew." The word has taken on a far different meaning, one wholly divorced from the original conception of the 18th century redactors.

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be."(Gen. 49:10)

The meaning of the word "Jew" in the Bible is not the same as the commonly held modern view. In the Bible the word "Jew" is meant to refer to a resident of the land of Judaea. Moreover, it is a reference regardless of tribe, race or religion. Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew" and need not be a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite) or one who followed the Judaic religion. Thus, "Jews" and "Jewry" in the Bible not only refer Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah) but also a part of (or place in) Palestine and any other peoples who dwelt there. In the modern, colloquial idiom "Jews" are descendants of Judah while in the Bible it means anyone dwelling in Judaea regardless of lineage or ethnicity. Now, Judah was the largest and the most influential of the Twelve Tribes of Israel with the governing right whose sons where to provide the rightful kings of Israel. That is, they were the inheritors of the Him their allegiance.

At the time of Christ's Mission, in the days of His flesh, few of the citizens of Judaea were Judahites, that is, direct descendants of Judah and so the "Chosen People"; the true recipients of the Bible Covenants. Following the destruction of David's Kingdom (its dismemberment first by Babylonians and then by Assyrian's) the forced depopulation of Israel and its people in Exile and bondage, their release by Cyrus the Great and their return and restoration of the Temple, the population of Palestine was very mixed. Although some did indeed belonged to the tribe of Judah and others to one of the other tribes of Israel, many others were descendants of other patriarchs, but, especially, of Esau. These were the Edomites who had been conquered and now assimilated and become co-religionists with the Judahites and remnants of the other tribes of Israel. Moreover, this mixed race were melded together by a hybrid religion developed during the captivity in Babylon. This is the religion of the Pharisee .... Pharisaism ... the man-made religion of the Talmud that is today called Judaism. This man-centred, man-made religion was the religion vehemently condemned by Christ since it is the antithesis of the Mosaic Law and the prophets and makes the Word of God of no effect (Matt. 15:1-9).

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in JEWRY, because the JEWS sought to kill Him."(John 7:1)

Here, the English word "Jewry" was translated from the Greek word "Ioudaia", which denoted the land of Judaea. This was acknowledged by modern redactors who chose not to use the word "Jewry" but the correct translation "Judaea." For example, in the New American Standard Bible:

"And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in JUDAEA, because the JEWS were seeking to kill Him."(John 7:1)

Thus, Christ was unwilling to walk in Judaea – Jewry - because the Jews - the Judaeans - were seeking to kill Him. That is: Judaea = Jewry and Jews = Judaeans. A Jew is properly a Judaean and Jewry properly Judaea.

A modern misconception is that "the Jews" are direct descendants of Jacob and so the people of Israel, the true, biblical Israelites. However, by the time of Jesus, because of wars, enslavement, migrations and miscegenation, a Jew may or may not have descended from Jacob. He could have been descended from a number of patriarchs, especially Esau, since Edomites were then dominant in the racial mix. However, although a disparate racial mix the Jews by this time all recognised Pharisaism as their personal and state religion and NOT the Law of Moses. And so, a point of uttermost importance: someone who is called a "Jew" in the Bible is not necessarily a member of the tribe of Judah, a true Israelite, or even a Semite nor are they an essential part of the Yahweh's Chosen People, a follower of Moses and the prophets. In the Bible, a Jew is simply a resident of Judaea .... he is simply a Judaean ... with or without the special status arising from blood of the Covenant People. Yet, this fact of historical identity has been subverted by a secret force whose aim is to use the ancient yet special status of the true biblical Covenant People, the true Chosen People of Yahweh, for their own very dark designs. That is why this incredibly well organised and well-financed secret force created a "secondary meaning" for the new word "Jew," which is not the understanding intended by the 18th century redactors of the New Testament. That is, those who today call themselves Jews and arrogate the special status as God's Chosen People and all its privileges by claiming to be direct descendants of the tribes of Israel and of David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. Millions claim this yet few of them are "Jews" in the proper sense as they are not "Judaeans" or residents of Judaea. That is: the so-called modern day Jews -the Modern Tribe of Jews- are not "the Jews" of the Bible. In other words, the Modern Tribe of Jews claiming the territory in Palestine that was Once the Holy Land are not the biblical Jews, they are not the true biblical Covenant People: they are not "returning" to their "Promised Land" because they were never there in the first place ...

                                               
When, in 1604, James VI, King of Scotland became King James I of England, the first ruler of Great Britain and Ireland, he ruled a nation in religious and political turmoil. And, when a leading Puritan spokesman, Dr John Reynolds, proposed that a new English Bible be issued in honour of the new king, James, saw this as an opportunity to bring about a unity with the church service in Presbyterian Scotland and Episcopal England. The redaction began in 1604 and was completed and published in 1611 and this the new English Bible became known as the "Authorised Version" because its making was authorised by King James. This "Authorised Version" became the "Official Bible of England" and the only Bible of the Anglican church. There have been several revisions of the King James Bible in 1615, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769 with the most substantive changes occurring in the eighteenth century. Then, Dr Thomas Paris (1762) published an extensive revision at Cambridge while Dr Benjamin Blayney did the same at Oxford (1769). Blayney's redactions included much modernisation of spelling, punctuation, and expression, but, in which the exact words in the 1611 Bible first edition are used. It is this 1769 update by Blayney that is the basis of the modern King James Bible. Also, since 1885, 14 books representing the Apocrypha were "officially" removed from it. These Apocryphal books were included at the insistence of the king and, unlike the Rheims-Douai and other Roman Catholic Bibles that scattered them throughout the Old Testament, were placed between the Testaments.

Consequently, any modern, so-called "1611 Authorised King James Version" available today is NOT a facsimile of the original 1611 "Authorised Version" but a copy of the 1769 revision. Even those editions that may even proclaim "1611" in the frontispiece to promote sales are deceptions, for, they too are simply modern print runs of the Blayney's 1769 edition. These are editions in which the original text and words of the "1611 Authorised King James Version" have been altered with spellings revised and some words changed in almost every printing done since 1769 and, also, with fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features removed from almost every printing done since 1885. To get an original, un-redacted "1611 Authorised King James Version" is more problematic and far more expensive. Originals are rare and eminently collectible and fetch huge prices while facsimiles andexact photographic facsimile edition are less exorbitant but still expensive.

There are 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and not now nor was there ever an equivalent letter "J"; nor is there any Hebrew letter that carries even an approximate sound of the consonant letter "J." Furthermore, there is there not a letter "J" in the Greek alphabet. In fact, although the letter "J" is firmly established as the tenth letter and seventh consonant in the English alphabet it is a recent addition to the English script. It was inserted in the alphabet after "I," from which it was developed and credited to Petrus Ramus (1515-1572) who first distinguish "I" and "J" as representing separate sounds. John 19:19 refers to the inscription Pontius Pilate had posted over Jesus' cross that in the Greek is "Ieous Nazoraios Basilius Ioudaios," which in modern Bibles is rendered: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" In the fourth century, Jerome translated the Bible from the Greek into Latin and his treatment of this verse in the Latin Vulgate was: "Iesus Nazerenus Rex Iudaeorum." The acronym of this verse used on Catholic statues, icons and imagery is "INRI" .... because there was no "J." The Wiclif, Wickliff or Wycliffe Edition published in 1380 is the earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition and in it Jesus is there mentioned as One of the "iewes." That is, the 14th century middle English version of the Latin "Iudaeus" pronounced "hew-weeze," in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular.

It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the use of "J" as an initial found common usage in English books. As such, all writers before this time were wholly ignorant of the letter "J." For instance, William Shakespeare never ever saw the word "Jew" never mind use the word it in any of his works. In the Merchant of Venice first published in about 1600, Shakespeare wrote: "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?" Even the great lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, was unusually ambivalent in his use of the "J" letter, for, in his seminal English Dictionary of 1755 and 1756 words beginning with ancient "I" and the new letter "J" are interspersed. Moreover, although he defines "To Judaize" as "To conform to the manner of the Jews" in both editions he finds no room to list the word "Jew." The 1933 edition of The Oxford English Dictionary is helpful in this respect and lists the first published usage of the word "Jew." In 1653, by Greaves in his "Seraglio," 150. "In the King's Seraglio, the sultanas are permitted to employ divers Jewes-women about their ordinary occasions." By Sheridan in 1775 in his play "The Rivals," Act II, Scene I: "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew." And in 1700 by Bishop Patrick in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 28:37: "Better we cannot express the most cut-throat dealing, than thus, you use me like a Jew".

The 1841 English Hexapla is a compendium of six English translations of the New Testament, which are: the Wycliffe version of 1380 (the first English Scripture, hand-copied prior to Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1455), The Tyndale version of 1534-1536 (the first English printed Scripture), and Cranmer's Great Bible of 1539 (the first Authorized English Bible); The Geneva "1557" (the English Bible of the Protestant Reformation); the Rheims (the first Roman CatholicEnglish version of 1582); and the King James First Edition of 1611. In the Wycliffe version John 19.19 reads: "ihesus of Nazareth kyng of the iewes." Similarly, in the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the "Iewes." Likewise, in the Cranmer Edition Jesus was again described as One of the "Iewes."; in the Geneva Edition Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes." In the Rheims Edition Jesus was described as One of the "Ievves"; and in the King James Edition, also known as the Authorised Version, Jesus was described again as one of the "Iewes." That is, the word "Jew" does not appear in any of these Bibles. First references to Jesus as a so-called "Jew" (which He was most definitely not) are found in the 18th century redactions of the 14th century English editions of the New Testament. The first Bible in which the word "Jew" first appears is the 1729 Daniel Mace New Testament in Romans 2:13 – 3:21. Afterwards in 1750 in the Douai; the Catholic English Bible newly revised and corrected by Richard Challoner using the 1609 translation of the Latin Vulgate. In 1755 by John Wesley in his "New Testament with Explanatory Notes." Benjamin Blayney's 1769 modernised version of the 1611 edition of the Authorised King James Bible. And, in John Worsley's 1770 "New Testament or New Covenant of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" with notes as translated from the Greek.

The evolution of the Holy Bible – the story of how the Bible arrived to us in its present form – is testament to the working of Higher Hidden Hands in the historical process. How the revealed Word of God was preserved in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek and transmitted into the modern world via Latin from which it was released into common possession by its translation into the English language by John Wycliffe and others during the Great Reformation.

          

"At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day" 2 Kings 16:6

The word "Jew" is a relatively modern invention used, seemingly indiscriminately and interchangeably, by 18th century redactors to describe Israelites, Judahites and Judaeans. It first appeared in these eighteenth century Bibles and it first appears within these redactions in 2 Kings 16:6 .... in an episode that describes a war between Israel and Judah: when Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of Israel went to war with wicked Ahaz, king of Judah. The Syrians"drave the Jews from Elath" who were in possession of it and so here is the first time that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah are called "Jews" when more properly they should be called Judahites. However, the point here is this: the very first time the word "Jew" is found in the modern Bible, they are at war with Israel.

                                     
"And Jehovah said to her [Rebekah] Two nations are in your womb, and two kinds of people shall be separated from your bowels. And the one people shall be stronger than the other people, the older [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob]" (Gen. 25:23)

"They [the Edomites] were hereafter no other than [non-Israelite] Jews." Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews Book XIII, Chapter IX, Verse 1, p. 279 They [the non-Israelite Edomites] were then incorporated with the Jewish nation" Article entitled "EDOM, IDUMEA," The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. V, p. 41(1904)[/indent][indent=1]"In the days of John Hyrcanus [end of the second century BC] … the [non-Israelite] Edomites became a section of the Jewish people." Article entitled "EDOM," Encyclopaedia Judaica Vol. 6, p. 378 (1971) ]"From then on they [the non-Israelite Edomites] constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod [King of Judea] being one of their descendants" Article entitled "EDOM (Idumea)," The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia p. 589 (1977)

The Edomites are descendants of Esau ("hairy, rough"), the eldest son of Isaac, and twin brother of Jacob, whose singular appearance at birth originated the name (Gen 25:25). Also, he was given the name of Edom ("red") from his conduct in connection with the red lentil "pottage" for which he sold his birthright (Gen. 25:30, Gen. 25:31).

Esau was much loved by his father and was, because he was first-born, his heir but was tricked into selling his birthright to his younger brother, Jacob, with the help of his mother, for a meal of red lentil pottage. Esau lost his father's birthright and his paternal blessing due to Jacob's subterfuge and thus raised the anger of Esau, who vows vengeance (Gen. 25:29-34; 27:1-41). Yahweh thereafter called Esau, "Edom" and the country subsequently settled by Esau/Edom and his brood was "the country of Edom" (Gen 32:3). Jacob, the grandson of Abraham and Sarah, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, is the ancestor of the Israelites. Later, Yahweh told Jacob that his name was no longer Jacob, but henceforth, Israel (Gen. 32:22-32; Gen. 35:10). Jacob's twelve sons were the ancestors of the Twelve Tribes of Israel and their descendants are described as the Twelve Tribes of Israel originally identified by the names of the twelve sons of Jacob: the Patriarchs Joseph, Judah, Issachar, Benjamin, Levi, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Simeon, Dan, Zebulun, Reuben. Later, Joseph's two sons, his eldest, Manasseh and his second son, Ephraim, were adopted by Jacob as his own and so those two tribes replaced Joseph and Levi among the Twelve of Israel. ThepatriarchJudah was thefourth son born to Jacob (Gen 29:35).

The Edomites were thus the progeny of Esau, whose name was Edom, so called from the red lentil pottage he sold his birthright for to his brother Jacob (later, at Yahweh's behest, called Israel). These Edomites were also separate from theTwelve Tribes of Israeland so werenot true Israelites. They lived separately in a different land nurturing an enmity originating with their patriarch, Esau/Edom for Jacob/Israel and his descendants: a hatred born of a deep sense of injustice and betrayal that birthright and grace had been arrogated by trickery. Edom's violence against Israel (Jacob) was so intense not only due to a sense of betrayal but also because they both came from the same parents (Isaac and Rebekah); in fact, this great and enduring enmity began in Rebekah's womb, continued as the boys grew to manhood and endured until today in the phenomenon of the struggle of nations. Moreover, because of this enduring bitterness and jealousy, Esau would have destroyed Jacob had Yahweh not intervened

Ezekiel 35:1-15 describes Yahweh's judgement on, anddevastation of, Edom who exulted over Israel's humiliation, who was their most bitter foe, and who "had a perpetual hatred to them, to the very name of an Israelite." Esau/Edom in his hate and angerpursued "his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever." (Amos 1:11). Hence, the Edomites' "perpetual hatred" and "wrath forever" toward Israelites. That is, this seminal struggle of nations, which began in Rebekah's womb, endures today in the modern-day descendants of Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau) .... a great struggle between the Israelites and the Edomites.

The Edomites lived and prospered in a land separate from Israel but were later attacked and defeated by Saul (1 Sam. 14:47) and some forty years later, by David (2 Sam. 8:13-14). Later, in the reign of Jehosaphat, (c 914 BC), the Edomites attempted to invade Israel, but failed (2 Chron. 20:22). They later joined with Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Chaldea, in his invasion of Judaea, the Judaean kingdom of the Two Tribes, and helped in his destruction of Jerusalem as well as the subsequent deportation of the Judaeans to Babylonia (c 630-562 BC). The terrible cruelty displayed by the Edomites at this time provoked fearful denunciations by the later prophets (Isa 34:5-8; Isa 63:1-4; Jer 49:17). Afterwards, the Edomites invaded and held possession of the south of Palestine but they eventually fell under the growing Chaldean power (Jer 27:3, Jer 27:6). The Edomites were thus Semites since they are closely related in blood and in language to the Israelites but they had no claim on the unique Bible Covenant and Birthright Promises gifted by Yahweh to Abraham, then to Jacob/Israel and then to his descendants. However, for more than four centuries, the Edomites continued to prosper but during the warlike rule of the Maccabeans, they were again completely subdued, and even forced to conform to Jewish laws and rites, and submit to the government of Jewish prefects. Here, at this time, the Edomites become incorporated within the resurgent Judaean kingdom.

Edomites are therefore descended from Edom (Esau) whose descendants later intermarried with the Turks to produce a Turco-Edomite mixture which later became known as Khazars. That is, most of today's Jews are descendants of this interbreeding that produced a race called Khazars who had once governed an empire called Khazaria. Furthermore, this hybrid race Edomite/Turk/Khazar who created the Khazar kingdom and who between the seventh and ninth centuries AD, adopted the religion of Judaism. And, it is these Khazar Jews who are the ancestors of the vast majority of today's Jewish people. That is, Edomite/Turk/Khazars are the ancestors of the modern "Jews" including the Torah-true and Zionist Jews who spuriously claim right to the land of Palestine claiming it it is theirs by biblical demands and ancestral rights.

Consequently, the majority of today's Jewish people are known as "Jews" not because they are Judahites and descended from Jacob/Israel but because their Edomite/Turk/Khazar ancestors in their Kingdom of Khazaria adopted the religion of Judaism, called themselves "Jews" and arrogated the Birthright Promises and Bible Covenants belonging to the Israelites, but especially those belonging to the Judahites.

Thus, "Jews" are not Israelites and certainly they are not Judahites. Hence, modern Jews are not heir to the Bible Covenants nor to the ancient Nation of Israel given by Yahweh to the Israelites and the Judahites and so have no Divine Right or biblical mandate to the modern Land of Palestine.

Similarly, Jesus of Nazarethwas not a "Jew" he was a Judahite, and Jesus Christ was not "King of the Jews."
                                                   
[end copy-paste]

Edited by viceroy, 09 November 2011 - 12:36 AM.

[placid]

Hi Viceroy,

That is a long read, but I will respond to the first two statements.
Quote from Post 66:
"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all," The Jewish Almanac (1980)

Response: --- I understand that the name ‘Hebrew’ came either from an ancestor, Eber, or from meaning ‘to cross over,’ --- and this could refer to Abraham leaving Ur of the Chaldees, --- or ‘the crossing over’ to God’s Promised Land.
The word ‘Israelite’ came from Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel before he and his family went down to Egypt because of a famine in their land.
After some 400 years Jacob’s descendants, called ‘the Children of Israel,’ began their return journey when they crossed the Red Sea, on their way to the Promised Land, --- which is well known in history.
As years went by the Children of Israel were disobedient to the Lord and got into intermarriage and idolatry from the nations around. They were dissatisfied with God as their King and wanted an earthly king.  So, under earthly kings, eventually the nation divided in the land and the 10 northern tribes became Israel, and the two southern tribes, Judah and Benjamin  became the southern kingdom of Judah, and occupied Jerusalem and Judea.
The name ‘Jew’ came from Judah, and those of the Southern Kingdom were called Jews as early in the OT as 2 Kings.
The northern kingdom of Israel was taken into captivity by the Assyrians, and in about 600 BC Judah was taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, and taken to Babylon for 70 years.

After the Medes and Persians conquered the failing kingdom of Babylon, --- when King Cyrus came to power, he provided for the captives to go back to their land, returning all the gold and treasures that Nebuchadnezzar had taken, and provided all the materials to rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem and restore their land of Israel to them.

Quote: Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a "Jew," moreover, that he was "King of the Jews." Thus, by inference, that the "Jews" were the "Chosen People" of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ's Mission and Passion no such people existed called "Jews" nor indeed did the word "Jew." In short: Jesus was NOT a "Jew" nor was he "King of the Jews."

Response: The name Jew was already known in the Southern kingdom of Judah before the Babylonian captivity because Jeremiah the Prophet instructed the King of Judah to declare an amnesty for the slaves. I t says in Jeremiah 34:
6 Then Jeremiah the prophet spoke all these words to Zedekiah king of Judah in Jerusalem,
8 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people who were at Jerusalem to proclaim liberty to them:
9 that every man should set free his male and female slave—a Hebrew man or woman—that no one should keep a Jew, his brother, in bondage.
--- So it identifies the Jews of Judah also as Hebrews, does it not?
Jew is also used in Zechariah 8:23, about 518 BC
It is used again in the Book of Esther a number of times, about 475 BC, when Mordecai was called a Jew as well as his niece, Esther, who became Queen.
The people of Judah were called Jews at least from about 740 BC, as it says in 2 Kings 16:6, --- and they were called Jews 74 times in the OT

The word Jew was used 22 times in the New Testament.
The word Jews was used 168 times in the NT, --- and the first time was in this question from the Wisemen from the East, who had come to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is He who is born King of the Jews?” Matthew 2:2.
Hebrew and Hebrews are used 30 times in the OT
--- And are used 15 times in the NT.
Israelite and Israelites are used 17 times in the OT
--- And they are used 5 times in the NT.

It is plainly written in Scripture that Jesus came to the Jews and brought them back to faith in God through the teaching of the Gospel. While multitudes were converted in Israel, He chose 12 to be Apostles and He sent 11 of them out to the world, with the Great Commission of Matthew 28:
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Quote from the Zondervan Bible Dictionary:
The word Jew does not appear before the period of Jeremiah in OT Literature. Originally it denoted one belonging to the tribe of Judah, or of the two tribes of the Sothern Kingdom (Judah and Benjamin), but later its meaning was extended, and it applied to anyone of the Hebrew race who returned from the captivity. --- As most of the exiles came from Judah, and as they were the main historical representatives of ancient Israel, the term Jew came finally to comprehend all of the Hebrew race throughout the world. --- End of quote.

It is denying the Scriptures to say that the Israelites, including Jesus and His Apostles, were not Jews, is it not?

Placid

[viceroy]

Actually, I copy-pasted post # 66. I thought it offered an interesting Western-Occidental view on concepts regarding Judaism.

I most certainly deny the European-Eurasian version of ancient Middle Eastern monotheist Scriptures.

Also, you make no sense at all calling Isa (Jesus) and the Israelites "Jews" when the abbreviated, slang appellation was once used in specific reference to the Tribe of Yahudah (Judah) or the Judahites; to later be used in general reference to all inhabitants of Judaea Province, Palestine.

How in the world can Israelites be Judahites, when Judah (Yahudah) was the son of Yaqub Israil (Jacob Israel) ??

I don't think Westerners (i.e. Europeans-Eurasians)  have any proper concept of Near/Middle Eastern tribal genealogies...

The Bani Luayy (Levites) were Israili (Israelites) but they couldn't possibly be Yahudi / Bani Yahudah (Judahites)...

Luayy (Levi) was the brother of Yahudah (Judah).

The same would apply to Bani Yamin (Benjamites)...They fall under the classification of Israili (Israelites) but cannot fall under the category of Yahudi (Judahites).

This particular excerpt from the copy-pasted article was obviously not properly understood by you :

"In the Bible the word "Jew" is meant to refer to a resident of the land of Judaea. Moreover, it is a reference regardless of tribe, race or religion. Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew" and need not be a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite) or one who followed the Judaic religion. Thus, "Jews" and "Jewry" in the Bible not only refer Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah) but also a part of (or place in) Palestine and any other peoples who dwelt there. In the modern, colloquial idiom "Jews" are descendants of Judah while in the Bible it means anyone dwelling in Judaea regardless of lineage or ethnicity. Now, Judah was the largest and the most influential of the Twelve Tribes of Israel ..."

The best thing that the Western / Occidental / European / Eurasian world can do is leave the monotheist history of Middle / Near Eastern people alone...

...A theological history which the Western world adopted, mutated, reinvented, and became self-professed "owners" of...Trying to "EDUCATE" Near Easterners & North Africans about their very own theological cultural heritage.

What arrogance...

Thank goodness the Western world did not convert to Buddhism en masse...Otherwise, they would be carving a chunk out of Nepal & Bihar to give it the Tibetans and any Buddhist East Asians (i.e. Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Sinhalese, Bhutanese, etc.)...With the claim that Siddhartha Gautama Buddha was TIBETAN or Ethnic Chinese, when he was actually a pure East Indian...Just as they did with Isa bin Maryam's Palestine, when they arrogated it for the Eurasian Scythians / Khazars (i.e. Ashkenazi "Jews")...

Edited by viceroy, 10 November 2011 - 09:11 PM.

[placid]

Hi Viceroy,

I had said, “The name ‘Jew’ came from Judah, and those of the Southern Kingdom were called Jews as early in the OT as 2 Kings.”

Quote from your article: "In the Bible the word "Jew" is meant to refer to a resident of the land of Judaea. Moreover, it is a reference regardless of tribe, race or religion. Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew" and need not be a member of the tribe of Judah.

--- By way of explanation:
In the captivity of the Southern kingdom into Babylon, the majority, were taken to Babylon, but some remained. --- Those who returned to settle the land some 70 years later were not all from the tribe of Judah, --- but if they returned to Jerusalem and Judea, --- then they were called Jews.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob could be Hebrews but could not be Israelites or Jews.
Jews were both Hebrews and Israelites, were they not?

Concerning Jesus as a Jew:
This prophecy was given in Micah 5:
2. “ But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
   Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
   Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
   The One to be Ruler in Israel,”
(There was another Bethlehem in Israel, but this one was identified as a small town in Judea, where they were all called Jews.}

--- I don’t see the conflict. --- I am only presenting what is written in the Scriptures, If you believe other historical records, that is up to you, --- but for the readers who might think that because you agree with the article in saying that Jesus wasn’t a Jew, --- that might cause them to doubt what the Scripture says.

Joseph and Mary were both descendants of King David who was a descendant of Judah.
Joseph was a descendant of David’s son Solomon, Matthew 1. --- And as the children followed the tribal identity of the father, Jesus would be registered, as was Joseph, of the tribe of Judah.

Mary was a descendant of David’s son Nathan, Luke 3. --- The prophecy said that Jesus, to become King of the Jews, was to be a descendant of King David, and would be born in the city of David, which was Bethlehem in Judea.

Edited by placid, 11 November 2011 - 08:12 PM.

[viceroy]

That is correct, you are presenting what is written in the Scriptures...But whose Scriptures ? The Eurocentric adoptive/mutative version...?

Whether or not Isa was of the tribe of Yahudah or not, and whether he was descended from Dawood (David) or not...The fact of the matter is that he was an ARAMAIC-speaking SYRO-PALESTINIAN of the SYRO-PALESTINIAN Levantine Arab tribe of Yahudah.

Not really interested in a watered-down, over-sampled Eurocentric version of Middle Eastern monotheist Scriptures...

First of all, the oldest surviving Biblical text is the John Wycliffe version. There are no copies of St. Jerome's Latin VULGATE (from circa 405 CE), nor its percursor, the NICENE CREED (in Koine Greek). We don't really know what the Hellenistic-Roman translators wrote from Nabataean Aramaic scriptures. Since there was no "Hebrew" or "Ebrani" language & script existing back in 325 CE, when the NICENE CREED was compiled, the Koine or Common Greek adaptations were from Nabataean Aramaic traditions that were primarily oral.

The various Western-Occidental versions of "Biblical Scripture" has no authentic historio-archaeological value as it is primarily subjective socio-religious reinvented folklore of a foreign culture, by an entirely different culture.

What the theist, monotheist, atheist, and agnostic (combined) communities need is an authentic, verifiable historicity of Near Eastern monotheist theology presented in its uncorrupted, non-adaptational, original form.

And Eurocentric Biblical Scripture with its numerous revisions is hardly that...

-- The Bani Israil (Sons or Children of Yaqub Israil or Jacob the Journeyer) began as a single family clan which belonged to the NORTH SYRIAN tribe called Bani Eber (Ebrani or its Greco-Roman corruption "Hebrew").

-- The 12 sons of the Bani Israil then expanded into individual clans which elevated the Bani Israil to a subtribe.

-- The 12 clans of the Bani Israil expanded into subtribes, which automatically further elevated the Bani Israil into a full-sized tribe.

-- Eventually, the 12 subtribes evolved into full-sized tribes in their own right.

Both Palestine (Falastin) & Jordan (Urdunn) were southern provinces of SYRIA. This was even recognized by Westerners-Europeans such as the ancient Greeks Herodotus (484-425 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC). Herodotus described Palestine's geographic boundaries in his Histories, while Aristotle did the same in his Meteorology.

What the Western-European world has been systematically and methodically doing is INVENTING this pseudo-schism between "ARABS" and "JEWS", when in reality (in both cutlural anthropology & ethno-anthropology) NO SUCH THING EVER REALLY EXISTED.

The Yahudi (Judahites) WERE Levantine Arabs (i.e. Syro-Palestinians). They were ARAMAEANS who originated in SYRIA. Aram was a geographic region of Central Syria. This is why Aramaic (and its various dialects) was the regional language of both South Syrian provinces of Palestine & Jordan. From local ancient folklore, the very name of the patriarch ABRAMU (aka ABRAM) stood for AB-ARAM or "Father of the Aramaeans"...

Abramu (Abraham) had his birthplace in Ur-Fa, North Syria (present-day Sanli Urfa, Turkey)...

Where the Greco-Roman Biblical adapters came up with "Ur of the Chaldees" is as strange as calling ancient SUMER, the land of Shinar. So much of the Biblical nomenclature DO NOT match any of the ancient historio-archaeological & epigraphical artifacts that have been recovered, that it is not even funny.

Once again, the Western / Occidental world should cease perpetuating their fallacies, distortions, and mutations of ancient Middle Eastern monotheist history.

That is precisely why there exists conflict between the Eurocentric West and the Middle East.

Edited by viceroy, 11 November 2011 - 10:11 PM.

[viceroy]

[re-copy-paste]

"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all," The Jewish Almanac (1980)

Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a "Jew," moreover, that he was "King of the Jews." Thus, by inference, that the "Jews" were the "Chosen People" of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ's Mission and Passion no such people existed called "Jews" nor indeed did the word "Jew." In short: Jesus was NOT a "Jew" nor was he "King of the Jews."

In fact, Jesus is referred as a "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word "Jew" is quite clear. Although "Jew" is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word "Ioudaios." The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word "Jew" found in the Latin word "Iudaeus" but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. Thus, from the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then, finally, the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."

For example: two of the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition and both contain the word "Jew." Yet, when the English language version of the Rheims (Douai) New Testament was first printed in 1582 the word "Jew" did NOT appear in it. Similarly the King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English (begun in 1604) and first published in 1611, here too the word "Jew" did NOT appear. That is, the word "Jew" first appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions. The combination of the Protestant Reformation, the publication of the revised English language 18th century editions and the printing press (allowing unlimited quantities of the New Testament to be printed) meant the wide distribution of these English language Bibles throughout the English speaking world. That is, among people who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language but who were now in possession of one in their native tongue. And, although these 18th century editions first introduced the word "Jew" to the English language the word as it was used in these has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language.

Numerous copies of these revised 18th century English editions ( especially the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament) were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. And so, the new readers of these 18th century editions were introduced to a new word both to them and the English language, the word "Jew." For, these readers did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" and accepted it as the legitimate modern form of the ancient Greek "Ioudaios" and the Latin "Iudaeus." Thus, these new readers did not understand or care to question the meaning and use of the word "Jew" since it was a new English word to them. Consequently, the use of the word "Jew" was not only stabilised by these 18th century editions but also its anachronistic application to people and places fully established.

The original chroniclers used the Greek "Ioudaios" to denote people who lived in Judaea, that is, in English, for "Judaeans." Thus: "Ioudaia" in Greek is, in English, "Judaea" ( or "Judea") while "Ioudaios" in Greek is, in English, "Judaeans" (or "Judeans") Moreover, when the word "Jew" was first introduced by the redactors into the English language in the 18th century they intended its one and only application was to denote "Judaeans" (or "Judeans"). That is, they deemed them cognates (conveying identical implications, inferences and innuendoes) and so interchangeable. Thus, they meant that it makes no difference which of these two words is used when referring to the inhabitants of Judaea during the time of Christ's Mission. However, since this time the implications, inferences, and innuendoes conveyed by these two words have radically changed and are now as different as black is from white. In short: today, the word "Jew" is never regarded as a synonym for "Judaean" (or "Judean") nor is "Judaean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew." The word has taken on a far different meaning, one wholly divorced from the original conception of the 18th century redactors.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this portion of the article previously posted was not properly analyzed or absorbed...So I re-posted it for possible subliminal edification, since the conscious one seems to have failed...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[re-copy-paste]

A modern misconception is that "the Jews" are direct descendants of Jacob and so the people of Israel, the true, biblical Israelites. However, by the time of Jesus, because of wars, enslavement, migrations and miscegenation, a Jew may or may not have descended from Jacob. He could have been descended from a number of patriarchs, especially Esau, since Edomites were then dominant in the racial mix. However, although a disparate racial mix the Jews by this time all recognised Pharisaism as their personal and state religion and NOT the Law of Moses. And so, a point of uttermost importance: someone who is called a "Jew" in the Bible is not necessarily a member of the tribe of Judah, a true Israelite, or even a Semite nor are they an essential part of the Yahweh's Chosen People, a follower of Moses and the prophets. In the Bible, a Jew is simply a resident of Judaea .... he is simply a Judaean ... with or without the special status arising from blood of the Covenant People. Yet, this fact of historical identity has been subverted by a secret force whose aim is to use the ancient yet special status of the true biblical Covenant People, the true Chosen People of Yahweh, for their own very dark designs. That is why this incredibly well organised and well-financed secret force created a "secondary meaning" for the new word "Jew," which is not the understanding intended by the 18th century redactors of the New Testament. That is, those who today call themselves Jews and arrogate the special status as God's Chosen People and all its privileges by claiming to be direct descendants of the tribes of Israel and of David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. Millions claim this yet few of them are "Jews" in the proper sense as they are not "Judaeans" or residents of Judaea. That is: the so-called modern day Jews -the Modern Tribe of Jews- are not "the Jews" of the Bible. In other words, the Modern Tribe of Jews claiming the territory in Palestine that was Once the Holy Land are not the biblical Jews, they are not the true biblical Covenant People: they are not "returning" to their "Promised Land" because they were never there in the first place ...

[end copy-paste]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am assuming that the original author of this article excerpt is referring to Zionists as the "secret force"...

Edited by viceroy, 12 November 2011 - 11:55 AM.

[Son of Placid]

That's way too deep for most people, even if you came up with a list of which Jew is actually what.
Kinda like calling Canadians Canadian knowing that everyone except the aboriginals came from somewhere else.

[Son of Placid]

alimohamad40, on 07 November 2011 - 10:38 AM, said:

this is one of those topics that seem fishy

quraan says ismail is the one..   the bible says isaac !!!!

its like the mahdi
sunies say he is from the sons of hasan
shias say he is from the sons of hussain


these sorts of things seem like lies consciously  inserted to mislead and create Tashabuh (confusion)

That's the real point to be made here, much moreso than diverting to how Jewish was Jesus.
The main thing is does it really matter? If all texts said Abraham took his son to be a sacrifice then the argument would be choice.

The thing about this is that Abraham took ONE OF HIS SONS to be a SACRIFICE. Did anybody notice this?
Muslims say no no to any form of sacrifice and here it is written in the Quran. Blood sacrifice existed and in this case was obviously God ordained.

[viceroy]

@ Son of Placid

I hope you are aware that this website is entitled SHIACHAT...The Shi'ite credo is SACRIFICE...SELF-SACRIFICE.

Since this is the Lunar-Hijri month of Muharram (Sacrosanctity), the main them of this month is the BLOOD SACRIFICE of the grandson of Prophet Muhammad and the biological descendants of Prophet Muhammad for the cause of Islamic integrity. To preserve that integrity...

Who says ALL Muslims say no to any form of sacrifice (?)

It all depends on what one interprets as SACRIFICE...

When Patriarch Ibrahim prepared to sacrifice his son, he was essentially sacrificing a part of himself (i.e. a self-sacrifice).

The Eastern (i.e. Islamic) version makes a lot more sense in that the only son and heir at the time of Patriarch Ibrahim was ISMAIL. Remember that his first wife (Lady Sarah) was allegedly aged and barren, unable to bear any progeny to Sheikh Ibrahim. Sheikh (=Elder).

When the Almighty finally granted Sheikh Ibrahim a male heir to carry on his covenant, then to TEST him asks Ibrahim to sacrifice that very gift that was divinely granted...That is the test. To see see if Ibrahim would COMPLY or OBEY...Hence, be a MUSLIM (=Obedient One, Compliant One)...

When it became evident that Ibrahim practiced ISLAM (=OBEDIENCE, COMPLIANCE), a miraculous substitution occurred and a lamb was sacrificed in place of ISMAIL.

Consequently, being the ever-magnanimous and generous Creator, the Almighty then granted Ibrahim a SECOND heir for his covenant: ISHAQ (ISAAC).

Not only that, the Almighty granted this new gift with a bonus: This gift was miraculously granted through Lady Sarah (the aged & barren 1st wife of Grand Sheikh Ibrahim).

Could any of this make sense (?) ...Yes it could...

Blood sacrifice is divinely ordained in very specific circumstances. T

The WESTERN world's Christian theme that God blood sacrificed his (supposed) only begotten son in Christ makes little sense.

There is no amount of physical torture that can be placed upon a single human being (even of divine incarnation) that can make up for all the sins committed by humankind.

And if that could even possibly be so, then the WESTERN world's interpretation of Christ's blood sacrifice would have covered all of humankinds sins up to 29 CE (or 33 CE).

So what about all the sins of humankind since then (?)

Does Christ have to reappear and be put to death in a like manner to make up for all the sins committed since the last time he visited the earth in human form (?)

Al-Lah (The Divinity) clearly states these four particular things in the Qur'an :

-- That He DID NOT create man (i.e. the human) in His own image.

-- That He DOES NOT have a consort (i.e. wife).

-- That He is not a SHE.

-- That He DOES NOT have any offspring (i.e. son or daughter).

Either way, whether it was ISMAIL or ISHAQ, NEITHER were EUROPEANS or EURASIANS. Nor ASHKENAZI "Jews"...LOL

Edited by viceroy, 11 December 2011 - 02:47 PM.

[satyaban]

Come on people it's a myth not an actual event. Gee I wonder what hand Abraham held the knife in, silly people.