Christian Zionism

[Theo102]

You are imagining things, but the historical records show that I am right and you are not.

Diaspora Diaspora, (Greek: Dispersion)Hebrew Galut (Exile), the dispersion of Jews among the Gentiles after the Babylonian Exile; or the aggregate of Jews or Jewish communities scattered “in exile” outside Palestine or present-day Israel. Although the term refers to the physical dispersal of Jews throughout the world, it also carries religious, philosophical, political, and eschatological connotations, inasmuch as the Jews perceive a special relationship between the land of Israel and themselves. Interpretations of this relationship range from the messianic hope of traditional Judaism for the eventual “ingathering of the exiles” to the view of Reform Judaism that the dispersal of the Jews was providentially arranged by God to foster pure monotheism throughout the world. The first significant Jewish Diaspora was the result of the Babylonian Exile (q.v.) of 586 BC. After the Babylonians conquered the Kingdom of Judah, part of the Jewish population was deported into slavery. Although Cyrus the Great, the Persian conqueror of Babylonia, permitted the Jews to return to their homeland in 538 BC, part of the Jewish community voluntarily remained behind. The largest, most significant, and culturally most creative Jewish Diaspora in early Jewish history flourished in Alexandria, where, in the 1st century BC, 40 percent of the population was Jewish. Around the 1st century AD, an estimated 5,000,000 Jews lived outside Palestine, about four-fifths of them within the Roman Empire, but they looked to Palestine as the centre of their religious and cultural life. Diaspora Jews thus far outnumbered the Jews in Palestine even before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thereafter, the chief centres of Judaism shifted from country to country (e.g., Babylonia, Persia, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Russia, and the United States), and Jewish communities gradually adopted distinctive languages, rituals, and cultures, some submerging themselves in non-Jewish environments more completely than others. While some lived in peace, others became victims of violent anti-Semitism.

Your proof text doesn't support your argument because it makes no mention of Edomite Jews or Ashkenazi Jews.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Your proof text doesn't support your argument because it makes no mention of Edomite Jews or Ashkenazi Jews.

grasping at straws trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work trying to find a reason to feel hopeful in a bad situation

P.S.: I assume that by "Edomite" Jews you are referring to Sephardic Jews

 

[Theo102]

grasping at straws trying to find some way to succeed when nothing you choose is likely to work trying to find a reason to feel hopeful in a bad situation

P.S.: I assume that by "Edomite" Jews you are referring to Sephardic Jews

Yes, you are grasping at straws if you think that drawing a false equivalence between Edomite Jews and Sephardic Jews gives you a substantive argument.

The history of the Edomites and the genealogy of Ashkenaz as a non-semite are two reasons to think that some Jews don't have any right to the promised land.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yes, you are grasping at straws if you think that drawing a false equivalence between Edomite Jews and Sephardic Jews gives you a substantive argument.

So, you are calling Edomites "Jews" and claiming that they are not the same as the Sephardic Jews?
The two major groups of Jews in the Diaspora are the Ashkenazi that settled in Northern Europe and the Sephardic that settled in Southern Europe and had to flee across the Mediterranean to the south and east when they were kicked out of Spain in 1492.
The Sephardic ended up in the Middle East (including the land of Edom) and in Northern Africa and intermarried with the people in those areas, which explains why most of them are of dark complection.
The Ashkenazi remained in Northern Europe and intermarried with the people there, which explains why most of them are of light complection.

I had never heard of Edomite Jews before.

the genealogy of Ashkenaz as a non-semite are two reasons to think that some Jews don't have any right to the paromised land.

The genealogy of the Ashkenazi Jews has been proven to be valid through genetic markers passed down from father to son.

The history of the Ashkenazi Jews show that they are true Jews, as does their adherence to following the Law of Moses as directed by their Rabbis.

The history of the Saxons, on the other hand, show that the Saxons trace their ancestry through Japheth, and not Shem, therefore the Saxons are not even Semites and "British Israel" is just a myth invented to try to steal the promises from God's chosen people.

 

[7djengo7]

Theo, you are simply wrong on just about everything you've posted here. You're not going to be convinced by anything or anybody of that, so let's not waste each other's time on this.

Have a nice day.

The more and more I asked about Theo's claim about the word, 'British', the more and more Theo got silent toward the questions I was asking him. He ended up by telling me that he had never claimed that the word 'British' is derived from a combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh', even though he had written:

The Hebrew word for covenant is bryt, and circumcision is only applied to males, whe [sic] in Hebrew are called eysh. Put these two words together and you get bryt-eysh, or British.

"put these two words together": To me, that sounds an awful lot like a combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh'. Am I mistaken?
"you get …. British": Does not "you get...British" sound like saying that the word, 'British', is derived from …….?

And yet, Theo had the gall to say:

​

You said that "you're motivated to have the word, 'British', be derivative of a combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh'", which is false.​

Then you said that I claimed that the derivation existed, which is also false. Derivations and associations are different things.​

Of course, Theo never got back to me to try to explain how his claim that by "putting together" 'bryt' and 'eysh' "you get....British" is NOT a claim of a derivation of 'British' from a combining of 'bryt' and 'eysh'.

He knows, as well as you and I, that he's got nothing.​

 

[Theo102]

So, you are calling Edomites "Jews" and claiming that they are not the same as the Sephardic Jews?

I'm calling them Jews because they converted to Judaism under John Hyrcanus, If you think they are the same as Sephardic Jews it's up to you to shown proof of that.

The two major groups of Jews in the Diaspora are the Ashkenazi that settled in Northern Europe and the Sephardic that settled in Southern Europe and had to flee across the Mediterranean to the south and east when they were kicked out of Spain in 1492.

AFAIK the genealogy of the Ashkenazi is European on the female side and questionable (Khazars or Israelites) or on the male side.

https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/genetic-roots-of-the-ashkenazi-jews-38580

The Sephardic ended up in the Middle East (including the land of Edom) and in Northern Africa and intermarried with the people in those areas, which explains why most of them are of dark complection.

During the Hasmonean wars the Edomites were at war with the Jews, it's unlikely that the two groups would intermarry.

The genealogy of the Ashkenazi Jews has been proven to be valid through genetic markers passed down from father to son.

What's your source for that?

The history of the Ashkenazi Jews show that they are true Jews, as does their adherence to following the Law of Moses as directed by their Rabbis.

The issue here is ancestry, not religion.

The history of the Saxons, on the other hand, show that the Saxons trace their ancestry through Japheth, and not Shem, therefore the Saxons are not even Semites and "British Israel" is just a myth invented to try to steal the promises from God's chosen people.

"I confess that but for the universal tradition which assigns our [the British] descent to Japhet, I should have been rather inclined to attribute to the British Celts a Semitic origin, both on account of the relics of worship which we find in Britain, and also on account of the language..." (Our British Ancestors, p. 18).

"So the Anglo-Saxons may well have had records of the ancestry of their kings, beginning with Sceaf...and calling Sceaf the son of Noe, born in the ark, or even identifying him with the patriarch Shem" (Haigh, The Conquest of Britain by the Saxons, Chapter III, p. 115).

https://www.hope-of-israel.org/saxonorigins.html

 

[Theo102]

The more and more I asked about Theo's claim about the word, 'British', the more and more Theo got silent toward the questions I was asking him.

No, I ignored your questions because started with irrelevancies like things that I imagine to be true.

 

[7djengo7]

No, I ignored your questions because started with irrelevancies like things that I imagine to be true.

Find whatever sorry excuse you must to try to save face for the fact that you failed to defend your stupidity; what's it to me? It's all there in this thread. If you feel satisfied with your failure to defend your idiotic claims, then, by all means, celebrate. Have fun.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm calling them Jews because they converted to Judaism under John Hyrcanus, If you think they are the same as Sephardic Jews it's up to you to shown proof of that.

I will just consider that your "Edomite Jews" are just a straw-man argument used to sow confusion until you prove otherwise.

IAFAIK the genealogy of the Ashkenazi is European on the female side and questionable (Khazars or Israelites) or on the male side.

I do not claim that there was no intermarriage going on, but i do claim that the histories of the Ashkenazi Jews goes all the way back to the time the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem by the Romans.
The Rabbinical traditions of the Ashkenazi Jews come from the Pharisees that lived in Judaea and their counterparts that lived primarialy in Babylonia in the first centuries.

The issue here is ancestry, not religion.

Despite intermarriage, the histories kept by the Ashkenazi Jewish communities show that their ancestry is unbroken and they are descended from the Jews that lived in Judaea and in Babylonia.

The reason the Jews have been persecuted throughout the Diaspora is to destroy them to prevent God from fulfilling His promises to them so God would be made a liar.

Your attempt to claim an unrelated group of people are the true children of Israel is just another attempt to make God a liar.

What we see in the land of Israel is God gathering the children of Israel from every nation that they were scattered into in fulfillment of prophecy.

 

[Theo102]

Find whatever sorry excuse you must to try to save face for the fact that you failed to defend your stupidity; what's it to me?

It's not stupid of me to minimize the amount of time I spend on a lying troll such as yourself.

 

[Theo102]

I will just consider that your "Edomite Jews" are just a straw-man argument used to sow confusion until you prove otherwise.

It's not a straw man. Edomites are not descendants of Jacob, and only descendants of Jacob have the right of possession of the land of Canaan (Palestine).

I do not claim that there was no intermarriage going on, but i do claim that the histories of the Ashkenazi Jews goes all the way back to the time the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem by the Romans.

You've got no sources that support your ancestry claim.

Despite intermarriage, the histories kept by the Ashkenazi Jewish communities show that their ancestry is unbroken and they are descended from the Jews that lived in Judaea and in Babylonia.

Again, you've got no sources that support your ancestry claim. Also the genetic study I referenced doesn't support that well.

The reason the Jews have been persecuted throughout the Diaspora is to destroy them to prevent God from fulfilling His promises to them so God would be made a liar.

"God" is ambiguous in this context.

Your attempt to claim an unrelated group of people are the true children of Israel is just another attempt to make God a liar.

You have nothing to rebut the evidence I've posted that the Saxons are related.

What we see in the land of Israel is God gathering the children of Israel from every nation that they were scattered into in fulfillment of prophecy.

You're conflating the land of Israel with the Zionist state, and the children of Israel with citizens of that state, many of which are most likely have no claim to the land of Palestine.

 

[7djengo7]

It's not stupid of me to minimize the amount of time I spend on a lying troll such as yourself.

LOL

However you need to try to rationalize your failure to deal with the questions I asked you about your stupidity......

Ohhhhh, suuuuure, it's not that you can't deal with the questions, it's just that you feel you have more beneficial ways to be spending your time, and so you merely opt to not deal with them. Right. Hey, if you can sell that to yourself, I suppose you're even more stupid than you are.

In any case, you can't deal with the questions. You can't defend your unmitigated stupidity of claiming that you "get" 'British' by "putting together" 'bryt' and 'eysh'; you demonstrate this fact of your failure, with each further post you write in reaction to me, so thanks!

 

[Theo102]

LOL

However you need ...

You don't have the first clue about what I need to do.

 

[7djengo7]

You don't have the first clue about what I need to do.

Still begging for attention from me, I see. Obviously you need to keep reacting to my posts. :cigar:

LOL @ your continual advertisement that you can't defend your idiotic claim that you "get" 'British' by "putting together" 'bryt' and 'eysh'.

 

[Theo102]

Still begging for attention from me, I see.

No, I just wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that you've got a point to make.

 

[7djengo7]

No, I just wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that you've got a point to make.

And you're still begging for attention from me. Hehehe.

Again,

LOL @ your continual advertisement that you can't defend your idiotic claim that you "get" 'British' by "putting together" 'bryt' and 'eysh'.​

 

[Theo102]

And you're still begging for attention from me. Hehehe.

And you're still a lying troll.

 

[7djengo7]

And you're still a lying troll.

LOL

 

[Theo102]

"And you're still a lying troll."

LOL

Same old same old.

And you're still begging for attention from me. Hehehe.

Showing that you're wrong isn't the same thing as begging for attention, fool.

Remember how you were attacking someone for saying that Jesus was not YHWH, and Isaiah 53 proved you wrong?

 

[7djengo7]

LOL

Theo102, why you gotta keep beggin' me for attention?