I like to be thorough. Most of my stuff I write fresh, like this, but I do point people to postings I've already made. I agreed with you except for where you said your conclusions disagree with mine. I asked what you meant and you didn't answer. Since you stepped in to "correct" my statement to another, and you decline to elaborate further, I continue to commend my respect to Belisarius and to leave it there.
It's not rocket science, dude. You said, "Jesus was jewish" without any acknowledgement in that post of how vastly different the modern people claiming that label are from 1st century Judeans. People who don't know their history are going to see that and think it means Christ is the same as Christ-deniers like Netanyahu.
Um, the Jewish people since Judah have had the right to determine who is ethnically Jewish, just like white people who is white. The idea that some external council has sat and stripped the Jewish people rightly of their claims to being Jewish and awarded them to someone else assumes facts not in evidence. It's obvious that when we refer to something continuous we're referring to the phase of it from the local context and not some other phase and no disclaimer should be needed. If our race doesn't want to be othered, we don't get to do it to a separate race. What gives us the right to say we know, and Netanyahu doesn't, that he couldn't possibly descend from Judah or Jacob in any line, or in fact that he denies Jesus whom he speaks highly of?
By that logic, no one can deny the claims of the black Hebrew Israelites to be jewish. Or the claim that Christians held for millennia that the Church is the true continuation of Israel. But then a bunch of ashkenazi claimed the name in the late 40s and suddenly supersessionism is a naughty word?
or in fact that he denies Jesus whom he speaks highly of
Post the video of Netanyahu acknowledging the Son of God, then.
And here comes the wall of sophistry. Do you keep txt files full of pre-written heathen apologetics ready on your desktop or something?
I like to be thorough. Most of my stuff I write fresh, like this, but I do point people to postings I've already made. I agreed with you except for where you said your conclusions disagree with mine. I asked what you meant and you didn't answer. Since you stepped in to "correct" my statement to another, and you decline to elaborate further, I continue to commend my respect to Belisarius and to leave it there.
It's not rocket science, dude. You said, "Jesus was jewish" without any acknowledgement in that post of how vastly different the modern people claiming that label are from 1st century Judeans. People who don't know their history are going to see that and think it means Christ is the same as Christ-deniers like Netanyahu.
Um, the Jewish people since Judah have had the right to determine who is ethnically Jewish, just like white people who is white. The idea that some external council has sat and stripped the Jewish people rightly of their claims to being Jewish and awarded them to someone else assumes facts not in evidence. It's obvious that when we refer to something continuous we're referring to the phase of it from the local context and not some other phase and no disclaimer should be needed. If our race doesn't want to be othered, we don't get to do it to a separate race. What gives us the right to say we know, and Netanyahu doesn't, that he couldn't possibly descend from Judah or Jacob in any line, or in fact that he denies Jesus whom he speaks highly of?
By that logic, no one can deny the claims of the black Hebrew Israelites to be jewish. Or the claim that Christians held for millennia that the Church is the true continuation of Israel. But then a bunch of ashkenazi claimed the name in the late 40s and suddenly supersessionism is a naughty word?
Post the video of Netanyahu acknowledging the Son of God, then.