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.
Jews as a whole get to decide who they are and they have methods, and the Ashkenazi have been Jews for many centuries just like the rest. Americans as a whole get to decide who we are and we reject outside claimants too (after a fashion anyway). The fact that the Church is the true spiritual continuation of Israel, which is the true spiritual continuation of the faith of Adam, Noah, and Abraham, is irrelevant to identifying races. I've asked, and received no credible theory that the Ashkenazi today are not among the descendants of the Jewish people.
First video that came up was to Jordan Peterson: "well you you know you're
7:23
familiar with the story of Jesus right
7:25
Jesus was a Jewish rabbi living 2,000
7:29
years ago he was a rabbi from the
7:31
Galilee okay he came to Jerusalem he
7:33
turned the money tables of the uh the
7:35
the the tables of the money changers on
7:37
the Temple Mount where did that happen
7:39
did it happen in Tibet it happened here
7:41
Jerusalem was our capital"
I didn't say he acknowledged Jesus as Son of God, I said he speaks highly of him. Also briefly about Jesus's language mastery to the Pope.
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.
Jews as a whole get to decide who they are and they have methods, and the Ashkenazi have been Jews for many centuries just like the rest. Americans as a whole get to decide who we are and we reject outside claimants too (after a fashion anyway). The fact that the Church is the true spiritual continuation of Israel, which is the true spiritual continuation of the faith of Adam, Noah, and Abraham, is irrelevant to identifying races. I've asked, and received no credible theory that the Ashkenazi today are not among the descendants of the Jewish people.
First video that came up was to Jordan Peterson: "well you you know you're 7:23 familiar with the story of Jesus right 7:25 Jesus was a Jewish rabbi living 2,000 7:29 years ago he was a rabbi from the 7:31 Galilee okay he came to Jerusalem he 7:33 turned the money tables of the uh the 7:35 the the tables of the money changers on 7:37 the Temple Mount where did that happen 7:39 did it happen in Tibet it happened here 7:41 Jerusalem was our capital"
I didn't say he acknowledged Jesus as Son of God, I said he speaks highly of him. Also briefly about Jesus's language mastery to the Pope.