"the camps were not public knowledge during the war"
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (91)
sorted by:
It's turned out that there are more errors made that I can correct on Jewish questions than on most other questions here; I just found another. I'd thought I would be here to correct errors about the Federal Reserve and personal income tax, the natural-born citizen clause and the satanist socialists, but for some reason that one topic comes up through the ranks much more than any other. Oh wait, in 2021 there was significant pushback against the creedal view of hellfire, and after researching it and making a moderate community statement the problem vanished, so that was the last time there was another topic that had such united vehemence.
I'll be happy to look into the idea that I do keep gates here by referring people to easily demonstrated debunks on topics I'm familiar with and that I've self-selected. We are all biased toward things we think should be easy for others as opposed to things where we don't have as much experience. But c'mon, you say something flat wrong and I have an immediately relevant link handy, I'm going to chime it in.
You are free to give any source you want, including "Molyneaux", but none of them give a list of 109 modern or ancient nations. I won't quibble details: If you want to call them expulsions, reasonable historical statement that they're expulsions will do. If you want to cover your bases and call them exoduses, you get more leeway on admissible statements. But when you say "109 nations" you're in error because the source for that claim listed 81 exoduses from 12 nations and a handful of regions, as I linked above.
If you think it's some victory to amend your statement to "The Jews were expelled from the nations of Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, and Ukraine", because you think it proves something special, Christians are persecuted in dozens of nations today, and Roma are persecuted in quite a few and have been expelled from many. In fact Trump's policy is in essence to expel 109 nations from one. So there's nothing special in Jewish expulsion. The proponents rarely connect the dots anyway, they are trying to get others to do the dirty work of getting the "109" meme out there so the proponents get plausible deniability. I wonder who would have an interest in getting easily debunked lies against the Jews out there so that the debunking makes the Jews look good by comparison.
Yes, according to the Bible the Jewish people get the best of blessings and the worst of cursings in the same people. It would be expected that they both rise to positions of power and fall spectacularly from power, that they both regard themselves as (metaphorical) aliens and regard themselves as internationalists. Those parts are not problematic. What's problematic is to make false statements as if they bolster rather than hinder the case against individual Jews.
You're really stuck on that number, 109. How about "over 100 nations", or make that number even lower "over 50 nations", does it make you feel better? also note others like Greek News on Demand put that number much higher "The often quoted 109 Jewish expulsions in fact exceed 1030 times…." - article published November 29, 2023
Says who? again it's you, the gatekeeper. There are many famous people who provided reasons for their expulsion. And some of these reasons are horrific. No need to detail here. Easy to search online.
What Jewish people in the Bible? The word "jew" is not mentioned once in the Bibles I've read. Again your facts may not be so factual, or they may have modified the more modern Bibles. And introduced the word jew replacing some other word(s). That's possible, they have done this in the past. Did you watch the video I shared with you in my previous message, with Dr Rav Michael Laitman, the Jewish Rabbi? are the jews getting these best of blessings from the Commander-In-Chief (chief of staff)? the Rabbi says "The commando unit [jews] was sent by him. He gave them strength, gave them the connections, everything. But they [the jews] have no choice, he broke them. What does that mean... In order to put them in the hostile land he had to give them the same form as the hostile land". Is this what you're referring to blessings? and perhaps "the worst of cursings" explains this adaptation to a hostile land.
It's not me who's stuck on the numbers 109 and 1030. If you had pursued my links or noticed my reference to the anon using the name "Molyneaux", you'd realize the original samizdat 1030 is also a suspect list and does not contain any demarcation of 109 nations. If you said "over 50" you'd still be hard-pressed to make up that number with a true list even with all the sources at hand; you'd end up double-counting regions that had different national structures at different times and would fall into a big methodology problem. So there's no list of 109, and not even of 50 nations, I said the most authoritative list gives 81 exoduses from parts of 22 nations, and listed them. But you're apparently not interested in saying 12 and parts of 10 others. So my deflation of sails is actually working.
Obviously there are many reasons stated for expulsions, and there are some horrific charges, and there are also evidences of confessions under duress, and it's pretty gruesome all around. I should have included the witch hunters, who were widely recognized as overzealous, but nobody sympathizes with the witches. To get to the bottom of an expulsions issue cannot be done by listening only to one source out of all historical context.
I see you also want to pivot to the word "Jew". Yeah, it's in all kinds of Bibles, in KJV 1611 it was "Iewe", translating Yehudi and Ioudaios. Here are 18 such Bibles (note I searched RVR60 where "Jew" is not, because RVR60 is in Spanish; that's what allows the site to show the English list). So you'd have the burden of proof of producing "Bibles" (plural) that don't use the word "Jew". I have no doubt that somebody deliberately produced one.
We just discussed the etymology here; it was first used in France ca. 900 with the spelling "Ju", at which point it was a simple elision (syllabic shortening) of the Latin "Judaeus" with the same meaning. (Yes, the "I" and "J" had not yet been distinguished, which is irrelevant to the identity of the two words.) If people wanted to translate it all as Judahites, that would be unambiguous. But the reason people believe "Jew" is a different word rather than an elision is that they have some theory about Edom or Khazaria that is unlike any other historical fact about migrations of nations, and they think that "Jew" must mean something not only different from "Judahite" but also with no racial or cultural heritage in common with "Judahite", which is patently false. So your insinuation that it's about "modern Bibles" (but I quoted KJV 1611) or that it's "replacing some other" (but the word goes back to a time when there was one and the same people called both Judaeus and Ju in the same country in different languages) fails any traction.
No, I didn't watch your link, I don't usually watch links, and your quote shows I had no need to. He seems to be talking about a Jewish subtheory about preexistence of souls, and it's not actually much different from Origenism in Christianity, which is a historic subtheory that still asserts itself sometimes. When put in cultural place instead of out of context, it makes fine sense.
What I'm referring to is clearly spelled out in detail in Deut. 28 passim, blessings for the obedient of the people, cursings for the disobedient of the people, all applying over time to the same people.
TLDR: I don't seek them, they come to me. The 109, the 1030, the blood Passover, the word "Jew", the knocking modern Bibles (manipulated by Westcott, Hort, Tischendorf, and Scofield), the preexistence, they are all charges about how bad Jews are. I want to know the truth so I ask proponents what they mean, and they tell me, and I find a spiderweb of toilet tissue. I must conclude that the people most likely to be spreading lies against the Jews that are so easily debunked are in fact the Jews, believing "all press is good press". As soon as we get our facts straight and stop telling Jewish fables, they get starved of attention and the problem goes away. But those who participate in spreading lies after they've been warned are betraying both Jews and Gentiles. If there were any truth, I'd affirm it along with the rest; for instance, the lists of Jewish CEOs are usually more factual than not. But on this forum there's no need to distract conspiracists with false conspiracies to prevent research into the actual satanic conspiracies from going forward.
Obviously, we’re talking about two different things, the word itself “jew” and then the concept of jew. I was only talking about the word, the concept is older. As Rabbi Michael Laitman described and you will understand better if you watch the video. And no, he wasn’t talking about any “jewish subtheory”, whatever that means.
The first time the word jew was used was in 18th century, when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals". Not even a gatekeeper can argue with that. Moreover, the letter J was only invented in the 15th century. However, it was not differentiated from the letter I until the 17th century.
That is what they tried so hard to hide and confuse people. “It’s like we go into a country as an undercover team. And each one of us is exactly like the people of the land, we take the same shape and form, their names, their characteristics, traits, approach, interests, everything. The same exact form in and out. As we were there, you know, like an undercover agent” - Rabbi Michael Laitman Judahite ("Yhuwdiy") is of the bloodline of Judah, an Israelite. A Judean is something else, one who is a resident of Judea regardless of religion, race, or nationality. The same you would say today about anyone living in USA, they are Americans.
Again I don’t subscribe to theories and sub-theories, like you do. Having said that, historian Flavius Josephus describes how the Idumeans (Edomites) became known as “Judeans” through a forced conversion imposed by John Hyrcanus, the ruler of Judea approx 130 BCE. Herod, described by Wikipedia as the King of the Jews, however most historians refer to Herod as the Roman-appointed king of Judaea, was an Edomite.
Khazaria, now that you mention this, did you know that each and every Prime Minister of the state of Israel comes either directly from Eastern Europe or is removed by one generation therefrom?
Come on, admit you’re either a jew, a crypto-jew or a christian-zionist. All the same to me, I don’t care what you are, but you’re not fooling me. Otherwise how can we talk about the “actual satanic conspiracies” going forward?
Rabbi Laitman is talking about one interpretation of preexistence in Judaism (a subtheory) that is not dogmatically held as a tenet of Judaism but is in tension with other views. Nor is his concept of Judaism related to any different concept than arising from Judah's family.
Now, I do admit to gatekeeping for language generically, as I will challenge any false etymology of any word and I've seen many (granted, I formerly challenged Will on a lot of his and now I decline to press it because he doesn't intend them as etymologies but as puns; but if someone is misinformed and appears willing to be told so, I say it). Here is proof that the word "Jew" in its earliest English spellings that predated standardization (e.g. "Ieu", "Iewe", and many others) is from the 1200s ("First Known Use"). Here is the French version "jue" ca. 1000; last time I searched I got "Ju" for the same. And it's a simple elision from Latin as so often observed. Dictionaries flatly disagree with you putting Sheridan as the first use of the word, and even if you were quibbling about spellings (when experts don't) even the spelling "Jew(s)" is much older. I already told you that it was irrelevant that the standardization of I vs. J had not yet been engaged because people knew the word regardless of whether the first letter had a tail or not. So you're echoing talking points that have been debunked before they were ever raised. Plus, they don't help carry the major premise anyway because even if all that were true there is no evidence for a meaning other than Judahite.
I wasn't going to make the distinction between Judahite and Judean, because all Judeans (such as Levites) are counted as Judahite by adoption. In the first century there simply wasn't a difference where people used different words for "descended from Judah" and "naturalized into the national entity led by descendants of Judah". One was counted as good as the other. Your idea that the rabbi is saying to adopt the culture of a host country doesn't seem to relate to this at all.
Yes, many (not all) Idumeans became Judeans alongside all the other Judeans in the 2nd century BC. Their children were regarded as Ioudaios like any others because they had been naturalized, circumcised, and converted to the culture and religion and did not retain an Idumean identity. Herod has some Idumean and some Judean in his heritage, but all regarded him as Ioudaios, the argument was just over whether he had pure enough blood to be trusted with representing the government. He didn't say "This country is Idumea now" because Idumea was a separate region that he also ruled, populated by Idumeans with Idumean culture. So the fact of the intermarriages does nothing to change the historic flow of the peoples of Judea or of Idumea. If it did, then people would be right to say this is no longer America but literally Arabia because of a little immigration and intermarriage; of course we're still America. Nobody truly judges people that way, nor wants their own people judged that way. (Same applies to Khazaria.)
I've said, I've stopped denying what people want to accuse me of being, because they don't listen and it's better for me to suffer with all those people you name (Jews, crypto-Jews, and Zionists). I believe in what the Bible calls "Zion", but "Zionism" as proposed is so rarely defined that there's no meaning there for me to affirm or deny. I like Israel when it does well and dislike and criticize it when it does ill; I don't think that's Zionism. Plus, since you hardly understand the word "Jew" itself and you decline to put forward a credible theory that it means something other than "Judahite" here, my denial wouldn't help. Instead I just affirm Jesus is Lord.
Now, for the sake of argument, even if someone were a Messianic Jew (which you call "crypto"), and affirmed every creed and practice you wanted, would that somehow invalidate his logic or ability to be a Christian brother? Is there something that damns Jewish descendants before they commit any sin? I've worked with Messianic Jews and learned the Hebrew culture informing the Bible, and have called myself a Messianic Gentile so they understand where I am, but it doesn't matter what suffices for you if you don't deal with the logic I present itself. The only way to proceed forward with fighting a satanic enemy is to have sufficient common trust insofar as two anons are able to share. Your preclusive judgment about me suggests that there's nothing I could say that would gain your trust, even though I seek to answer everything sincerely and my conscience is clear about my being forthcoming. So I counsel you to look into whether you've made prejudicial statements about the history that are not backed by fact and to consider that there may be more to it than the simplistic view, and that may be enough for you to accept my testimony that Jesus is my Lord. But if you doubt the testimony because of some deeper view you have about locked-in racial destiny, that seems not Christian at all.
Sometimes I keep pestering people to present their evidence for some alternate history, but it appears to me you have none and are just guessing from memory, so I abstain.
Says the owner of c/Yahweh