"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:
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.