"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 (114)
sorted by:
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.
How do you know the way forward? and how do you know who the satanic enemy really is? have you ever thought you are mistaken. Perhaps you could be taken for a ride. Think about that.
You just copy and paste from your database based on keywords in someone's comments. Why? our history has been either erased, or re-written. I'm absolutely, 100% sure of that. But, I'm not here to reveal to you an "alternative version" of history. I'm here to tell you it doesn't matter. If you understand what I mean good, otherwise again it doesn't make any difference.
Welcome back. Yes, I've considered that everything I know might be mistaken, and I concluded that the One Thing in which I cannot be mistaken is the One Thing that has power to keep me from being mistaken. That is, I'm fallible in everything, but I've committed myself to there being One who is infallible enough to keep me on the path. If I'm mistaken about that One it's too bad because I'm committed to him keeping me, and I've also concluded that pursuing him is better even if I'm wrong. But everything I know about that One is subject to improvement.
That One is Truth, so the enemy is any adversary of Truth (satan meaning adversary). That One is the Way, so I know the Way because the Way keeps me.
Yes, like everyone, I select from my mental database that which seems to fit what others say. My data are always improvable, and I want to know where, so I submit them for others' judgment, I have no need to hide them. If someone has an alternate view I compare it to data I've accumulated because the Truth will rise from the conflict and the lies will be defeated.
If history has been erased or rewritten, we can't trust the likes of Josephus or Sheridan or Laitman or Wikipedia, we can't know when the J was invented. If we agree on standards for detecting and defeating althist, we can know these things substantially enough to proceed. You are in a position where you like being absolutely 100% sure of things but you also cast doubt on the knowability of other things; where you posit your history but also cast doubt on another's history. If you understand how to break the double standard and be open-minded, good.
If "it doesn't matter", then it also doesn't matter if I get it wrong, or if I understand you. But you act like it does matter, which means it matters to learn the rules of Truth and apply them to getting history right. There are only two ways to understand "it doesn't matter", one being that nothing matters, and one being that at least One Thing matters, and you always have the choice between those two.
This is similar to a computer coding error or technique called “recursion”. A recursive function is a function that calls itself during its execution. If handled properly it could be a technique that allows solving complex problems, and on the other hand it could lead to an infinite loop.
This is what jews believe, so based on what and how you write, I suspect you are one. The word “satan” is the English transliteration of a Hebrew word for “adversary, one who plots against another”. In Judaism, it is understood that, as an adversary, satan acts as something of a divine prosecutor for God. However, in the New Testament satan is the prince of evil spirits, the enemy of God and of Christ, who takes the guise of an angel of light. So, in Christianity, Satan is a central figure, representing the embodiment of evil and opposition to God.
In Islam, satan is identified as the entity (a serpent in the Genesis account) that tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden and was thus the catalyst for the fall of humankind.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t trust anyone regardless. I question everything, especially the Wikipedia. But using critical thinking, and using other techniques like reasoning from first principles, I am able to navigate through the web of their lies. And eventually I manage to connect the dots.
BTW they don’t always lie to hide the truth, many times they do that by omitting things, for instance leaving out important information like The Book of Enoch, The Book of Jasher, The Book of Jubilees to name a couple, from the Bible. Even thou these so-called books were referred to by the writers of both OT and NT. That means these writers were aware of these writings and considered them important. Why were they left out? I believe because it contains information on the fallen angels, the gates of hell and Mount Hermon.
Correct.
Based on the information found in these three books left out of the Bible, the ones I mentioned above, I’ll say again it doesn’t matter “to learn the rules of Truth and apply them to getting history right “. It’s not important for our fight. It's just another distraction.
Not at all, it's joots. Since I can't be perfect, it's not on me to be perfect, so I've gone all in on someone else being perfect. That doesn't stop the possibility of me being wrong, but nothing does.
I'm accused of being a lot of things, but what I am is a Messianic Gentile, a covenantal Christian who learned the Hebrew roots of the faith. Christians use Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek when they're more accurate than English; the satan is the (lead) adversary of God. You act like OT and NT are opposed to each other, but that's not a Christian teaching.
Excellent! Two users of critical thinking and reason should come to the same conclusions on any point sooner or later. The primary reason folks today don't know that Enoch and Jasher were primary sources for Bible writers (with Jubilees a bit more of a parallel source) is that we promote the protocanon so much that people cease to ask questions about anything else. Over time the covenant people had many books (we still do) and only the books of the protocanon bubbled up to be recognized as having a level of inspiration that the "apocrypha" never got recognized as having, and that's primarily due to qualitative differences it the books that can be demonstrated. But that means people lost the apocryphal background that had informed people earlier in the covenants. We might also argue that beyond attrition there was suppression of spiritual warfare tactics shown therein, but in time we're recovering those too.
Not sure why that follows. The rules of Truth are primarily about critical thinking and reason. I'd expect an Enoch reader to be more demanding of absolute Truth, such as in history. But if you want to trust Enoch above its usual level today (and we know Peter and Jude deferred to him), be my guest. I'm not sure why that changes much. The enemy is still the satans and watchers and their minions, the spirits by their nature, and the humans sometimes by genetics but always by voluntary relationship.
So yes it's got Babylonian roots in part, but if you act like a race of humans is automatically guilty from birth, or like a meme about 109 nations is as good as Enoch, I might ask you to apply critical thinking and reason.