What Newt and Golda have in common
Why Newt Gingrich Is Right on Palestine
Benyamin Korn
What do Golda Meir, lifelong socialist and prime minister of Israel, and Newt Gingrich, lifelong conservative and current presidential candidate, have in common? The courage to tell the truth about ”Palestine.”
Gingrich stirred up a hornet’s nest last week when he remarked that “The Palestinians are an invented people.” Golda made the same point when she told the London Sunday Times on June 15, 1969 that “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people.”
What could have possessed the Prime Minister of Israel and the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives to say such a thing?
Simple: an appreciation of history. Gingrich has a Ph.D. in the subject. Golda lived it.
Golda left her home in Milwaukee in 1921 and moved to a country that had been known since biblical times as the Land of Israel. The Roman occupation forces, in 135 CE, had begun calling it “Palaestina” in the hope of snuffing out its Jewish connection. But that was never more than the equivalent of a nickname. Nobody ever created a state called “Palestine.” Even the Muslims, who conquered the region 500 years later, never considered it “Palestine.” They called it southern Syria.
The idea that there was a native “Palestinian” people in the land when Golda and other Jewish pioneers arrived in the early 1900s was laughable. The country wasn’t empty, but to say that the local Arab population was sparse is putting it mildly. Mark Twain and other visitors in the late 1800s described traveling for miles and miles through the center of the country without seeing a single person. In 1850, the area’s largest city, Jerusalem, had a population of 25,000, the majority of whom were Jews. The Arabs who lived in Palestine did not speak “Palestinian”; they spoke Arabic. Their religion, culture, and history were not “Palestinian”; they were identical to that of the surrounding Arab countries–because that’s where many of them came from.
Perhaps Newt has been reading Golda’s autobiography. “The Arab population of Palestine had doubled since the start of Jewish settlements there,” she wrote of the 1920s, when Jewish development was creating a thriving local economy. “[A]ttracted by the new opportunities, hordes of Arabs were emigrating to Palestine from Syria and other neighboring countries all through those years.” (p.149)
An Israeli magazine recently profiled a Jerusalem Arab chef, Sufian Mustafa, who is bent on demonstrating that there is a uniquely “Palestinian” cuisine. But after much blustering about his ”exclusively Palestinian” creations (“real Palestinians would never cook with such a bland ingredient as cream,” he insisted) Mustafa grudgingly acknowledged that “the Palestinian kitchen is definitely a continuation of the Greater Syrian kitchen, and bears a lot of resemblance to Lebanese, Syrian, and Jordanian cuisine.” I wonder why!
In the parlance of the 1920s-1930s-1940s, the term “Palestine” referred to the Jews, not the Arabs. The Jerusalem Post newspaper was named the Palestine Post. The United Jewish Appeal was called the United Palestine Appeal. Arab spokesmen vehemently denied that Palestine deserved to be a separate country. Philip Hitti, historian and spokesman for the Arab cause, testified to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (a U.S.-British commission trying to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict) in 1946: “Sir, there is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.”
After Israel’s establishment (1948), the Arabs and their supporters began casting about for new lines of argument. In the mid-1960s one finds the first appearance of claims by Arab advocates that there was a separate, distinct “Palestinian” people with deep roots in the land. (The UN first used the term in 1970.) How can this claim be established? Simple: by inventing–yes, inventing–a history that predates the arrival of the Jews. According to Palestinian Authority spokesmen and school textbooks, the Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the Canaanites, Jebusites, Hittites and other pre-Israel tribes.
True to form, Palestinian spokesman Nabil Adu Rodeineh was all over the news yesterday, denouncing Newt Gingrich on the grounds that “the Palestinians have been in the country for thousands of years.”
Archaeologists and historians know very well that the tribes of ancient Canaan died out many centuries before Muhammad and the Muslims (precursors of today’s Palestinian Arabs) arrived in the area. There is no connection between the Canaanites and the Arabs. But when was the last time an archaeologist or historian was given time on a national television broadcast to explain that Palestinian nationalism is an invention? The answer is never–until Newt Gingrich, the first presidential candidate since Woodrow Wilson with a Ph.D. in history, came along.
Benyamin Korn is former executive editor of the Miami Jewish Tribune and the Philadelphia JewishExponent.
Well a unique source is that of the Australian/British Armies from World War I. They encountered some arabs, a lot of nomadic bedu, and Jewish villages. They experienced exceptionally good support from the Jewish villages, had a very difficult relationship with the Bedu (feeling that the majority were in the pay of the Turks) and nothing but bad blood, theft and murder from the Arabs (culminating in the Surafend Affair – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surafend_affair) after the murder of a New Zealand Sergeant by an arab after the end of the war.
There is no mention of some separate “Palestine” identity or “Palestinian” people in any of the literature from that period, it is merely seen as an outpost of the Turkish Empire, peopled by Jews, Bedu and Syrian/Levantine (Lebanese) Arabs. It is quite interesting just how prominent the Jewish villages are and how regularly they are mentioned. It is conceivably, based upon this first-hand evidence, possible to argue that if there was a distinctly “Palestinian” character from that period (discounting the Bedu who were given Jordan), then there is an even money chance they were Jewish.
Aside from that, and what our arab brethren would prefer to forget, is that the arabs chose to support the Turkish Empire (to the extent the shiftless sods supported anyone) in the Great War. That is the fundamental underpinning of the Balfour documents, in return for their support of the British, the Bedu received Transjordan and the Jews, for their support, would receive the rest. It is all very well to suggest that is ancient history and of no account, but the world is built on such things. What arabs there were in “Palestine” at that time, were ignored because they had chosen to back the wrong horse in the war to end all wars. As such they were ignored and what proprietary interests they may have held were nullified, as a result of that choice (they were far from the only people to lose more than they could afford in that period as a result of backing the wrong side). To suggest that they remained entitled to anything in the post war British mandate is to ignore the promises made by Balfour during the war and to withhold payment for support received (that this is precisely what happened up until the end of the mandate, does not overturn the original promise or the entitlement flowing therefrom – so let the British work out where to resettle the “Palestinian Arabs” they dispossessed).
But Newt Gingrich is by far the best Presidential Candidate that I can see at the present time. Articulate, educated, a fervent nationalist who is a strong supporter of Israel (it’s a long time since someone ticked all those boxes). He’s also had an extended period in a powerful office, if there were any major skeletons or strange habits (or if his immediate family did), they’d be out already (even longer since those ones were ticked as well), at least by a potential front-runner. His recent statements on Pakistan (a nascent danger to Israel, the only nuclear weapon equipped muslim state and one that is in the process of ostracising itself from the western world and is evidently going to play to the muslim ratbag crowd in the future) are insightful and show an apparent disregard of, independence of and contempt for, the strong pro-muslim, pro-Pakistan lobby. The world could do a LOT worse (leaving the incumbent in power for instance)
I’ll take Newt over Romney any day. Bolton is my choice for Secretary of State as it is Newt’s.
Then put Palin in as the secretary of Energy if there is such a post. Palin would bring a lot of support to Newt from the social conservatives and thus she could write her own ticket. Its a win win all around.
How about Allen West as Secretary of Defense along with the other two?
Newt, Bolton, Palin, Allen West…what a great ticket! Here’s hoping, with Newt in the White House, we see the American Embassy move to Jerusalem, and Pollard at last released to the arms of his wife and the land of his people. We see an America again moving forward at home and holding her head high among the community of nations, unafraid of her own strength.
Even if the invented “Palestinian Arabs” were descendants of the extinct (non-Arabic)Canaanites, which they are not and their claims to the land legitimate, which too is not, what of those Jews displaced from their homes in Arab counties where they had lived since before the days of the Canaanites and their properties and citizenship confiscated? Those Jews that outnumbered the displaced Arabs we hear not a word!
You make a very good point, and we need it to be repeated and broadcast.
Attention Ted Belman,
Newt has made the most eloquent, clear, coherent, unapologetic and intelligent remarks re the palestinians that I have ever heard from a senior American political figure. He has also made statements re his desire to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. For all I care, he’s more pro-Israel than all of Kadima, Labor and Meretz put together!
At this point, and especially given the excessive, obsessive and sometimes irrational support that you have expressed for Sarah Palin in the past, I would expect you, Ted, to immediately throw your full blown support for someone who is vastly superior to Palin in every possible respect (except for looks). Newt’s rhetoric has been vastly more supportive of Israel than Palin’s, vastly more intelligent than Palin’s and more importantly, he has emerged as a true potential leader, whereas Palin never did. Even with Newt’s baggage lurking as a possible liability, I find him quite capable of dealing with it, based on his performance in the Republican debates.
Every time Palin opened her mouth, every comedian, Hollywood patron and political commentator would destroy her. Not with Newt. They may not like him, but they can’t make fun of him like Palin, they can’t dismiss him outright like Palin. In other words, he’s a serious candidate, unlike Palin.
He deserves your full blown support. So does Romney.
You obviously don’t like Palin. Why sound off so much now that she isn’t running?
Dir you know that Newt is a great friend of Norquist who is pro Islamist and Sharpton who is antisemitic. He is also a globalist and supports the New World Order.
Romney is mealy mouth about the Palestinians and the Muslims.
I wasn’t aware of this and find it disturbing. But at least those relations haven’t shaped Newt’s thinking on the Middle East. I just don’t see what choice we have at this point. The preferable candidates Bachmann and Sentorum don’t stand a chance.
I LIKE Palin! I just never thought she had a chance. My comments where directed at you. Given the extent of enthusiasm you have shown for Palin in the past based on her support of Israel, a proportionally greater support for Newt should be expected given his recent statements re the palestinians.
As for Newt’s ties to Norquist or Sharpton, please elaborate. I would like to hear about it.
I don’t know what you are ranting about. Ted said he does support Newt.
Palin was never interested in the Presidency.
Give it a rest.
Newt already backtracked on the 2-state issue yesterday. Wake up, people. Gingrich is as horny a RINO as they come.
Good luck, America.
I disagree.
NoToNewt.com
I see a lot of things on this list I LIKE.
I think Newt is a God-send. He is exactly what we need for this perilous time. He will put the country back on track economically, and have the vertebrae–the courage and chutzpah–as well as the native intelligence–to stand up for the US and support our ally Israel.
Who would you rather have helming your ship in a sea full of sharks?
I haven’t found a perfect candidate yet. There are better ones as I mentioned, but who have no chance of getting the nomination. At this point I think we need to back Newt.
Where did the Muslims come from? What is their origin?
Everyone knows they came from the Freemasons and the Illuminati.
Oh – and the Vatican.
/nyuk
Are you asking this question seriously? Islam originated in Arabia (beginning around the year 610 CE), and quickly spread by armed conquest across North Africa and the Middle East. Muslims constitute a religious/political community, not an ethnic one.
Added to which, Mo wanted to be recognised as a Jewish prophet and gain the support of the Jewish families in Medina. When they refused to accept him as a Jewish prophet, he began his own religion loosely based thereon. He also co-opted the Jewish prophets and the history and added the Christians to it (including JC himself). Violent lunatics who try and get recognised as a prophet of a known religion and set up their own religion when they fail are kind of frowned on in polite society. David Koresh, etc. spring to mind.
aaron:
I see little or nothing in Islam that makes it like Judaism. Islam, started by the Roman Catholic Church which also started Freemasonry, goes back to Baal worship and is not based on the Bible. See this link: Global Babylonian paganism; a short introduction in names & symbols
See what I meant now?
One Landed in the Cuckoo’s Nest.
Waiting for a big copy and paste from Yamit.
Aaron, you are correct. Muhammad co-opted–that is exactly the right word–Biblical history and fractured or distorted it. According to the Qur’an, for example, Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac was not of Isaac (“this is a Jewish lie!” according to Muhammad) but rather–of Ishmael. And he says that it happened not at Mount Moriah, but at Mecca.
The Qur’an says that Adam and Eve were the first Muslims, and that upon their expulsion from the Garden of Eden they made a pilgrimage to Mecca, where Eve’s block-long tomb may be visited at nearby Jidda today; and that Abraham, and Noah, and Moses, and Jesus, were Muslims. The Qur’an also confuses Miriam, sister of Moses (Miriam is “Maryam” in Arabic), with Mary (which is also “Maryam”) the mother of Jesus. According to the Qur’an, these two (who are actually separated in time by some 1000 years or so) are the same person.
There are many more examples. Muhammad claimed (and perhaps believed) that the revelations he received were identical to both the Old and the New Testaments, about which he had only a very vague idea. When this turned out not to be the case, he tried to destroy all those–Christians and especially Jews– who actually knew the difference.
Teshuvah, someone has given you some wildly inaccurate information. Islam was started by an Arab named Muhammad, who was born in Mecca in 570 CE. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church.
Alex: How the Vatican started Islam. The widow of Alberto Rivera and those who knew him claim he was murdered by the Catholics for releasing this information.
The Islam & Catholic Connection 1/11http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvj_Rp-UuKo
Full lecture: 216 – The Islamic Connection. The Roman Catholic Church is excellent at historical revisionism.
Alexis: My comment went to Moderation.
Teshuvah, Sorry if I misunderstood. Can you explain?
Alexis: I put links in my previous comment and it went to Moderation for Ted to clear. In the meantime Google “Vatican started Islam” and also on Youtube. Also google “Alberto Rivera” and “Walter Veith”. I’m trying to point you to a DVD lecture by Prof. Walter Veith that talks about this subject. It is called The Islam Connection. Rivera is an ex-Jesuit priest and his wife and friends claim he was murdered when he tried to release this info.
Ephraim and the half tribe of Manasseh are there in the mountains over against the city of Mecca… They are strong of body and of iron heart. They are horse-men… They are mighty men of war. One is a match for a thousand.” said Eldad the Danite, in the 9th century, of one of the Jewish communities he had seen on his travels.
The interactions between Jews and Arabs were always complex, with politics influencing the participants as much or more than religion. Thus, while there were instances of horrible enmity, it also seems that the Muslim armies of Mohamed were supported by large alied armies of Jews.
The Jews of Yemen also have a story about the aliance of the Jewish community and the armies of Mohamed.
The Yemenite Jewish community has, or had, at least into the nineteen fifties, a document of protection which is purportedly from the time of Mohamed, and was written at his command.
A few years after Islam overran North Africa and the Middle East, in the later seventh century, the Berber Jewish Warriors of North Africa learned of the oppression of the Jews in the Visigoth Christian kingdoms of Spain . In an attempt to rescue them, a Berber Jewish army invaded Spain in aproximately 694 CE. The invasion was unsuccessful. Instead, a Moorish, Muslim army defeated the Visigoths in Spain a few years later (711 – 715 CE). Under Moorish rule, the Jews of Spain were liberated and returned to their rightful position in Spanish society.
Long after the death of Mohamed, after Islam had become a world religion, during the upheavals of the Crusades, Jewish mountain warriors in Arabia continued as valuable allies. Benjamin of Tudela, traveling in the 12th century wrote about the Hashishim (the Arab warriors feared by the Crusaders):
[They] live on high mountains, and worship the Old Man of the land of the Hashishim. And among them there are four communities of Israel who go forth with them in war time. They are not under the rule of the king of Persia, but reside in the high mountains… and none can overcome them.”
Another post disappeared! Like the Texas 2 step. Every comment is suspenseful.
Funny, You don’t look Jewish
The Joke with this punchline is usually set in Asia, China or Japan.
However, the material quoted below is the account of a real event — the first encounter, in 1868, of Joseph Halevy, the emisary from “the Jewish Alliance”, with the Jews of Ethiopia. Actually, the first time, in likely two thousand years, that the Ethiopian Jewish Community encountered a Jew from the outside.
On my arrival they saluted me, and surrounded me, though at a considerable distance…
After hesitating for a few minutes, the Falashas* broke silence: “Gueta” (Sir), said they, “doubtless you require a knife (gara) or sword (shotel): you should buy them in a large town, for the instruments we make are of too rough a workmanship to suit a European.”
“Oh, my brethren,” I replied, “I am not only a European; I am, like you, an Israelite. I come, not to trade in Abyssinia, but to inquire into the state of my co-religionists, in conformity with the desire of a great Jewish Association existing in my country. You must know, my dear brethren, that I also am a Falasha! I worship no other god than the great Adonai, and I acknowledge no other law than the law of Sinai!”
These words, uttered slowly, and in distinct tones, that all might understand them, had a striking effect on the Falasha. Whilst some appeared to be satisfied, others shook their heads doubtfully, and looked at each other as if to inquire how I should be answered.
At last several voices exclaimed,
“What! You a Falasha! A white Falasha! You are laughing at us! Are there any white Falashas?”
LINEAGE OF ARABS (Descendants of Ham) – Archeological Research garnered from tablet fragments: Hittite, Akkadian and Sumerian:
1.3000 BCE descendants of Canaan, grandson of Noah via Ham break out of their proscribed region – southern Turkey – immediately north of the Euphrates River – True “Syria”. Some move southward into the Levant. Most rename themselves As-Syrians. They garner iron from the Hittites and invade and destroy Haran, Assur (neighboring cities ) and attack Nineveh.
2.300-600 years later they have burnt Niniveh to the ground and made Babylon their capitol (Babylon founded by Nimrod I, firstborn of Ham).
3.Later the Akkadian King, Sargon of Niniveh heritage, recaptures northern Mesopotamia and conquers Babylon, making it his capitol as Niniveh was still in ruins.
4.From several recorded Sumerian records from Ubaid, Ur and Uruk tell of the children of Nimrod/children of the Assyrians evacuate Babylon and move into the North-Central grass plains of the Arabian Peninsula. THEY ARE THE FIRST ARABS(ARABIANS).
5.From previous historical records, it is known that the peoples living south of the Euphrates River, down the Euphrates River. East through the Indus region and Persia and the peoples of seacoast of the Arabian Peninsula and Ethiopia are descendants are the first born of Noah (Shem), and they do not intermarry with the descendants of Ham.
6.Midianites, at their root, are Sumerian sheepherders who later combined with offspring of the House of Abraham (a Sumerian), combined with or intermarried to peoples from the Kingdom of Sheba (Yemen) and Ethiopia.
7.MOST IMPORTANT CLUE: Every culture had a signature animal symbol. Throughout Mesopotamia and the regions of the second born of Noah (Japeth) – The Caucasus, Turkey, Black Sea (also East and West), it was the bull. You find artifact Bulls in silver, copper, bronze and other materials. The Hamites created a half-man/half-bull symbol which they called Baal. Time of origination dates to circa 3000 BCE in Lebanon at what is now the place known as Baalbek (megalithic platform structure). As for the Arabs from the grassy central plain of Arabia, over time they migrated and founded Medina. They would have been Baal worshippers. Medina was founded near Mecca which was a thriving trade center for agriculture, minerals, frankensense everything coming up from Yemen.
Mohammed’s wife (Khadija) inherited the camel train cartage business when her husband died, but could not keep it unless she had a husband for legal ownership purposes. She found an idiot teenager who could not read or write, and that was Mohammed. When she died, the other relatives gave Mohammed money and they took over the business. Mohammed travels with them. Near Ebla, Syria (Modern Syria), the rich idiot Mohammed teams up with Syrian mercenaries. The cult of domination – Submit or Die – Slavery of Women, begins there. They call him their prophet and use him. Between Midian and Syria, along the road east of the Dead Sea/Jordan Valley, that’s where Mohammed has epiphany in a cave. Later they settle in Medina/Mecca.
Sources on Mohammed: University of Chicago, Oriental Institute, Oxford in Britain (Syrian, Egyptian, Coptic, Middle Eastern, Yemeni, Ethiopian articles – English Translations)
TO STUDY THE ANCIENT CULT-RELIGION OF BAAL EXPLAINS the divergence of Islam from Judaism and the adoption of dominating, killing, lying cheating and other anti-civilization aspects. Throughout the entire ancient world, the bull which was the machine-tractor of the ancient world was depicted and revered but only worshipped by Hamites (Assyrian, Canaanites, Southern Egyptians) Baal is recorded as the God of War/Violence/Storms/Domination. These are the root aspects that were worshipped in Medina, and when Medina conquered Mecca (which worshipped the God of Israel, as all Shemites/Midianites would), they supplanted those things into the new religion – Islam
.Listen: Israel National Radio interview of artist Marc Rubin at http://www.marcrubin.com/judean-eve.ivnu
Lie-Slayer–long post! Lots of interesting data. Some of it problematic. Point by point:
You wrote: “6.Midianites, at their root, are Sumerian sheepherders who later combined with offspring of the House of Abraham (a Sumerian),…”
While it appears true (per the evidence available so far) that 21st C BCE Ur was ruled by Sumer–that doesn’t necessarily mean that Abraham was a Sumerian. Sumer had conquered a Semitic people, and as Abraham is descended from Shem, he would have been one of them rather than a Sumerian. Although the jury is still out as to what family of languages Sumerian belongs to, it is clearly not Semitic; my own view, for a number of reasons, is that it is a language of Japhet.
You write: “As for the Arabs from the grassy central plain of Arabia, over time they migrated and founded Medina.”
Lots of problems with this statement. First of all, prior to the “hijra” (Muhammad’s ‘flight’ there from Mecca) there was no town or city named Medina. The town was called Yathrib. We have no early history of it; it is unlikely, however, that it could be described as having been “founded”; nor was it a town of any particular size or importance apart from what it garnered in association with Islam. “Medina” (meaning ‘city’ in Arabic), as the town’s name, is shorthand for Madinat an-Nabi, “city of the prophet” (meaning Muhammad); thus named when he took over jurisdiction of it.
At the time of his arrival there, it was an enclave inhabited by 5 tribes, 3 of them pagan Arab and 2 of them Jewish. The scholars I’ve read–and how they would know this I don’t know–propose that these latter 2 were not ethnically Jewish but rather ethnic Arab tribes that had converted to Judaism, which, along with Christianity, was widespread along the coastal towns of Arabia at the time of Muhammad’s birth.
“Medina was founded near Mecca which was a thriving trade center for agriculture, minerals, frankensense everything coming up from Yemen.
Mohammed’s wife (Khadija) inherited the camel train cartage business when her husband died, but could not keep it unless she had a husband for legal ownership purposes. She found an idiot teenager who could not read or write, and that was Mohammed.”
You leave out the biggest draw for Mecca, second only to its significance as a trading outpost: the pilgrimage business. Pilgrimage to Mecca predates Muhammad and Islam by at least 100 years, probably more, as does its focal point, the Ka’aba.
Muslim hagiography puts Muhammad’s age at the time of his marriage to Khadija as 25. You can believe it or not as you like; this is the only source existing on his life. In any case, whether or not he was a teenager (and Islam of course depicts him as illiterate, as you say), I very much doubt he was an idiot.
Alexis, Lie-Slayer, dweller, and any others on this topic: Very interesting! Please continue this fascinating exchange.
Alexis,
Excavated tablets show that throughout Mesopotamia, from Ur to Haran (where Sarah is from) and up into the Hittite (Japhenite) region of Turkey and other places,ARAMAIC was the common language of trade. On one side is the local language, on the other side is Aramaic. Have you ever wondered why Kaddish is Aramaic and not Hebrew? Would not a prayer for the dead be the oldest prayer?
Shemites and Japhenites had no problem intermarrying as they followed the same Noahide laws. (According to the Book of Jubilees (10:35-36), Madai had married a daughter of Shem, and preferred to live among Shem’s descendants, rather than dwell in Japheth’s allotted inheritance beyond the Black Sea; so he begged his brothers-in-law, Elam, Asshur and Arphaxad,–all Shemites– until he finally received from them the land that was named after him, Media.)
It was the Hamites that were and continue to be the problem. I am not the artist, but I ran across this 4 part web essay “Finding Noah”. http://www.marcrubin.com/noah-index.ivnu (I think you will find it fascinating)–follow especially the map of lineages, and you will find that Mesopotamia is Shemite with some Japhenites in the North. Also the Hamites were always surrounded by Japhenites and Shemites to “keep them in check” per Noah’s dictate as from Ham would come a “great Canaan”-meaning a blight on humanity.
Why could Joseph be Pharoah’s most trusted advisor? The lower kingdom of Egypt was Hyksos (Japhenite-Hittites that moved to the region) to keep the Hamites from Upper Egypt (lower Nile) from expanding, and the Shemite Nubians to the Hamite’s south, kept them in check.
When the Hyksos left, Joseph’s descendants were enslaved as slavery comes from the Hamite mentality.
It’s generally conceded that Yathrib was a Jewish city till Mohammad wiped out the Jews & renamed it Medina.
The Jewish ‘tribes’ that had come to dominate Yathrib (there were apparently three of them, not two) were ethnically Jewish descendants of 2nd century Judean refugees fleeing the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (known to Rome as the Second Jewish War, AD 132-36), whose end the exasperated Emperor Hadrian celebrated with a Jewish bloodbath. The modern-day Sa’udi govt has been systematically destroying all sorts of landmarks, artifacts, structures & archeological findings — supposedly for the purpose of eliminating any possiblity of “reversion to pre-Islamic idolatry.”
And if you believe that’s the reason, then I’ve got some choice Arizona beachfront property to sell you for a pittance. If you’ll pay me cash (Gold would be better) instead of making me wait for your check to clear, I’ll even throw in the Golden Gate Bridge — it’s solid gold (& just 60 miles from my home) — for free. ‘Cause I’m simply such a fine fellow.
Don’t mean to be putting too fine a point on it at this level, Slayer, but Heth was the 2nd son of Cana’an
— who was, in turn, the fourth son of HAM.
Accordingly the Hittites [from Heth] would have been Hamites, not Japhetites.
The Muslims mentioned above, as “precursors of today’s Palestinian Arabs”, are Arabs. They descend from nomadic Arabian tribes that spread out from the deserts of Arabia, covering an area that includes parts of modern-day Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. With the exception of Egypt (which was historically not Arab, prior to being conquered and occupied by Arabs in the Islamic conquest of the mid-8th century CE), the first of these countries are artificial creations of England and France when they divided up the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire after its defeat at the end of World War I. Saudi Arabia is also a 20th century invention, resulting from the conquest of Arabia following World War I by a violent opportunist named Ibn Saud, who took advantage of the power vacuum left by the defeat of its former ruler/absentee landlord, the Ottoman Turks.
Alexis: Thank you. I am interested in Anthropology in respect to where Noah’s sons and other descendants went. Are the Arabs from Shem or Ham?
Arabs are from Shem. [The original Egyptians--the ones who built the pyramids--, from whom the Coptic Christian Egyptians descend, are from Ham.] Linguisticallly, Arabic is a close cousin of Hebrew; both are Semitic (“from Shem”) languages, as are also Syriac, Aramaic, and several now-disappeared languages like Akkadian and Ugaritic.
We also know that Arabs are our cousins because they are the children of Abraham through Hagar and her son Ishmael, Isaac’s older half-brother.
By the way, if you will look at the blessing Abraham, at the end of his life, gives to his son Ishmael, you will see that nothing has changed for Ishmael and his descendants from that day to this.
Alexis: Thanks for that. Ishmael must not have believed Gen. 12:3.
Yishmael himself did Teshuvah in his latter years. You do know what Teshuvah is, don’t you?
Shy: Yes, I do. How many did he murder in his lifetime? Or were the murders left to his descendants? I doubt Teshuvah covers murder because you must ask forgiveness of the one you offended and short of resurrecting the dead, you can’t ask their forgiveness. No murderer has eternal life.
I give up. You tell us.
You’re not mixing up Yishmael with Eisav, are you?
Then you don’t know what Teshuvah is. Any transgression can be repented for in this life. Any.
But we’re not talking about lip service.
God is the giver; God, likewise, the forgiver.
He is correct, Teshuvah. Any. And in this life.
King David committed murder.
I’m not talking about killing other men in combat.
I’m not talking about judicial executions he ordered for crimes committed.
I’m talking about the deliberate, cold-blooded murder — and the intentional, organized conspiracy to commit murder — of an innocent man whom David KNEW to be innocent of any wrongdoing.
“Murder, and murder most foul.”
Yet we are told that David was a man after God’s own heart.
Shy and dweller:
Let’s say you plan to murder your wife in a grizly way. You accomplish the task with Premeditation and it is Aggravated and then do Teshuvah and are forgiven? Aw, come on! Is that justice for the murdered wife? What message does it send to the community?
Ex 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD.
6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
TSK: that will by no means clear the guilty. The Hebrew nakkeh lo yenakkeh, has been rendered “Acquitting him who is not innocent.” Nothing can more strongly express the goodness of God to frail mortals than this declaration, “which has been misunderstood and misinterpreted by all our translators.”
Ex 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
Ex 23:21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
Na 1:2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.
Na 1:3 The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
shy & dweller: Shy said “Any.” I actually think it is presumptuous to continue sinning and expect G-d to wipe the slate clean. The highest duty is to live a life where one does not sin. It is possible, although most people consider themselves helpless prisoners of their own lusts while the serpent says, “Yeh, hath G-d said?” Gen. 3:1. Your G-d/god is the one you obey. dweller look up Rom. 6:16.
Nu 15:30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.
There is false doctrine in the Christian churches called “Once Saved~Always Saved.” I think John Calvin had something to do with it. I rather think that unless they repent and live a righteous life, they aren’t saved at all. Here is a good article on this subject. Forgiveness on the Cheap. It deals with when and how we should forgive others, but first how G-d forgives us. Excerpt:
You make Repentance sound like something formulaic. “Say three Hail Mary’s & two Our Father’s and make an Act of Contrition; see you next week. Oh, and be sure to leave by the door that has the box sitting on the pedestal.”
If one is not genuinely sorry for what he’s done — and sorry, moreover, because he sees for himself that it is wrong — then whatever contortions he puts himself thru, it is not T’shuvah, not Repentance. And accordingly there is no forgiveness. Maybe no forgiveness even if it’s a sin that calls for restitution, and he makes restitution. In the absence of sincerity, there may even be a most severe punishment for the PRESUMPTION, for the game-playing where God is concerned.
And part of the punishment may be the increased difficulty to give up the sin.
“God is not mocked.”
Until he repents, he continues to BE guilty.
“Wicked” is not a synonym for “evil”; it’s a synonym for unrepentant.
Its opposite is not “good” but “righteous” — which is a synonym for repentant.
Strictly speaking, human beings are never Good or Evil
— only righteous or wicked.
Presumptuous INDEED to expect it as long as the sinning continues.
Yes, I mentioned it to you myself, some time ago.
Not in the absence of repentance, no.
dweller:
Not my intent at all. Quite the opposite! Unrepentance is a bar to being given understanding by G-d and being forgiven by G-d or the offended one.
Astounding! It seems we actually agree on something.
Splitting hairs. If G-d can use good and evil in the Bible, so can I.
Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Ps 34:21 Evil shall slay the wicked: and they that hate the righteous shall be desolate.
I didn’t think it was. But you seemed, based on your post, to regard some sins as ‘beyond forgiving.’
It occurs to me that you may have been recoiling at the phrase “to DO Teshuvah” — which doesn’t translate very well from the Hebrew idiom into the English. One could easily get the idea that what is referred to here is a routine, a ritual — when, strictly speaking, Repentance (at its core ) ISN’T something “done” but, rather, something inwardly realized, and which realization “turns you around,” reorients you.
It’s really more like something which is done TO you — or which you ALLOW to be done to you — than something you ‘do.’
Sorry if that seems petty to you, but it’s not at all a splitting of hairs.
If you’ll reexamine the very verses you cited, you’ll see that He doesn’t use those terms ["Good," "Evil"] to characterize persons.
Nor does haNitzri, BTW:
“…and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.” [Mk 10:17-18]
dweller wrote:
Yes. I do. I said “Once Saved~Always Saved” is a false doctrine. Did you think it was true? If one cannot be cast away, then it puts him in control over G-d. I find the principle in the left side and the right side of the Bible. Ted does not want the right side posted. Look up 1 Jo 5:16. Rom 1:28. Castaway – rejected – reprobate. Same thing.
1Ch 28:9 And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.
Just got home from a long day away. It is very late. I’ll have to continue this tomorrow. Ta ta.
dweller wrote:
Except these below where good it looks like TET VAV BET/VET.
2Sa 18:27 And the watchman said, Me thinketh the running of the foremost is like the running of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok. And the king said, He is a good man, and cometh with good tidings.
Ps 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
Ps 112:5 A good man sheweth favour, and lendeth: he will guide his affairs with discretion.
Pr 12:2 A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.
Pr 13:22 A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.
Pr 14:14 The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways: and a good man shall be satisfied from himself.
Mic 7:2 The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net.
And in the right half: Mt 12:35; Lu 6:45; Lu 23:50; Joh 7:12; Ac 11:24; Ro 5:7.
There is very little ritual in my life. I’m pretty relaxed.
The command to “Repent or Perish” was directed to a person, so starts with the individual. The purpose of Repentance is so you can become more like the Lord. You can be washed as a child and get dirty again, but as you grow older, you stay cleaner. A child says, “I don’t wanna!” The purpose of Repentance and drawing close to the Lord is to change your wanna. You are a servant to whom you yield (obey), whether sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness. G-d gives the spirit of Repentance but it is up to the individual to respond to that accordingly, namely, godly sorrow, restitution and continuing in holiness thereafter. If any of this is left out the person is lightly esteeming the rock of his salvation (the Lord). Lightly esteem means despise, and as we all know, Pr 13:13 Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded. Ultimately each person chooses daily whom they serve by their actions.
Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
I need to make a correction on my post. The conquest of Egypt by the Muslims was in the mid-7th century CE.
Historically, there are no Arab “Palestinians”–it’s a stolen name for a made-up political entity whose existence is solely for the purpose of eradicating Israel.
Technically that is true and untrue. Technically Balfour agreed to give “Palestine” to the Yishuv in return for support and services rendered. The beduoin were to receive Transjordan and the Arabs who lived in the province of Syria (which included later day “Palestine”) were given Syria. So, technically, you are correct – under accrued obligations, the whole of Palestine was reserved for the Jews (and a mere failure to fulfill an obligation does not clear one of the obligation, if that were the case, our system of commerce would collapse). Legally, the area was earned by the Jews through their support of the British Empire in WWI.
However, the fuckup imposed by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the delineation of a line of control between the French (who got Syria and Lebanon) and the British (who got Palestine) and the British unwillingness to do anything which upset the Arabs (for fear of the consequences in India), led them to allow the Arabs to remain in “Palestine”. What would have happened if Lt. Gen. Monash had been appointed (as had been suggested) to be the first Military Governor of the Mandate is interesting to consider. As it was, the mandate made a name for itself (Allenby started the toadying to Arabs during the war) by running after Arabs and allowing them to get away with murder literally. So you are incorrect in that, they are literally still in the area, despite being in breach of the original agreement.
But does that make them “Palestinian”? Of course not, Zimbabwe is Zimbabwe, we don’t call it Rhodesia just because that is what it was called by the British when they ran it, do we? The term “Palestinian” means from “Palestine”, as “Palestine” only existed for 30 years, under a mandate at that, whilst undergoing a transition from an Ottoman Province to a Sovereign nation (1918-1948), it is ludicrous to try and hang onto the term. If the Arabs who chose to stay in the area illegally want to term themselves something, they can call themselves Syrian (but of course they won’t).
I can tell you this much. I live near the fence which divides Kiriat Arba from the mostly Arab part of Hevron. In the 1980s my Arab neighbors would tell us unhesitatingly about their families having come from all over the Middle East. Only later, after Shimon Peres and his buddies got this “palestinian” stuff into their heads, did they start singing “min abui” (I got it from my father.)
And by the way, Ted, I don’t mind Gingrich having anti-Semitic friends. I have plenty of them right here in Israel.
And by the way, Alexis, the Arabs who are mentioned in the Tora may have been from Shem. But Mohammed and his followers converted people from all over and they got all mixed together. Haven’t you seen Turkish-looking Arabs in Hevron? And some of them are Black Africans, descendants of slaves from the days (not too long ago but at least as recently as the 1950s) when the Bedouin (and perhaps other Arabs here) used to keep slaves. And of course there are those blondies from the good times the British soldiers had during the Mandate, and on and on and on.
Best to all,
Yeruham
Not so fast.
Common though the claim may be, Arabs are not, in fact, ethnically or genetically semites. They do, it’s true, have some semitic ancestry — but they are primarily hamites, not semites. They are descendants, that is, of Ham, not Shem (the progenitor of the Jews).
The confusion lies in the fact that, as you noted, Alexis, Arabs speak a semitic language: i.e., a language which is linguistically allied to the other semitic languages, Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Phoenician, Ancient Assyrian, Ancient Babylonian, etc. However, ethnically & racially, Arabs are far more closely related to the hamitic peoples, like the ancient Hittites & Egyptians, than they are to the Jews. And I’ll tell you why. (It’s interesting, if you’re inclined to explore it.)
Remember, however, that this is about genetic composition — not about recogntion in religious law, which formulaically assigns communal religious designation by recourse to one side or another of one’s parentage (matrilineal descent for Jews; patrilineal for Muslims, etc.) Non-linguistic application of the “semitic-hamitic-yaphetic” nomenclature pertains not to religious affiliation but, rather, to concrete genetic composition — and that necessarily and inescapably receives contributions from both sides of one’s parentage.
It’s true that the Arabs do indeed share with the Jews (and with other peoples as well) a common semitic ancestor: in the person of the first Hebrew patriarch, Avraham [Abraham, Ibrahim, etc] — who lived during the early part of the Middle Bronze Age, ca. 2150-1900 BC. However, Ishmael [Isma’il] — the eldest son of Abraham, and the one through whom the Arabs are understood to have descended — had a hamitic mother: Hagar Ha-Mitzri, Hagar the Egyptian. [The Egyptians, as you've noted, were hamites, not semites.]
Therefore Ishmael himself would have been half semitic and half hamitic.
Hagar, in turn, took for her son, Ishmael, a wife also from amongst her own people, HaMitzrim — from amongst the Egyptians. Thus, Isma’il’s own 12 sons and (at least) one daughter were all genetically one-quarter semitic and three-quarters hamitic. And you can see the direction this is headed.
Now, to shift focus:
Yitzhak, on the other hand — i.e., Isaac, the second-born of the eight sons of Abraham, and the ONLY son, indeed, though whom the Jews descend — is, moreover, also the only son who, we know, had not only a semitic father but also a semitic mother: Sarah, who was a cousin, or possibly a niece (or even, perhaps a half-sister) of Avraham’s when she married him back in Ur Chasdim, located in Aram Naharayim, [“Aram between the rivers” --- i.e., between the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers; in other words, Chaldea, Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Ancient Babylon, Modern Iraq], before they even made the journey to Cana’an, the Promised Land.
[This all, of course, in an era characterized by a far shallower gene pool, infected as yet by few mutations, and therefore one in which many fewer classes of relationships would have been viewed as incestuous.]
Furthermore, when the time comes for Abraham to find a wife for his son, Yitzhak/Isaac, Abraham sends his servant, Damesek Eliezer — Eliezer of Damascus, his faithful family retainer — back to the city of Nakhor in Aram Naharayim, adjuring him at the time — making Eliezer swear at the time (just in case the elderly Avraham should die before Eliezer returns) — to find Yitzhak a wife not from among the C’na’anim [the Canaanites], where Avraham now lives, but, rather, from amongst Avraham’s own kindred, back in Aram Naharayim. Tracking with me?
[In fact, until Abraham’s arrival in Cana’an with his wife & orphaned nephew, Lot, it’s safe to say that there were likely few (if any) semites in the Promised Land --- only, or mostly, hamites until then. The very burial plot in Hebron that Abraham chooses for his departed Sarah --- and where he likewise {and indeed three generations of the Hebrew Patriarchs & Matriarchs}—will subsequently be interred --- will be purchased: at its fair market value, 400 shekalim {about 160 ounces of silver} from Ephron, son of Tzohar the Hittite, and in the presence of all the city elders of what was then a Hittite colony.]
Presently, Eliezer comes back from Mesopotamia/Chaldea, bringing with him in tow, Rivka [Rebecca], his master Abraham’s grand niece, and therefore also a semite, for his master’s son, Isaac. This is running long. I’ll continue the other half on another post.
Okay, here’s Part Two of my Semite/Hamite post. (The first half went into limbo when I hit “Post” — so it may appear out of order, but this is the second part of the post where I maintain that Arabs are largely Hamitic, rather than Semitic — from a purely genetic perspective.)
To Isaac & Rebecca will be born fraternal twins, Ya’acov v’ Esov [Jacob & Esau]. Ya’acov, whose name will be changed to “Israel” — and through whom the Jews will directly and solely descend — will be sent (indeed, will be driven: by collateral circumstances of urgent import) to seek refuge with the family of his mother, Rivka, and there also to find for himself a mate. Like his father, Isaac, he will maintain the line of “Promise” by taking a wife not from among the Canaanite locals but rather from his grandfather Abraham’s extended family.
There, after indenturing himself, for what turns out to be some 20 years, to his mother’s brother, Lavahn [Laban], Jacob will marry Le’ah v’ Rakhel [Leah & Rachel] — both young women, daughters of Lavahn: and therefore Jacob’s cousins, once removed — thus also semites. Now, with Leah & Rachel, and with also their two handmaidens, Vilhah v’ Zilpah [Bilha & Zilpa] — who, as local to a semitic region, would themselves have also been semites — with these four women, Ya’acov will proceed to father a dozen sons & a daughter.
Their children will intermarry and, with time, form the twelve tribes of Israel — this, ca. 1750-1650 BC. The roots of the Jews are thus seen clearly to be almost entirely, or very densely, semitic.
Esov/Esau, i.e., Jacob’s fraternal twin brother, through whom the Edomites [or Idumeans] would descend, will — unlike Jacob, and contrary to his parents’ wishes — marry two local, Hittite women, Adah & Ahalee-vah’mah, and subsequently, also a third, Bahss’maht [aka Mah-khalaht], a daughter of Ishmael and the latter’s Egyptian wife.
Then, with these three hamitic wives, Esau will leave Cana’an, eyver haYardenn, crossing the River Jordan, mih-keddem, to the East, and settling there [in the region of Mount Se’ir], where his five (or more) children will presumably intermarry with the partly semitic, Moabite & Ammonite descendants of Abraham’s nephew Lot — since that’s who lived there — and, as well, with the descendants of Abraham’s six other sons: by Keturah, the probably local and thus Cana’anite [hamitic], woman Abraham had married after Sarah’s death and lived with for the remaining 35 years of his lfe — and which sons, upon coming of age, were also sent to live east of Cana’an.
This loose admixture of the descendants of Ishmael, Lot & Esau is obviously far more HAMITIC than semitic by genetic & ethnic composition; but there’s more.
A thousand years on, at the time of the Babylonian Captivity [sixth century BC], the Arab tribe of Nabateans [Isma’ili, Edomite and Yemeni (through Temahn, grandson of Esau)] pushed northward out of the arid Arabian Peninsula and into what had been the Land of Edom east of the Jordan, establishing their capital at Petra, some 60 miles south of the Dead Sea. And while, in response to that pressure, the intermarried Edomites withdrew yet further north, into southern Judah, it is certainly possible that some intermarriage may have occurred between the already only slightly still semitic Edomites and the now largely hamitic Nabateans — neither of which groups (in contrast to the Jews) displayed any substantial disinclination toward intermarriage.
To be sure, one cannot overlook the possiblity that there may also be some Arabs from the Mesopotamian region — Abraham’s birthplace — who may actually have a trifle more semitic DNA than most other Arabs.
That being said, however, it would appear inevitable that the ethnic & genetic Arab patrimony would have to be overwhelmingly hamitic — not semitic.
Regardless of all the arguments, it’s good to see this issue revealed in the light of day. It’s about time this “debate” took place.
CR. If you want me to release your comments, stop writing them in bold.
The only ‘baggage’ to mark bears the imprimatur ‘nihil obstat’(‘nothing hinders’):
to a two-state solution – the PLO and the Vatican.
I wrote a response to Yeruham before reading dweller’s detailed exposition, which requires me to modify my response. Dweller, I don’t dispute your arguments. If Ishmael is taken to be the sole, or main, progenitor of the Arabs, then they would correctly be understood to be genetically more hamitic than semitic.
Ethnographic and linguistic evidence suggest that Arabs descend in the main from tribes of nomadic pastoralists who wandered into the Syrian and Arabian deserts from Mesopotamia, home of Shem.
Hamites–with whom many Semitic tribes have intermixed over millenia–originate in north and central-north Africa (thus, including Egyptians, Cushites, Berbers).
My original comment to Yeruham: you are talking about people of mixed or non-Arab lineage (who may, through intermarriage or simply by joining groups of Arabs, have adulterated the designation).
Yes. My own point, however, is that because — among all the Semitic peoples of antiquity, only the Jews made a point of eschewing intermarriage from very early in the game — that in consequence it is fair to state that in the present age (and probably ever since at least 1300 BC), there are in existence no Semitic peoples other than the Jews.
I don’t know about that…there are still some small towns–not many left–whose populations still speak Aramaic. Not everybody intermixed.
Again, though, that is a linguistic observation.
Whether they are genetically Semitic in this day & age — and this many generations removed from Babel — is not necessarily reflected in what language[s] they speak.
Someday, I suppose, somebody will get around to going in there with a pack of Q-tips and settle the matter for us.
May GOD Almighty bless, the Jewish People, Israel, Jerusalem, Newt Gingrich the USA and the HONEST truth.
Amen! And thank you, Vincent. And may YOU be blessed.
Of course not.
I repeat: In these exchanges it was YoursVeryTruly who first brought it to YOUR attention.
But the notion that ‘some sins are beyond forgiving’ is likewise false.
No. God is the essence of integrity; He holds Himself to His own law (and thus to His promises).
God demands Man’s obedience to His law
– But this is precisely because He is Himself lawful.
One is not “cast away” for sin.
One is cast away for wickedness, viz., cast away for lack of repentance.
As a general rule, how an individual person in the scripture (especially a non-Jew) uses a word is not necessarily to be understood as representing how God uses the term.
“Steps of a good man”? — Try on THIS rendering for size. In this case, the Chabad rendering of the word you have as “good” in v. 23 is offerred as mighty.
You’ll note that terms like good & evil do appear, but not when PERSONS are directly designated. I’m sure you’ll find the same general “rule” with other versions of the other verses you cite as well.
And it’s only logical that you would so find. The reality is that good & evil have no “home” in flesh; they can only manifest in accord with the inclination of the soul: to yield to the leading of the Spirit, resulting in repentance/”righteousness” — OR to resist that leading, characterized as wickedness.
dweller wrote:
I mentioned it in our discussion here at #22, November 15, 2011 at 10:23 am. Search for it.
If a Christian tried that argument on me, I would conclude that he was Apostate, fallen away and without understanding, which most of them are. That is called “all dogs go to Heaven” and is dangerously close to the false doctrine of Universalism.
Aw, come on. You wrest scripture to your own destruction and omit David’s instruction to Solomon below. Continuing in sin indicates a lack of repentance and is itself wickedness. You are splitting hairs again arguing about words rather than the concepts they represent. You are like Clinton arguing about the definition of the word is.
1Ch 28:9 And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.
Your problem in understanding 1Ch 28:9 is not realizing that the word “Yaznichacha” (“cast off”) is not to “cut off” but rather to abandon to the elements and the mayhem of this world, with no further Divine assistance. That has nothing to do with the ability to still repent. Many sins, murder is an example, are only forgiven in the next world but that itself requires TRUE repentance in this world.
“‘Yesh Torah ba’goyim’ – al ta’amin!”
Being cast away forever is the penalty for not repenting. This is cast away in the above verse.
Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary
2186. ????? zanach
Search for H2186 in KJVSL
????? zanach zaw-nakh’
a primitive root meaning to push aside, i.e. reject, forsake, fail:–cast away (off), remove far away (off).
Those who despise Him and His Commands, He will destroy. Were Aaron’s sons raptured to Heaven or were they disobedient and doing ought presumptously? Did he really destroy 3,000 in the Bible or just take them to Heaven prematurely? Your particular view causes one to not have an adequate fear of the Lord.
Job 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.
No departing from evil, no understanding given by G-d. Simple. Look up “the fear of the Lord” in a exact phrase and see it is always tied to obedience and understanding following. That is the essence of Shema. See Shemot 24.7. (We have had this discussion before, Shy.) Lest this go to Moderation, I’ll put the verses in after this post.
All verses in the Tanach containing “The fear of the Lord” in a fixed string:
1Sa 11:7 And he took a yoke of oxen, and hewed them in pieces, and sent them throughout all the coasts of Israel by the hands of messengers, saying, Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen. And the fear of the LORD fell on the people, and they came out with one consent.
2Ch 14:14 And they smote all the cities round about Gerar; for the fear of the LORD came upon them: and they spoiled all the cities; for there was exceeding much spoil in them.
2Ch 17:10 And the fear of the LORD fell upon all the kingdoms of the lands that were round about Judah, so that they made no war against Jehoshaphat.
2Ch 19:7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.
2Ch 19:9 And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the LORD, faithfully, and with a perfect heart.
Job 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.
Ps 19:9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
Ps 34:11 Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the LORD.
Ps 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
Pr 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Pr 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
Pr 2:5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
Pr 8:13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
Pr 10:27 The fear of the LORD prolongeth days: but the years of the wicked shall be shortened.
Pr 14:26 In the fear of the LORD is strong confidence: and his children shall have a place of refuge.
Pr 14:27 The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, to depart from the snares of death.
Pr 15:16 Better is little with the fear of the LORD than great treasure and trouble therewith.
Pr 15:33 The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility.
Pr 16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.
Pr 19:23 The fear of the LORD tendeth to life: and he that hath it shall abide satisfied; he shall not be visited with evil.
Pr 22:4 By humility and the fear of the LORD are riches, and honour, and life.
Pr 23:17 Let not thine heart envy sinners: but be thou in the fear of the LORD all the day long.
Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
Isa 11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
Isa 33:6 And wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times, and strength of salvation: the fear of the LORD is his treasure.
Shy: Remember this? It is one of my favorite pieces.
Da 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
Why do the wicked not understand? No awareness of the importance of Shema and DOING, not just saying. No repentance.
Why do the wise understand? They repent.
Shy & dweller: If you want more understanding from G-d and to clear the lines of communication, try praying like David did:
If you are sincere, He will answer that prayer and help you by pointing out areas in your life you need to clean up.
This crosses the line, Teshuvah, from discourse and exposition
— to preaching. . . .
dweller: Hardly. You are overreacting. I just quoted a few verses and made a recommendation based on my own experience. I actually can preach much better than that. I am honoring Ted’s request that I not publish verses from the right side of the Bible.
I’ve no doubt that you can.
My observation remains, however.
Didn’t react at all (let alone, ‘overly’ so). Just made an observation, you crossed the line.
Possibly an old habit, TBS, wherein exposition slid imperceptibly into preaching.
Exhortation of a religious nature is the essence of preaching, Teshuvah, with or without verses, and based on one’s own experience or not.
dweller wrote:
You perceived it. I didn’t. Different line. It is an old propaganda technique — You fail to address one or more of the items I posted and then attack me instead. I consider the piece I posted above called “Naaseh V’Nishma” to be preaching in a form, but acceptable to this board because it came from OU.org.
Yes, precisely my point. I didn’t (and still don’t) think you had noticed that you’d slid into preaching. But I know it when I see it.
Perhaps as a Jew, I’m a trifle more attuned to the symptoms than most — having been subjected to it, from time-to-time, in less-than-welcome circumstances.
Didn’t ‘attack’ you. I merely drew your attention to something that might have escaped you in the course of your absorption with the exchange. No need to read anything more than that into it.
— Alerting you seemed more important at the time, frankly, than any textually-related issue.
FWIW, there is another common “propaganda technique” in accusing an adversary of doing the very thing one is himself doing, and expressing his accusation for conscious reasons, to deflect attention away from his own questionable doings (a favorite of Alinsky’s). But it’s too easy to give free reign to galloping paranoia.
It’s one thing to quote another’s “preachings.” Something else again to offer one’s own.
— Do you not see THAT distinction as well?
dweller wrote:
If I can make a point using your own authors, isn’t that better? Somewhere earlier the point was about Repentance, what it was, how to do it, what it is and isn’t, etc. I submit it is getting a clean heart and good communications with the Most High. At this point we apparently never agree.
Last call and I’m out of here:
“Therefore, O thou son of man, say unto the house of Israel: Thus ye speak, saying: Our transgressions and our sins are upon us, and we pine away in them; how then can we live? Say unto them: As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”
– Ezekiel 33
“‘Yesh Torah ba’goyim’ – al ta’amin!”
Shy Guy:
I love that verse. I use it all the time. I think though that you use it to try to prove some form of Universalism or “All dogs go to heaven.” G-d also says he is angry with the wicked every day. Look at all the instances in the left side of the Bible that show how He had reached the end of His rope and killed people in large numbers. At one point He was even going to kill Moses. Ex 4:24. Too many people behold only the goodness of G-d and not the severity. Look up all the verses contain anger was kindled and see. Remember the Golden Calf (Ex 32) and sons of Kore (Num 16) incidents. In some places G-d forgives and restores. In other cases, He considers they have missed their day of visitation and kills them.
Please list the sins where G-d does NOT forgive no matter what and what is your source to the claim?
I never argued that G-d waits forever for someone to repent and does not punish those deserving it.
Nobody ‘owns’ authors, Teshuvah — but yes, as a rule, I think it’s probably better to quote somebody else you find suitable to the subject than to risk direct preaching that hasn’t been solicited.
Well, sure it’s about getting clean & (re)establishing communications with the Most High; no argument there. The point at which we disagree is in finding out what to repent OF.
I maintain that it’s rarely as apparent as one might think.
The ego plays a thousand games over repentance: Rather than let itself perceive the secret sins it’s really guilty of (the “little foxes that spoil the vines”), it allows the conscious mind to attribute guilt ‘feelings’ to obvious things that, more often than not, are simple DISTRACTIONS from the actual McGuffin. And after all, it’s in the ego’s INTEREST to do so — since it was the person’s ego that got him OUT of “communication with the Most High” in the first place, and true correction is typically the last thing in the world it wants.
dweller:
The voice of G-d is not a feeling. Have you not read my sheep hear my voice? Remember all the times in the Bible when G-d spoke to people from Adam on down. That is why I wrote this below. If you ask Him sincerely, He will tell you or show you. R. Lazer Brody heard His voice. You can, too, and it isn’t a guilty feeling. It is better to hear His voice before you get into desperate situations or other foxholes.
dweller:
Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Where did I get that? I was thinking about our chain of posts above and my last comment and the Ruach HaKodesh gave me remembrance of the above verse. That is just one of the ways He communicates. I read mostly KJBible and He regularly gives me remembrance of something exactly on point. He draws from what you read. If you don’t read the Bible, then you are an empty well. Look up Jo 14:26 and 1 Jn 2:27.
That’s why I placed the word in single quotes.
Doesn’t mean vocalised sound, Teshuvah; that’s just a metaphor. “The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas” — doesn’t mean the moon is, in literal fact, a ship.
If you hear voices in your head. . . . call 9-1-1.
Don’t want to press this too far in this forum; I’ll just say, for now, that He isn’t the only Party that uses that phone line (as well as remind you that this is a re-run of the remark that I was responding to when I alerted you about preaching).
dweller:
Tell that to Moses (Ex 34), Abraham (Gen 12), Paul (Ac 9), et al. But they were believers, or they were after they heard Him.
Nu… so… was He a tenor or a baritone?
David Berkowitz heard voices too. (If the name doesn’t ring a bell for you, Google “Son-of-Sam.”)
Regrettably, that was before the days of 9-1-1.
“My sheep hear my voice” doesn’t mean Jesus talks to sheep, Teshuvah.
“Voice” is just as metaphorical as “sheep.”
When haRuakh communicates, it’s with precision & certainty — but it’s wordless, and (ironically enough) that’s what makes it recognizable.
But recognizing his “voice” requires one to make a regular practice of sorting thru all the commericals, jingles, snatches of pop songs, etc, that routinely torture one’s consciousness with clutter.
dweller:
I would say “with great Authority.”
And it can be literal. “Hear” is Shema and means hear, obey and after you obey, He will give you understanding. Shemot 24:7. Some people literally hear His voice and they aren’t nuts. They are simply believers. Perhaps you aren’t a believer or you have some other god in your life, such as your own ego, and He doesn’t want to join the team. He wants to head it.
Tell R. Lazer Brody that.
I have been practicing a very long time through many difficulties. I have never seen him, and might faint if I did, however, I hear Him all the time. His voice is easily distingushable from the riff raff of thoughts that comes ones way. Here is someone who did see and hear him, another Rabbi.
They may well hear a voice, but it isn’t His.
I told you, He isn’t the only Party on that telephone line.
There is also the Other fellow: you know the one I mean? — the one who masquerades as He?
— and he’s downright SHAMELESS (indeed notorious) about presenting as a voice.
I’ll tell anybody that, if he purports to hear a physical voice.
Okay, so if you actually hear vocalised sound, then you should have no trouble telling me if He’s a baritone or a tenor. Bass-Baritone? Basso Profundo? (Or, for that matter, Contralto? Mezzo? Coloratura? Lyric Soprano?)
Or maybe He mixes it up? — a tenor one day, a bass-baritone the next?
dweller:
You skipped over Moses, Abraham and the others. You skipped over Lazer Brody. They are men with an experience. You merely are one with an argument.
I just heard Him again. He said, “from such turn away”.
Teshuvah says:
Brody says he hear G-d speak to him. Rambo Brody
Guess dweller you met your match she can out dweller dweller.
No. It’s called, ‘all repentant dogs go to Heaven.’ And ONLY repentant ones.
Bilgewater. It isn’t I that’s doing the hair splitting here. . . .
It is PRECISELY the concepts that I am alluding to.
If it were for sin per se that one was cast away, then there’d be no respite for ANY finite person.
It is INDEED the continuation in it that is condemned. Continuation in it, however, is not limited to repeating it. The actual perpetration of it could occur only ONCE, but if the Spirit-prompted impulse to inwardly acknowledge it is REJECTED — or declined, or suppressed, or evaded — then the sin perforce “continues.”
It’s that continuation that is condemned.
If you are in fact the believer that you present yourself as, then you KNOW that The Christ himself said that ANY sin could be forgiven except that against haRuakh haKodesh — viz., any sin except the sin of rejecting the goadings of Conscience as prompted by the Holy Spirit.
In other words, any sin is forgivable except that of Unrepentance.
Any.
Bottom Line:
Murder will be forgiven by God.
Failure to REPENT of murder
— will not.
(And David haMelekh was himself a textbook case of precisely that reality.)
We know people who have tried to repent and G-d would not hear them. They said so. G-d saw that they were unrepentant and withheld forgiveness or they had missed their day of visitation and presumed wrongly that they could repent any time they chose. Esau is one who sought repentance with tears and it was not granted. Heb 12:17.
Quite so. “Trying” & “repenting” don’t go together.
True Repentance is a gift that you cannot give yourself. It comes courtesy of haRuakh, the “Hound of Heaven.”
He hunts you down & catches up with you, grabs you by the scruff of the neck — and you either yield inwardly (as, e.g., David did when Nathan confronted him outwardly) — or you don’t.
That’s why I said, above,:
I’m not so sure that’s a very good rendering.
What was it Esau sought?
Did he even ‘seek’ repentance?
Esau did indeed weep. But what was it he ‘repented’ and wept over? It was the loss of his blessing. The CONTEXT anyway seems clear that the author of Hebrews is saying that Esau sought his blessing with tears, and NOT repentance.
If I go to the racetrack and drop a few “large” on the ponies, and come home broke and dejected, I can be sorry that I lost a couple thousand dollars
— or I can be sorry that I went to the track to gamble in the first place. The latter is repentance, the former is just blubbering in my beer — and the evidence of this is that I’ll probably not be constrained from doing it again when the opportunity presents itself.
I think this answers whether G-d spoke! Some three million Hebrews heard G-d speak not some charlatan mystic swami, Guru or false prophet but G-d!
4:7 For what great nation is there, that hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is whensoever we call upon Him?
4:8 And what great nation is there, that hath statutes and ordinances so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
4:9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes saw, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life; but make them known unto thy children and thy children’s children;
4:10 the day that thou stoodest before the Lord thy God in Horeb, when the Lord said unto me: ‘Assemble Me the people, and I will make them hear My words that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.’
4:11 And ye came near and stood under the mountain; and the mountain burned with fire unto the heart of heaven, with darkness, cloud, and thick darkness.
4:12 And the Lord spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of words, but ye saw no form; only a voice.
4:13 And He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even the ten words; and He wrote them upon two tables of stone.
4:14 And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it.
4:15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves–for ye saw no manner of form on the day that the Lord spoke unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire–
4:16 lest ye deal corruptly, and make you a graven image, even the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
4:17 the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the heaven,
4:18 the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth;
4:19 and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven, thou be drawn away and worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath allotted unto all the peoples under the whole heaven.
4:20 But you hath the Lord taken and brought forth out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be unto Him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.
4:21 Now the Lord was angered with me for your sakes, and swore that I should not go over the Jordan, and that I should not go in unto that good land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance;
4:22 but I must die in this land, I must not go over the Jordan; but ye are to go over, and possess that good land.
4:23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the Lord your God, which He made with you, and make you a graven image, even the likeness of any thing which the Lord thy God hath forbidden thee.
4:24 For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God.
4:25 When thou shalt beget children, and children’s children, and ye shall have been long in the land, and shall deal corruptly, and make a graven image, even the form of any thing, and shall do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord thy God, to provoke Him;
4:26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land where unto ye go over the Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
4:27 And the Lord shall scatter you among the peoples, and ye shall be left few in number among the nations, whither the Lord shall lead you away.
4:28 And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
4:29 But from thence ye will seek the Lord thy God; and thou shalt find Him, if thou search after Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
4:30 In thy distress, when all these things are come upon thee, in the end of days, thou wilt return to the Lord thy God, and hearken unto His voice;
4:31 for the Lord thy God is a merciful God; He will not fail thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which He swore unto them.
4:37 And because He loved thy fathers, and chose their seed after them, and brought thee out with His presence, with His great power, out of Egypt,
4:38 to drive out nations from before thee greater and mightier than thou, to bring thee in, to give thee their land for an inheritance, as it is this day;
4:39 know this day, and lay it to thy heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else.
4:40 And thou shalt keep His statutes, and His commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee, for ever.
Don’t see any reference to Jesus here do you?
Lie-Slayer,
Aramaic was the lingua franca for the entire Middle East–including even the Persian Empire, who used its alphabet for its Indo-European language–during the first millenium BCE. I have not seen evidence of it in excavated tablets from Mesopotamia from the 2nd millenium BCE; rather, these show Sumerian and Akkadian.
I’ll grant you that this gives no proof that the isolated communities in the Syrian mountains that still speak Aramaic are speaking the original language of their forefathers. On the other hand, there is similarly no proof that they don’t descend from Shem.
I have a question for those of you who are learned in the matter of the descendants of Shem, Ham and Yefet. Let us assume that what we learn about this matter from the Tanach and the Rabbis is true, and that the descendants of Shem settled the Middle East, the descendants of Ham settled Africa and the descendants of Yefet settled Europe. (I assume that this is somewhere in the Oral Tora, although I haven’t seen it. I am just taking what I have heard from learned people.)
Two questions then arise. Who got the Americas? And who got South and East Asia?
The first question is extremely interesting. But I am more interested in the second. I travel to the East a lot. In fact I have been in Japan once a year since 1993. And I have been in India a bit less but still a lot. And I don’t go partying. I have a serious interest in the cultures of these two places.
I would say that the natural answer about South and East Asia is Shem. In the first place, there is geographical continuity. Secondly I have been studying and writing, for a long time, about similarities between Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto and Buddhism. I haven’t yet published on this but I hope to have something ready very soon. I think we have much, much more in common with these religions than we have with Christianity and Mohammedanism.
Thirdly, anti-Semitic persecution is almost unknown in the East except when it is done by Mohammedans. The only other cases I know of were instigated by Westerners.
I should add that language doesn’t count for much of a sign in my eyes. Languages change and develop. There have been some things written about similarities between Japanese and Hebrew but I haven’t been convinced that there is anything more than coincidence to this.
I am aware of three kinds of explanation for similarities between Judaism and Asian culture and religion. The first is the Ten Tribes hypothesis. There may be truth to this but I am willing to accept it only when there is a live tradition among the people who are said to have descended from them. This means, so far as I know, only the Beta Israel, the Beney Menashe and possibly the Pashtun.
The second explanation is via the sons of Avraham’s mistresses to whom some say Avraham gave gifts of wisdom, which they took eastward. But in the first place, not all rabbis accept this. Ibn Ezra says he gave them money. And secondly we have no evidence of how much wisdom and where it got to. The third explanation, which makes the most sense to me is the tradition of the Yeshiva of Shem and Ever. I take this to mean an ancient spiritual culture which I think was preserved on the Asian continent and islands.
If anyone can enlighten me further on Shem and the East, I would appreciate it.
Best wishes,
Yeruham
Dr. Leavitt wrote:
Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism and Mohammedanism are all connected to sun god worship. The names change, they may be male or female, but are connected in their symbols. Check the bottom of the feet on most Buddhas to see a swastika, which is another sun god symbol.
Dear Teshuvah,
Thank you for your reply. The Hindus don’t worship the sun or the sun god any more than we worship the moon, although it may look like it in both cases. Of course I refer to learned people in both religions. The unlearned are capable of worshiping all kinds of things (including departed rabbis). I have been working for a long time on a paper on Surya Namaskara and our blessing of the new moon. I trust it will be ready to submit for publication in another couple of months. After it is published (which means after it passes peer review) I hope I’ll remember to send a link to this forum. Meanwhile I highly recommend Sri Aurobindo, The Foundations of Indian Culture; Mahatma Gandhi, What is Hinduism? and Swami Satyananda Saraswati, Surya Namaskara.
As for Shinto, Amaterasu the Goddess of the Sun, is the chief of the gods at the present time. I am not sure how much they actually worship her. I have focused in my studies on other aspects of Shinto and will have to look into the matter of worship.
As for Buddhism the matter is quite complex because there are different schools of Buddhism. I don’t think the Zen Buddhists worship anything. But more standard Japanese Buddhism has many gods. I will have to ask about a sun god. Ditto for Tibetan Buddhism. I studied with a lama for quite some time and he never mentioned a sun god. I’ll have to ask about that.
But I am sure about Hinduism.
Very best wishes,
Yeruham
Dr. Leavitt: This link on solar deity has a large section on Hinduism, Buddhism, a bit on Shintoism (under female and male) as well as on Ancient Egypt. The Muslims and Freemason religions also could be characterized under female and male or an androgynous god. More on Shinto and sun god here. It even correctly links Christmas to sun god worship without recognizing that Christmas was a Catholic invention formerly illegal in England and America because it was pagan. True Christianity is a sect of Judaism. True Christians do Jewish feasts, not Christmas which is the celebration of pagan gods. Nowhere in the article does it mention Judaism and I wonder how you square your studies with the First Commandment.
Ex 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Ps 73:25 Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.
Ps 81:8 Hear, O my people, and I will testify unto thee: O Israel, if thou wilt hearken unto me;
9 There shall no strange god be in thee; neither shalt thou worship any strange god.
10 I am the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.
Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God.
If the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob brought you out of Egypt, and he did, why would you go back? The Bible says to not even go into the temples of strange gods. I know a married man can walk by a whorehouse and not go in. Do you? What is the attraction?
No sect of Judaism incorporates, or EVER incorporated, the deification of (or ascription of ‘deity’ to) a man — any man, even the best of men, even the most unique of men — even Moshiakh himself.
Any sect that DOES do that is one which may, or may not, be ‘Truly Christian’ — but it is most assuredly NOT ‘Jewish,’ and never was.
There’s just no squaring that circle, Teshuvah — and haMelekh haMoshiakh, Yeshu haNitzri (the most honest & consistently truthful of men to ever walk the blessed soil of Eretz Yisrael), would be the FIRST to tell you so
— the very first.
dweller: I am not allowed to post verses from the right side of the Bible so I cannot tell you what he said to counter your statement. I can post this link link and ask, who would do these things, a Christian or a Jew?
It is precisely his remarks from the “right” side of the Bible that SUPPORT my statement.
But since you cannot post them, I won’t either.
I can paraphrase, however.
And it’s clear that somebody who said that of himself he could do NOTHING, but that the Father within him does the works — is hardly somebody who thinks he’s ‘God.’
If he WERE indeed ‘God’ — then there is NOTHING that of himself he could NOT do.
A man who says that all power is GIVEN to him in heaven & on earth is not somebody who thinks he’s ‘divine.’
Who ‘gives’ power to God?
God is the origin and essence of ALL power.
God is the giver of power, not its ‘recipient.’
Somebody who acknowledges that even he himself doesn’t know the time of his own Return — but that the Father does — is not omniscient. And doesn’t mind telling you so.
Special, he is. ‘Divine,’ he isn’t. (And if he were Divine, he couldn’t have accomplished his unique Mission. Had to be done by a man. Special man, but a man.)
The Son of God is NOT ‘God-the-Son.’
And nobody RAISED as a Jew, BY Jews, AMONGST Jews, would have thought that he — or anybody else — COULD be.
Yes, yes, very nice. You’ve posted it several times before. (I’ve showed you at least one minor error in it, peripheral to this discussion.) As I recall, however, the article does not address the matter alluded to in my post above.
dweller: As I stated above,
I could answer you but I refuse to push the limits of Ted’s hospitality. If you want to discuss this privately, ask Ted for my email address and email me.
Our resident mystic (Swami) dweller has spoken with such emphatic belief. LOL So it must be so? How does he know? Because he hears telepathic voices in his head, probably with the The Mormon Choir singing in the background. If you are going to fantasize why no do it big with a Hollywood or Broadway production. One of my best friends is a well-known Shrink in West LA. Office on Wilshire I can set up an appointment for you. Cost on me. I tutored him through Med School and he owes me.
I note you mention the Pashtun, could you expand on that point? Also, what of the Baloch? They are, of course, historically linked to Zoroastrianism (as part of Greater Persia (the link is continued by the refusal to accept Mohammed as a prophet). Of course that makes them devotees of the religion of the Medes (Cyrus the Great for example), which brings some maybe not so suprising links to Sumer/Babylon. Could it be that Abraham originated in Greater Persia? It is only a hop and a skip from Sumer, yet he is not Sumerian. He is semetic as are the Persians, he follows (and espouses a monotheistic faith), as does the King of the Medes and Persians who conquers Babylon ending the captivity? I mean, there are differences (mainly at root the origin of good and evil), but could this be the source?
But the suggestion that there is some shared cultural ties with the Pashtun? That intrigues me no end (there are similarities, a refusal to submit, an unwillingness to assimilate, a certain stiff-necked arrogance, coupled with an inability to live quietly and at peace with ones neighbours (smile if you must) or to ‘pretend’/'feign’ submission, there are definite parallels). An interesting thought, but the question would have to be whether Zoroastrianism existed prior to Judaism and whether there is a traceable connection between the two (I note the yanks have broken out the ‘q-tips’ to record biometrics among the Pashtun, so there will be a better, more complete data set on them than almost anyone else in the region).
Israelite origin of the pashtuns and pathans
Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites
Afghanistan
The Yu Aw synagogue in Afghanistan’s Herat quarter
In addition to the historic Jewish roots of the Pathans (Pashtuns) described elsewhere on the Shavei Israel site, there is also speculation that the Afghan Royal Family has its roots in the tribe of of Benjamin. First published in 1635 in a book called Mahsan-I-Afghani, the tradition has it that King Saul had a son called Jeremiah who had a son called Afghana. Jeremiah died at about the time of King Saul’s death and Afghana was raised by King David and remained in the royal court during King Solomon’s reign.
Some 400 years later the Afghana family fled to a land called Gur, which is in central Afghanistan. They settled and traded with the people of the area and in the year 662, with the arrival of Islam, the sons of Israel in Gur converted to Islam with 7 representatives of the Afghan. The leader of the sons of Israel was Kish like the name of Saul’s father.
According to this tradition, writes Rabbi Marvin Tokayer, Muhammad rewarded them and Kish’s Hebrew name was changed to Arab-A-Rashid by Muhammad and was given the task of spreading Islam among his people.
Tokayer adds that he has met a tribe in the Khyber Pass region of Afghanistan with several names of the Bible’s Joseph: Yusufzai (Joseph), Yusufuzi (children of Joseph) and Yusufzad. “Their tradition is that they were carried away from their ancient homeland,” Tokayer writes
Wikipedia adds more details, including the claim that the name Kabul is derived from the Biblical story of Cain and Abel.
According to historians V. Minorsky, W.K. Frazier Tyler and M.C. Gillet, the name “Afghan” appears in a 982 CE book called Hudud-al-Alam, where a reference is made to:
Saul, a pleasant village on a mountain. In it lives Afghans.
The village of Saul probably was located some where near Gardez, which is just east of Ghazni in Afghanistan.
In 1080, Rabbi Moses ibn Ezra mentions 40,000 Jews paying tribute to Ghazni, and Benjamin of Tudela in the 12th century counts 80,000 Jews.
According to Alden Oreck, stone tablets with Hebrew inscriptions dating from 1115 to 1215 confirm the existence of a Jewish community in Firoz Koh, located between Herat and Kabul.
In the course of Genghis Khan’s 1222 invasion, the Jewish communities were reduced to isolated pockets.
More recently, in 1948, about 5,000 Jews lived in Afghanistan, most of whom emigrated to Israel and, to a much smaller extent, to New York in the early 1950s. Today, there is only one Jew left in Afghanistan – Zablon Simintov. There is much written about Simintov – see links here, here, here and here, along with video from The New York Times here and, surprisingly, from Al Jazeera.
Persians are not Semites, but Indo-Aryans — that would, presumably, make them descendants of Yaphet, rather than Shem.
Mr Small,
I can recommend The Exiled and the Redeemed, by Itzhak Ben-Zvi. And in checking that I had the reference right I happened to notice that there is “Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites” – Wikipedia, but I haven’t read that yet. The best expert on these things is Rabbi Avihail in Jerusalem.
Best
Yeruham
Researches have shown not only a relationship between Afghan (Pashtun) and Jewish (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi) DNA but that Afghan DNA is second closest (68.1) to Ashkenazi DNA after Irani and Iraqi Jews Though most of these researches have used Yusufzai, Afridi or Khattak samples from Pakistan and India, inferences can be drawn about Afghan DNA in general.
Rare genetic disease among populations show a common origin. In this regard, the rare disease Inclusion body myopathy has been found among Afghans (Pashtuns), Iranian Jews and Ashkenazi. This indicates a common founder mutation.
Another genetic disease common to both Pashtuns and Jews is the disease Glucose 6 Phosphate Dehydrogenase deficiency.
Genetics & Anthropology
The theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites is currently being studied by Navras Aafreedi and Shahnaz Ali of India.[15][16]
“Pathans, or Pashtuns, are the only people in the world whose probable descent from the lost tribes of Israel finds mention in a number of texts from the 10th century to the present day, written by Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars alike, both religious as well as secularists.”[3]
—Navras Aafreedi, academic at the University of Lucknow and member of the Afridis
Israel is planning to fund this rare genetic study to determine whether there is a link between the lost tribes of Israel and the Pashtuns.
“Of all the groups, there is more convincing evidence about the Pashtuns than anybody else, but the Pashtuns are the ones who would reject Israel most ferociously. That is the sweet irony.”[3]
—Shalva Weil, anthropologist and senior researcher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Pashtun_descent_from_Israelites