Black Hebrew Israelites

[DefecTed]

Im so lost on this topic ! But I know its on the rise. So can anyone help me?. What is this all about ?

Im not racist I just took a link from a website talking about this. They say There is no israel only Israelites and that israelis are black and so was christ.

Also very hateful towards whites and Jews that are not black! ? I know this may be stupid to ask but I am!

I know pastor rev wright had some anti Jewish sermons! so maybe hes on the side of the Black Hebrew Israelites?

Racism and anti-semitism:

Because they believe that the Tanakh forbids them from allowing "whites" —Jews of relatively light complexion whom they call "Caucasians", as opposed to Semites—into their
congregations, a number of Black Hebrew Israelite groups have been thought of as racist, being mirror images of Black Christian Identity groups to whom the concept of race is unnecessarily made an issue. They insist that these "Caucasian," non-Semitic Jews are not descended from Israelites at all, but rather from Edomites and Khazars. As such, BHI groups have been accused of anti-semitism, a term which they reject as Black people are in fact Shemetic, disacknowledging the fact that, in modern usage and in this context, the term ‘anti-Semite’ almost exclusively refers to antagonism towards Jews.

[Tanakh Keeper]

This seems to be just another group claiming to be the “real Jews”. They are late to the party, as Christianity, Islam, and Mormons have all already made this claim. In order to be known as the “real Jews”, you have to demean and insult the people who are currently Jewish to try to get us labeled as being something that is “not-Jewish”.

In my synagogue, we have several non-white Jews. Judaism is not a race, it is a religion. Across the world, there are white Jews, black Jews, Mexican Jews, Chinese Jews, etc. Skin color is not the determinant of Jewish identity.

[Sparko]

I would say that the original hebrews were neither black nor white but arabic (the race) - because basically the jews and arabs came from the same ancestor, Abraham.

[DefecTed]

I would say that the original hebrews were neither black nor white but arabic (the race) - because basically the jews and arabs came from the same ancestor, Abraham.



Ah ok I understand that but what I now don't understand would be the statement T-keeper made. saying christians believe they are the "real jews" ? My family on my mothers side are jewish and my fathers side are agnostics never heard of christians claiming to be "real Jews" and I have never met one christian claiming to be the "real jew"

[Sparko]

Ah ok I understand that but what I now don't understand would be the statement T-keeper made. saying christians believe they are the "real jews" ? My family on my mothers side are jewish and my fathers side are agnostics never heard of christians claiming to be "real Jews" and I have never met one christian claiming to be the "real jew"

He is probably referring to Christians claiming to be the inheritors of God's promises to Israel because we accepted his Messiah, while the rest rejected Jesus.

The church as "spiritual Israel" so to speak.

[sylvius]

He is probably referring to Christians claiming to be the inheritors of God's promises to Israel because we accepted his Messiah, while the rest rejected Jesus.

The church as "spiritual Israel" so to speak.


Wasn't the promise made to Abraham, the father of all who believe , be they Jewish or Gentile,
free or slave, male or female?

[DefecTed]

I think the big deference christianity is pure vs black hebrew israelites is race acceptance

[tomsawyer25]

There are various groups that claim to be the lost ten tribes of Israel, and which do so without any proof of descending from Jews. I think they do mean it literally, but I can't be sure about it.

I would agree that ancient Jews were probably very similar to Arabs, although I believe there is at least one Ethiopian mentioned. Wasn't the man who intervened to save Jeremiah from the pit an Ethiopian?.

There have always been some level of converts to Judaism from any number of races, but attempts to treat it purely as a religion haven't had much lasting success. There is something in the staying power that relates to the Jewish people and community.

[rogue06]

While several far-flung groups have claimed Jewish ancestry, a small group of Bantu-speaking people from South Africa known as the Lemba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba), who maintain their ancestors left Judah roughly 2500 years ago, may have a legitimate claim.

Back in the 1990s it was discovered that a substantial portion of the men from the Jewish priestly class (the Cohens or Kohanim) possessed a specific array of six chromosomal markers in over 90% of the Cohens tested. This collection of Y chromosomal markers is known as the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) and is recognized the standard genetic signature of the Jewish priestly family.

I mention this because it appears that recent genetic testing conducted on the Lembas has revealed that almost 10% of the men and over 50% of the Lemba priests (the Buba clan) carry the CMH. More testing appears to be needed before a definitive answer can be given.

OTOH, another group of black Jews, the Beta Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel), many of whom were airlifted to Israel from Ethiopia in the ‘80s, appear to be (based on genetic analysis) the descendants of Africans who converted to Judaism.

[fiddlin-john]

I would say that the original hebrews were neither black nor white but arabic (the race) - because basically the jews and arabs came from the same ancestor, Abraham.

I wuold be more comfortable saying that both Arabic and Hebrew race came from Abraham. I don't believe you can today assert that ethnic Arabs and synonymous with ethnic Jews.

[technomage]

I would say that the original hebrews were neither black nor white but arabic (the race) - because basically the jews and arabs came from the same ancestor, Abraham.
I would pose "semitic" as the best word, as Arabic is a sub-sector of semitic that does not include ethnic Jews. There is an ethnic factor to being Jewish, and it's an important one--but it's not absolute, as Judaism allows conversion.

And as I live in the American southeast, to the Jews (ethnic, religious, or both) on this forum, "Shalom, y'all!" :smile:

[Sparko]

my point was that they were more arabic than caucasian. doubtful Jesus had blonde hair and blue eyes. But neither were they black africans.

[Gavriel]

Im so lost on this topic ! But I know its on the rise. So can anyone help me?. What is this all about ?

Im not racist I just took a link from a website talking about this. They say There is no israel only Israelites and that israelis are black and so was christ.

Also very hateful towards whites and Jews that are not black! ? I know this may be stupid to ask but I am!

I know pastor rev wright had some anti Jewish sermons! so maybe hes on the side of the Black Hebrew Israelites?

Racism and anti-semitism:

Because they believe that the Tanakh forbids them from allowing "whites" —Jews of relatively light complexion whom they call "Caucasians", as opposed to Semites—into their
congregations, a number of Black Hebrew Israelite groups have been thought of as racist, being mirror images of Black Christian Identity groups to whom the concept of race is unnecessarily made an issue. They insist that these "Caucasian," non-Semitic Jews are not descended from Israelites at all, but rather from Edomites and Khazars. As such, BHI groups have been accused of anti-semitism, a term which they reject as Black people are in fact Shemetic, disacknowledging the fact that, in modern usage and in this context, the term ‘anti-Semite’ almost exclusively refers to antagonism towards Jews.

Most that I have seen on TV are neither Hebrew (Jewish) nor Israelite, rather American Christians.

[OneSizeFit]

Israelites are Ammorite and Hittite according to Elijah.

Ammorites - Semitic inhabitants of Canaan
Hittites - Indo-Iranian invaders from modern day Turkey

Black Israelites are sad individuals looking for some sort of legitimacy in someone elses rich history.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Israelites are Ammorite and Hittite according to Elijah.

You just make these things up as you go?

The (or is there a source for this kind of nonsense?) Curtmudgeon

[OneSizeFit]

You just make these things up as you go?

The (or is there a source for this kind of nonsense?) Curtmudgeon


Uh the Bible...


and say, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says to Jerusalem: Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.

Ezekiel 16:3

[technomage]

and say, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says to Jerusalem: Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.
This is poetry, not historiography--the reference here is that God is saying that Israel was born a bastard, abandoned in the field, and only God had mercy on them.

[Sparko]

This is poetry, not historiography--the reference here is that God is saying that Israel was born a bastard, abandoned in the field, and only God had mercy on them.


agreed. It was God's way of saying, "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries"

[technomage]

It was a bit more ... dignified.

[Sparko]

It was a bit more ... dignified.

the way the Isrealites thought of the Hittites and Amorites, I think it was a bit more graphic. :hehe:

[technomage]

Eh, you could be right. :hehe:

[The Curtmudgeon]

Uh the Bible...


and say, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says to Jerusalem: Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.

Ezekiel 16:3

No, the passage you quote says nothing about Elijah.

A big part of my point was that "Well, the Bible says something like that somewhere, so the details don't really matter" is not a valid approach to using the Bible (and it's equally not a valid approach to referencing any source, whether it's the US Constitution, or Das Kapital, or whatever).

But I also disagree somewhat with the earlier replies about this being merely poetic invective -- it is poetic invective, but it's also historigraphic. Ezekiel is quoting God speaking to the city of Jerusalem here (the whole chapter is focused on cities, not nations or people groups), and Jerusalem was founded by the Canaanites. It was called Jebus and inhabited by a people called Jebusites when David conquered it, but we don't know anything more specific about them. The Canaanites, in general, were Amorite peoples, and that the Hittites were in the region is demonstrated by Abraham buying the burial cave of Machpelah from them not far away.

God, through Ezekiel, is making a valid historical statement about Jerusalem, not necessarily Israel as a whole (but most likely using Jerusalem representatively for Israel, I agree), as a basis for His invective. God "adopted" Jerusalem, if you will, when He gave all the previously Canaanite cities to Israel as their possession, but His point here is that Jerusalem continues to act Canaanite rather than how a covenant-keeping Israelite city should. He has chosen Jerusalem, He has "placed His name there" by having Solomon build the Temple, He has blessed it with His personal protection (e.g., Sennacherib), and its people still turn away to worship other gods.

So the invective applies to the Israelites as a whole, but God through Ezekiel is using a metaphor based on the history of Jerusalem itself, not the Israelite people. Which is why the verse says, "Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem".

The ("but both names start with E, so they must be interchangeable") Curtmudgeon

[Sparko]

No, the passage you quote says nothing about Elijah.

A big part of my point was that "Well, the Bible says something like that somewhere, so the details don't really matter" is not a valid approach to using the Bible (and it's equally not a valid approach to referencing any source, whether it's the US Constitution, or Das Kapital, or whatever).

But I also disagree somewhat with the earlier replies about this being merely poetic invective -- it is poetic invective, but it's also historigraphic. Ezekiel is quoting God speaking to the city of Jerusalem here (the whole chapter is focused on cities, not nations or people groups), and Jerusalem was founded by the Canaanites. It was called Jebus and inhabited by a people called Jebusites when David conquered it, but we don't know anything more specific about them. The Canaanites, in general, were Amorite peoples, and that the Hittites were in the region is demonstrated by Abraham buying the burial cave of Machpelah from them not far away.

God, through Ezekiel, is making a valid historical statement about Jerusalem, not necessarily Israel as a whole (but most likely using Jerusalem representatively for Israel, I agree), as a basis for His invective. God "adopted" Jerusalem, if you will, when He gave all the previously Canaanite cities to Israel as their possession, but His point here is that Jerusalem continues to act Canaanite rather than how a covenant-keeping Israelite city should. He has chosen Jerusalem, He has "placed His name there" by having Solomon build the Temple, He has blessed it with His personal protection (e.g., Sennacherib), and its people still turn away to worship other gods.

So the invective applies to the Israelites as a whole, but God through Ezekiel is using a metaphor based on the history of Jerusalem itself, not the Israelite people. Which is why the verse says, "Thus saith the Lord GOD unto Jerusalem".

The ("but both names start with E, so they must be interchangeable") Curtmudgeon


hmm interesting.

I was thinking God was just commenting on how the Israelites were so quick to embrace the pagans around them, intermarrying with them and taking up their idol worship.

[OneSizeFit]

The ("but both names start with E, so they must be interchangeable") Curtmudgeon


I know I made a simple mistake.

[OneSizeFit]

Question is does it really matter who the Israelites were ethnically, they are an example of man's continuous tendency to deny God and do things for their own glory, the constant struggle with the realities of pain, suffering and redemption, finally being completed in the life of Jesus.

Obviously, the Black Israelites miss this whole point, and base their doctrine on the flesh (on racial things).

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

Not that it matters or anything but I see pictures of wall paintings of Egyptians from back in the day of the Pharaohs and they look like they are as black as black can be. I wonder how Yoseph was able not to be readily recognizable to his brothers among the black Egyptians when they came begging for food? Did he wear black makeup? I wonder to at times how it was that Yoseph along with Miriam and the baby Yahshua was able to hide themselves among the Black Egyptians when Herod was out for blood? I also can't help how it could be that Brother Sha'ul was mistaken for a black Egyptian. There are other things as well which point to the color of a Hebrew Yisraelites skin tone within scripture which I find nothing that points to white as being one of them. Well maybe the look of a leper. I personally do not see that it matters today other than the history of such a cursed group of peoples that have endured so much for their disobedience to Yah their Elohim. There have been no other peoples so prophesized and written about within the Tanach. It is written that they would be known as a proverb and a byword which they have by being so labeled by so many “N” words and the like by racist bigots that continue to hold the torch have hatred until this day.

I will say though, not all Hebrew Yisraelites assemblies are so brainwashed into the hatred mode of this nasty culture that we find ourselves in but some know the truth and are upholding it to the fullest of its true intent. Yah’s love is for all that hear and obey. Period.

[technomage]

Not that it matters or anything but I see pictures of wall paintings of Egyptians from back in the day of the Pharaohs and they look like they are as black as black can be.

The Egyptians are normally painted pink or slightly reddish (Google is your friend (http://images.google.com/images?q=egyptian+tomb+paintings&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=DCLPSvvVI9Kf8Abv08TyAw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQsAQwAA)). I'm not sure what wall paintings you're looking at, but I wonder if they are original, or a 20th century copy with the wrong colors.

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

The Egyptians are normally painted pink or slightly reddish (Google is your friend (http://images.google.com/images?q=egyptian+tomb+paintings&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=DCLPSvvVI9Kf8Abv08TyAw&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQsAQwAA)). I'm not sure what wall paintings you're looking at, but I wonder if they are original, or a 20th century copy with the wrong colors.


Really? Just by looking through the link you offered of the many pages within show a different understanding. Mostly I saw black, dark brown to light brown. The facial and body features say alot as well not to mention the braided and corn rolled hair styles. One has to remember that there are about 33 different shades of black. Also, isn't it an already proven fact through the genome project that we were all black from the beginning? I also seem to remember that there was scientific proof that the indo-euro asian that went north of the sons of Yefet lost their pigmentation as is why they appear white.

Really, in all honesty,it is of my understanding that it does not matter what skin tone one is nor where they are from as long as they hear and obey the word of Yah Elohim. For that is the whole duty of man.

[OneSizeFit]

Really? Just by looking through the link you offered of the many pages within show a different understanding. Mostly I saw black, dark brown to light brown. The facial and body features say alot as well not to mention the braided and corn rolled hair styles. One has to remember that there are about 33 different shades of black.

Yeah, but I think people also tend to under-estimate the diversity of the Middle Eastern gene pool. I am Persian, i have uncles who have afros and dark features and basically look like Ethiopians, and have cousins that have blue eyes and white as snow skin, and could look Danish. Keep in mind, we also are not told which Pharaoh was in power when Joshua was there - maybe the Shepherd kings or perhaps the Persian dynasty (either way I fully agree the original Egyptians were black for a lack of a better term, I can't stand the haters who argue the point).

With that being said, maybe we can't tell what the Israelites looked like in the Abrahamic times, but in Iran, Iraq, Yemen, we can find Jewish populations that have been there since the first exile which would make them 2500-3000 year old populations with little or no mixing (if they would marry outside the religion they would just convert).

Also, the Samaritans in modern Israel (there are roughly 700 left) have not intermingled for 1000s of years. All these populations can tell us what our OT heroes looked like, and basically they look like what they/we are, Middle Easterners.

[technomage]

Mostly I saw black, dark brown to light brown. The facial and body features say alot as well not to mention the braided and corn rolled hair styles.

Facial features in Egyptian art is a bit hard to detect, as the art is very stylized--even in the Amarna period, the style changed, but realism wasn't the main factor there. And I suppose there is room for artistic judgement: from what I'm seeing, the skin tone does not look that different from mine (I'm 3/4 European ancestry, 1/4 Romany ancestry). Of course, you have depictions of Medjam (technically from the Nubian kingdoms, though the term has been used in Egyptian writing for any sub-Saharan African). Egyptian art definitely made a distinction between "black" Nubians, "White" Lybians, and their own skin color. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egyptian_races.jpg)

One has to remember that there are about 33 different shades of black.

That's a wonderful slogan, but there's no truth to it. Nor does there need to be--the term "race" is not a biological concept, but a social one.

I guess my problem with the terms "black" and "white" when applied to people is that I've never seen one. People come in a multitude of colors, ranging from brown to gold to pale pink, and as far as I'm concerned they're all beautiful colors, but I have never seen a truly "black" or "white" person.

Also, isn't it an already proven fact through the genome project that we were all black from the beginning?

Not from the Genome Project specifically, though other research has indicated that yes, the ancestors of Europeans had black skin: dark pigmentation is a positive adaptation in tropical areas, but was selected against when they migrated north, as dark skin interferes with vitamin D production in the feebler northern sunlight.

I also seem to remember that there was scientific proof that the indo-euro asian that went north of the sons of Yefet lost their pigmentation as is why they appear white.

Now you're proceeding from science to myth.

Really, in all honesty,it is of my understanding that it does not matter what skin tone one is nor where they are from as long as they hear and obey the word of Yah Elohim. For that is the whole duty of man.

Here we agree, though I do express it differently.

[OneSizeFit]

Facial features in Egyptian art is a bit hard to detect, as the art is very stylized--even in the Amarna period, the style changed, but realism wasn't the main factor there. And I suppose there is room for artistic judgement: from what I'm seeing, the skin tone does not look that different from mine (I'm 3/4 European ancestry, 1/4 Romany ancestry). Of course, you have depictions of Medjam (technically from the Nubian kingdoms, though the term has been used in Egyptian writing for any sub-Saharan African). Egyptian art definitely made a distinction between "black" Nubians, "White" Lybians, and their own skin color. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egyptian_races.jpg)



That's a wonderful slogan, but there's no truth to it. Nor does there need to be--the term "race" is not a biological concept, but a social one.

I guess my problem with the terms "black" and "white" when applied to people is that I've never seen one. People come in a multitude of colors, ranging from brown to gold to pale pink, and as far as I'm concerned they're all beautiful colors, but I have never seen a truly "black" or "white" person.



Not from the Genome Project specifically, though other research has indicated that yes, the ancestors of Europeans had black skin: dark pigmentation is a positive adaptation in tropical areas, but was selected against when they migrated north, as dark skin interferes with vitamin D production in the feebler northern sunlight.



Now you're proceeding from science to myth.



Here we agree, though I do express it differently.

I'm sure this train of thought fits in with helping you relate to the Egyptian magic, artwork, and mysticism you admire so much.

Bottom line is this, I recently went to the King Tut exhibit here in San Francisco, looked at the tombs, artwork, etc from less than inches away, and can say if you saw Tut, Akhenaten, their concubines and slaves, on a bus in modern clothing, you brain would classify them as black. They have African features, it is an African culture, bottom line.

[technomage]

I'm sure this train of thought fits in with helping you relate to the Egyptian magic, artwork, and mysticism you admire so much.

Perhaps you should get to know me as a person, before you speculate (incorrectly, in this case) on what I do or do not admire.

Bottom line is this, I recently went to the King Tut exhibit here in San Francisco, looked at the tombs, artwork, etc from less than inches away, and can say if you saw Tut, Akhenaten, their concubines and slaves, on a bus in modern clothing, you brain would classify them as black. They have African features, it is an African culture, bottom line.

"African?" Certainly Egypt is on the continent of Africa, and there is little or no doubt the Egyptians intermarried with both sub-saharan "nubians" and Semitic "Asiatics," but Egypt is it's own culture.

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

Facial features in Egyptian art is a bit hard to detect,

Not to me as well as anyone that I have ever dealt with in the past as to the same issue. But, there is always a first.

as the art is very stylized--even in the Amarna period, the style changed, but realism wasn't the main factor there. And I suppose there is room for artistic judgement: from what I'm seeing, the skin tone does not look that different from mine (I'm 3/4 European ancestry, 1/4 Romany ancestry). Of course, you have depictions of Medjam (technically from the Nubian kingdoms, though the term has been used in Egyptian writing for any sub-Saharan African). Egyptian art definitely made a distinction between "black" Nubians, "White" Lybians, and their own skin color. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egyptian_races.jpg)

I have never argued the fact that within the culture of Mitsrayim that there were many skin tones. Just as we see today within the so called African American peoples here in the US. There are many, many different shades of black.

That's a wonderful slogan, but there's no truth to it.

It is what I believe to be true and I should have said “about” 33 shades of black. Whether you accept it or not is of little to no consequence to me or others that use it.

Nor does there need to be--the term "race" is not a biological concept, but a social one.

Well, at least you didn’t see that term used by me.

I guess my problem with the terms "black" and "white" when applied to people is that I've never seen one. People come in a multitude of colors, ranging from brown to gold to pale pink, and as far as I'm concerned they're all beautiful colors, but I have never seen a truly "black" or "white" person.

LOL. So we want to play that game huh? As my art teacher used to say…….

“Black is every other color but black and white is every other color but white.”

Not from the Genome Project specifically, though other research has indicated that yes, the ancestors of Europeans had black skin: dark pigmentation is a positive adaptation in tropical areas, but was selected against when they migrated north, as dark skin interferes with vitamin D production in the feebler northern sunlight.

Thanks for furthering my point.

Now you're proceeding from science to myth.

Your myth, my faith. So we are at an impasse. Woopty-Do! Get in line.

Here we agree, though I do express it differently.

And there you have it. Your different. :smile:

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

. Egyptian art definitely made a distinction between "black" Nubians, "White" Lybians, and their own skin color. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egyptian_races.jpg) .

LOL. You should read what you link to more closely guy. In the description under this altered pic states......

"1820 drawing of a relief of the tomb of Seti. Note that the skin shades are due to the 19th century illustrator, not the Ancient Egyptian original."

:lol:

[makotoseven]

This seems to be just another group claiming to be the “real Jews”. They are late to the party, as Christianity, Islam, and Mormons have all already made this claim. In order to be known as the “real Jews”, you have to demean and insult the people who are currently Jewish to try to get us labeled as being something that is “not-Jewish”.

In my synagogue, we have several non-white Jews. Judaism is not a race, it is a religion. Across the world, there are white Jews, black Jews, Mexican Jews, Chinese Jews, etc. Skin color is not the determinant of Jewish identity.

im not aware of any christians that claim to be the "real jews". im pretty sure thats one of those genetic things.

[Tanakh Keeper]

im not aware of any christians that claim to be the "real jews". im pretty sure thats one of those genetic things.

Several christians have posted that to me at times. I think it's part of that replacement theology thing.

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

Several christians have posted that to me at times. I think it's part of that replacement theology thing.

Is that kinda like what the rabbinites did to the that of the Hebrew Yisraelite belief and culture around the 3rd or 4th century CE. I believe they call it judaism now if I am not mistaken.

[technomage]

Is that kinda like what the rabbinites did to the that of the Hebrew Yisraelite belief and culture around the 3rd or 4th century CE. I believe they call it judaism now if I am not mistaken.

Paul (you call him Shaul) refutes you.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Is that kinda like what the rabbinites did to the that of the Hebrew Yisraelite belief and culture around the 3rd or 4th century CE. I believe they call it judaism now if I am not mistaken.

Ah, so you do believe in the term "Real Jews".

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

Paul (you call him Shaul) refutes you.

This should be interesting.

How so?

[technomage]

This should be interesting.

How so?
Shaul was Jewish.

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

Ah, so you do believe in the term "Real Jews".

The only thing I agree with about what a real Yahudite is being either of the tribe of Yahdah or the nation of Yahdah. Otherwise its just further misguided utterences from man.

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

Shaul was Jewish.

And?

I fail to see your point with my statement.

[technomage]

Shaul preceded the date you propose for the Jews "stealing" the religion and culture of the "Hebrew Yisraelites."

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

Shaul preceded the date you propose for the Jews "stealing" the religion and culture of the "Hebrew Yisraelites."

I still don't get how this fact has anything to do with what I offered. Shaul has nothing whatsoever, as also none of the other Yahudites of the time, with rabbinical judaism.

[technomage]

I still don't get how this fact has anything to do with what I offered. Shaul has nothing whatsoever, as also none of the other Yahudites of the time, with rabbinical judaism.

Saul is reputed to have said "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee," did he not?

The Pharisees are the direct antecedent to Rabbinical Judaism.

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

Saul is reputed to have said "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee," did he not?

The Pharisees are the direct antecedent to Rabbinical Judaism.

Yes he was a Pharisee not a rabbinite.

[technomage]

The Pharisees became the Rabbis. We have the history of this, and the evidence is slightly overwhelming.

Oh, and Shaul also refutes your statement that "Only those of the tribe of Judah are Jews," as he was of the tribe of Benjamin, yet still referred to himself as a Jew.

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

The Pharisees became the Rabbis. We have the history of this, and the evidence is slightly overwhelming.

Show me. Also, are you saying that Shaul became a rabbi? LOL

Oh, and Shaul also refutes your statement that "Only those of the tribe of Judah are Jews," as he was of the tribe of Benjamin, yet still referred to himself as a Jew.

My statement in no way reffered to all Yahudites being from the tribe of Yahdah only.

So take it back buster. :smile:

[tomsawyer25]

Several christians have posted that to me at times. I think it's part of that replacement theology thing.

Hi Tanakh Keeper,

Both pasages in the Tanakh and in the New Testament make Replacement Theology a true impossibility. In fact large portions of Christendom have entirely thrown away this theology, including the Catholic Church. Paul deals with the question of Israel's national rejection of Yeshuah throughout Romans 9-11, most notably Romans 11. Have a look.

It is clear that Paul views this rejection as a fall, but not as an eternal one. It is also clear that he views the Gentile believers not as a replacement, but as a branch which will eventually be grafted in. He in fact warns the Gentiles against thinking that it's all about them now. History, of course, went the other way.

There is certainly a principal in the New Testament of a spiritual Israel made up of followers of Yeshuah, but I see nowhere that a spiritual Israel is to be a literal replacement for the Jewish people. More something like an eventual wife. In fact in Revelations 21, the form of the New Jerusalem includes both the twelve apostles of the Lamb as well as the twelve tribes of Israel.

That being said, to the best of my understanding, Yeshuah and all who hold true to Him are playing out the spiritual purposing of Israel. Although it is unpleasant to say, I do not believe the vast bulk of my Jewish brothers can live out their true purposing without the Mashiach, although they are certainly still Jews. Ultimately actual Israel (Jews) and spiritual Israel (Gentile believers) will both be under Mashiach.

It will be a wedding of sorts.

Baruch haba

Tom

[makotoseven]

Several christians have posted that to me at times. I think it's part of that replacement theology thing.

well they're wrong. there is no replacement because the old testament is filled with the jewish people constantly screwing up and just not getting it. the whole time God is just going "I DONT CARE WHAT YOU DO SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND GIVE ME YOUR HEART!" but they dont seem to pick up on it. the whole time they were expecting a messiah to come and vindicate the jewish people against the rest of the world like God is their cosmic hitman.

so when christ shows up and says "you got it wrong, i'm not here to destroy this world i've come to bring life" followed by "and to receive this gift of life you can't follow enough rules well enough to obtain it" they get super hacked off because the concept of salvation being unobtainable by following the law is completely foreign to them.

if christ came to perform genocide on every gentile they would have embraced him but as usual God doesn't do what he does for man, he does it for his namesake. i absolutely love the fact that God uses the prideful man's ego against him while simultaneously lifting up the underdog.

there is no replacement because the whole time God refers to his people he's talking about the folks that have a heart for him. jews and non-jews. christians.

[OneSizeFit]

well they're wrong. there is no replacement because the old testament is filled with the jewish people constantly screwing up and just not getting it. the whole time God is just going "I DONT CARE WHAT YOU DO SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND GIVE ME YOUR HEART!"


But that is the problem, according to the Moses, God gave clear instructions on the rules, regulations, and how to worship...so either God changed his mind, God lied, it wasnt God who came down to Mt Zion, or the priests made up the altar and food instructions because they were hungry. The ancient Hebrews were just following the instructions of their fore father Moses.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Both pasages in the Tanakh and in the New Testament make Replacement Theology a true impossibility.

well they're wrong.

Well, that is a difficulty in talking to Christians. A Christian posts their beliefs to me and the very next Christian says the first Christian's beliefs are wrong.

[ברכיה בן ישׂראל]

Well, that is a difficulty in talking to Christians. A Christian posts their beliefs to me and the very next Christian says the first Christian's beliefs are wrong.

That reminds me of an old saying................

Two jews, three opinions. :teeth:

[makotoseven]

Well, that is a difficulty in talking to Christians. A Christian posts their beliefs to me and the very next Christian says the first Christian's beliefs are wrong.

it is better to have it and not know what to call it than know what to call it and not have it. TONS of christians have horrible theology and most people who claim to be christians in america simply aren't because in their lives they are practical atheists.

the short story is the jews wanted genocide and when christ offered people grace from the back of a donkey instead of wrath and the end of a sword they did exactly what God wanted them to do: they murdered him for not being the flavor of messiah that they wanted.

these were the legalistic non-God fearing jews, not the ones that actually chased after God with their heart like david and abraham.

p.s. i distinctly recall God basically saying "i dont care about your sacrifices, stop it, just shut up! if it isn't from your heart it isn't worth ANYTHING to me".

why did God not accept cain's sacrifice? the condition of his heart which was revealed by his anger.

God's been telling people that he wants their heart not their actions since the beginning of time.

[tomsawyer25]

Well, that is a difficulty in talking to Christians. A Christian posts their beliefs to me and the very next Christian says the first Christian's beliefs are wrong.

Hi Tanakh Keeper,

I appreciate the difficulty as much as you do. But there is always the possibility that one conclusion is correct, and that another is not correct. Regarding Replacement Theology, either the NT teaches it, permits it, doesn't comment, or makes it an impossibility. I strongly believe the last of the options. It seems about as plain as day according to the text. Feel free to check it out yourself.

Romans 11 passages:

"I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not cast away His people whom He forknew...."

"I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles"

"For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"

"and if some of the branches were broken off, and you being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you"

"For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?"

"blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in."

"concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable."

Replacement Theology? I don't think so.

Peace,

Tom