"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>Read the posts. Read the Holy Bible. Nobody ever claimed that there
>weren't two different Cushi described in the Holy Bible.
Then it is pure BS on your part that we have any reason to know which
Cushi are Israelites and which are not.
>The point you studiously ignore is that it's impossible that Moses would
>have married the Cushi who were descendants of Ham, because they were
>niggers.
The name Cushi MEANS that they were black-skinned.
>It's equally impossible that a jew could be a descendant of the
>Israelite named Cushi, because then these morons called "jews" would be only
>the descendant of ONE Israelite, who was one of hundreds of thousands or one
>of millions of Israelites.
Why should they ALL necessarily be descendants of the one Cushi?
>What would that do to your claim that 30% of the population were jews, as
>ridiculous as it already is?
The claim I and most other Christians make is that ALL of those who
returned from exile were of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin and Levi.
Originally, only the tribe of Judah were called Jews, but eventually
all of those in the land of Judah came to be called Jews, because the
word in Greek for Judean and Jew and son of Judah is the same.
>> >Why do you think they would have made an exception for Ruth?
>>>> They didn't. Therefore the law was not what you have claimed that it
>>The law never changed.
Correct. Therefore the law was never what you claim that the law was.
It is only your perversion of the law that leads to there being any
issue with Ruth. The standard interpretation of the law described in
the Bible has no problem with miscegenation so long as the people
married convert to following the covenant of Moses and Abraham.
>It's still law to this very day. To the 2 billion
>Christians in the world, it's more important than ever:
No it isn't. MOST of the laws in the Old Testament are ignored by
Christians. Do you celebrate Passover? Do you avoid pork? Do you not
mix meat and dairy products?
>A [mamzer]
Christians don't accept your misinterpretation of the word.
>shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his
>tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD,
>Deuteronomy 23:2
>Israelite and jewish law are different, to this very day.
Only in your perverted mind.
>To be a jew
>requires only that the mother be a jew, but to be an Israelite requires both
>parents to be Israelites.
To be a Jew, one must keep the covenant of Abraham and Moses.
Non-Jews who do so are accepted as converts regardless of their
parentage. Thus said the Lord.
>> When foreigners adopted the ways of Israel NOT
>> through force, but by realization that the Lord was God, and kept the
>> covenant of Moses, then they were regardless racial birth inheritors
>> of the covenant. And the Lord explicitly SAYS this in a passage I
>> quoted to you a couple of days ago.
>>Absolutely not. You could not have quoted any such thing, because it
>doesn't exist. Here's what Christ said about Israelites:
>>He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of
>Israel." Matthew 15:24
>>"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go
>not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter
>ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye
>go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 10:5-9
But then later, He DID extend His commission for the disciples to go
to ALL nations.
>> >Descendants of Judah are never referred to as jews in any place in the Holy
>> >Bible, because they were Israelites.
>>>> They are referred to as Jews, because the Hebrew word for a descendent
>> of Judah is precisely the word which is translated as "Jew".
>>Just because you keep repeating the same old tired jewish LIE is no reason
>for you to believe that it will some day come true.
Just because you keep repeating the same nincompoop lie, fed to you be
the Prince of Lies, is no reason for you to believe that it will some
day come true.
>The ONLY word the Hebrew word "Yhudah" was ever translated into, even by the
>KJV translators, was "JUDAH".
That is because that is a correct translation of the word.
>The ONLY word the Hebrew word "Yhudiy" was ever tranlsated into, even by the
>KVJ translators, was "JEW".
That is because that is a correct translation of the word.
BUT the fact that we KNOW how Hebrew works, we know that it is not the
ONLY translation of the word. And we KNOW that the sons of Judah have
been called by the word translated as "Jews" ever since the time of
the exile. "Jews" just happens to be the English word meaning "sons
of Judah".
>The KJV translators DID translate the Hebrew word "yhud" and the Greek word
>"ioudaia" to mean "jewry" on three different occasions, but now modern
>translators have corrected that error and translate it as "Judah".
>>Whether or not this was an intentional "error" is something it would really
>be nice to know.
Noting that the KJV was translated when Jews were not in England, you
should have little to fear of a Great Jewish Plot.
>> >Yes, the country was known as "Judea" [or Judaea], and most of the
>> >Israelites who lived there were known as "Judah", because they were
>> >descendants of Judah, but there were also Israelites of the Tribe of
>> >Benjamin (like Paul), as well as jews who were descendants of Jehudi.
>The
>> >Holy Bible never confuses Judah with Jehudi.
>>>> Because the one refers to the other.
>>And I repeat: "The Holy Bible never confuses Judah with Jehudi."
Why should it? One means the son of the other. We don't confuse
"John" and "Johnson" either.
>> >No. By both Hebrew and Israelite law, mamzers born of an adulterous
>> >marriage with non-Hebrews or non-Israelites had to be put away. There's no
>> >way that jews could have legally been either. Besides, most jews today
>> >claim to be descendants of Ashkenaz,
>>>> No they don't. You have yet to come up with a quote that Kostler
>> claims that Jews are descendants of Ashkenaz, much less that any other
>> Jew does.
>>It's certainly not White Christian Israelites making this claim, because
>it's most likely yet one more jewish LIE.
The ONLY person making the claim, so far as we know is YOU. So this
statement means that you are not a White Christian Israelite. But
then we already knew that.
>> This from the guy who just posted agreeing with the claim that Paul
>> was a false prophet and that therefore most of the New Testament is
>> not scriptural.
>>If what Christ spoke conflicts with what Paul wrote, who do you think is the
>final authority?
The Bible.
>> >Disagreed. You WANT Christ's ancestry to be impure,
>>>> You want it to be pure
>>Of course. And the Holy Bible proves that it is.
False.
>It proves that jews are
>just what Christ claimed they are: LIARS, father of LIES, and MURDERERS.
That is a reference to people like YOU, who pervert the law in service
to your father, the Prince of Lies.
>Of the 2 billion Christians in the world, how many do you think agree with
>you "liberals", feminazis, and jews? Three? One percent? Two percent?
>Probably not even one.
On the question of whether the Jews are the people of Judah and the
chosen of Abraham as described in the Old Testament, I suspect 99.99%.
lojbab
