From Teshuva:
Anyway, thanks for being open to
discussion. I really enjoy a good chat...regardless of your views and if
you convert. As long as we both learn, we can both be satisfied with our
discussions.
What would you like to address
specifically? I will have to unpack my books for school to get the
references about Isaac, so we CAN do that, but it may take a while for me to
respond. But for starters, let's look at this: (then I'll stop, cause this email is getting long)...
"There was...a remarkable
tradition that insisted that Abraham completed the sacrifice and that afterward
Isaac was miraculously revived.... According to this haggadah, Abraham slew his son, burnt his victim, and
the ashes remain as a stored-up merit and atonement for
"Ibn Ezra (commentary on Gen.
22:19) also quotes an opinion that Abraham actually did kill Isaac...and he was
later resurrected from the dead. Ibn Ezra rejects
this as completely contrary to the biblical text. Shalom Spiegel has
demonstrated, however, that such views enjoyed a wide circulation and
occasionally found _expression in medieval writings."-Encyclopedia
Judaica, 2:482, "Akedah"
©1972
My Response:
I don't wish to delve deep in to issues of religion and faith as much of what each of us feels is driven by a belief system and one canot be convinced that beliefs are wrong. I have made no bones in the chat rooms about my belief that Jesus as any sort of messiah (a misused word to begin with) doesn't make sense and have backed my statements up with all sorts of text, but I don't do that to dissuade those who believe, only to discourage them from trying to impose on me. What troubled me tonight was simply your assertion that there exists in Jewish literature a concept that god desires, condones or in any way wants us to be involved with human sacrifice. The binding of Isaac is the quintessential example of god's desire that we NOT kill for others to be atoned for. The idea, though, that Isaac was indeed killed as was resurrected has been dismissed by many others, not just the Ibn Ezra -- you can try this site for a quick summary of the flaws in the argument. http://www.logon.org/english/s/p244.html What IS in Jewish theory and liturgy is a two (or even three) fold application of the event to help expiate sin: 1. Abraham asks god to treat the Jews "as if" Isaac had been slaughtered, because the slaughter, itself, was not acceptable -- so we should receive the merit of atonement when there was NO human sacrifice. 2. Isaac's status changed after the binding -- he was made "hekdesh" and set aside from worldly matters -- something set aside for a sacrifice must not be made impure if the sacrifice doesn't happen. Because of this change of status, Isaac's children attain a higher spiritual level ad merit atonement through his being offered, but not sacrificed -- had he been (god forbid) sacrificed, he would have had no children to receive atonement... 3. Through Abraham's binding of Isaac (the text never shows god asking Abraham to slaughter Isaac, only bring him up as a sacrifice and the Ralbag says that even that is not what god asked) god is shown Abraham's ultimate faith even in the face of a seemingly cruel request (though, according to tradition, the adversary, Satan, told Abraham that god didn't intend Isaac to be the sacrifice, but abraham didn't trust the adversary because he had been lying to Abraham all along - Sanhedrin 89b). It is the reminder of this faith which helps us atone for our sins. This section of the Torah is read on Rosh hashana as an invokation of Abraham's dedication, both to stimulate our own and to, by association with the great man, bring about atonement, but not through human sacrifice. The Torah is very clear about the exceptions to the rule of "don't kill" and no where is human sacrifice one of them. The Olah offering in the temple was to bring atonement by consummating the sacrifice of Isaac which didn't happen -- to bring atonement where it hadn't been brought before. Could I go in to the fact that Jesus as sacrifice would fail as he had blemishes from his torture before he was killed, thus making him unfit? Or that the method, enactors and place of his death are totally antithetical to the mode and method of animal sacrifice? Or the fact that the sacrifices of one generation don't mitigate the sins of another generation? Or that Judaism doesn't accept any concept of original sin from which we need to be saved in order to go to heaven? Sure, but you know all that stuff. I'm only concerned with the human sacrifice in the torah claim. references:
http://www.mesora.org/jewishtimes83.pdfhttp://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v9/mj_v9i18.html#CCThttp://www.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/chrysler/archives/vayera64.htm His Next email:
Hey, thanks for
the prompt reply...
Moses
said to God: 'Will not the time come when
---Exodus
Rabbah 35:4
just a few things:
1) We don't compare Jesus with an animal sacrifice. It is comparable with
the concept in Talmud that "the death of the righteous atones."
It is in THIS context that Jewish tradition has the "death" of Isaac
as atoning for
Actually, I do have some with me (copy and pasted from my Word.doc:
"MY BELOVED IS UNTO ME
AS A CLUSTER OF HENNA. CLUSTER refers to Isaac, who was bound on the altar like
A CLUSTER OF HENNA (KOFER): because he atones (mekapper)
for the iniquities of
---Song of Songs Rabbah 1:14:1
"Said R. Ammi, Wherefore is the account of Miriam's death placed
next to the [laws of the] red heifer? To inform you that even as the red heifer
afforded atonement [by the ritual use of its ashes], so does the death of the
righteous afford atonement [for the living they have left behind]."
---Talmud, Mo'ed Katan 28a
This next one deals
specifically with your blemish question (it refers to righteousness, not
physical blemishes)...
Hence the righteous man is,
of a truth, himself an offering of atonement. But he who is not righteous is
disqualified as an offering, for the reason that he suffers from a blemish, and
is therefore like the defective animals of which it is written, "they
shall not be accepted for you" (Lev. XXII, 25). Hence it is that the
righteous are an atonement and a sacrifice for the
world.'
---Zohar,
Section 1, Page 65a
Another important text:
R. Eleazar
said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Angel: Take a great man [rab] among them, through whose death many sins can be
expiated for them.29
(29) According to the dictum
that the death of the righteous is an atonement.
---Talmud, Berachoth 62b
Next we find a RESURRECTION account, which is unusual...
When Father Isaac was bound
on the altar and reduced to ashes and his sacrificial dust was cast onto
---Shibbole
ha-Leket 9a-b (13th c.)
The word "tahat" used in Genesis: "Abrahanm offered him up for a burnt offering in tahat of his son..." can and does mean
"after" (ie 2 Kings 15:7). So with
the above statements, from a Jewish traditional point of view, Isaac was slain,
the ram was sacrificed, Isaacs ashes were spread, and then God revived
him...thus he could easily have descendants, etc. But though resurrected,
he atoned by his death for
Hope that helps show my position better!!
2) Also, Judaism, contrary to popular opinion DOES have a concept of original
sin. It is just a wee bit different than that Catholic version (of which
church I am not a part). Most people think this means you inherit a
specific sin of your father. All it means is that we are all born with
the inability to not sin. We cannot avoid sinning in our life. A
cursory glance at the Tanakh shows this. Lemme know if I can clear up the concept of original sin at
all!
And my response:
I'll take a stab at the
final thought first. We are all punished because of the sin of Adam and Eve --
we all face mortality, which is a change from before the sin (Gen
As to some of your other
quotes, first I'll respond in general -- There is a distinction made between
the death of a righteous person and a person as a sacrifice. The death of a
righteous man is painful to god but has a power to show faith and thus act as
an avenue through which god can forgive people. But this concept has nothing to
do with sacrifice or the intentional choosing to die in order that others
should be atoned. Your initial statement was that Jewish texts support the
concept of human sacrifice. No quote can give validity
Isaac was bound, but was
not a sacrifice. It was his binding which atoned, and he had to be bound pure
and unblemished physically and spiritually. That the zohar
says that righteousness is also a necessary component cannot negate the other
laws of sacrifice. Additionally, the zoharic quote (though I am not old enough to study the zohar) seems to be saying that the righteous man, himself,
is atonement -- as in the presence of a quorum of righteous men whose existence
would have saved
To use the zohar by extracting English quotes without attaining the
spiritual level needed to truly study the zohar is
worthless. The context, meaning and
exact language are integral to understanding what the deeper truth is behind
any section. The terms for the dust, and the "dew" are obviously metaphorical and
their understanding requires a level of learning and grounding that neither of
us has. It is a disservice to take kabbalistic texts
and treat them like text books and quote snippets to be understood literally
from their English translations.
The word "tachat" (and this is explained in depth with textual
citations in the site I put in the earlier email) means both under and instead
of. To choose under, and then to have to
interpolate an unwritten resurrection to explain how Isaac is still alive
breaks a rule of torah exegesis -- when you look for the complex, you cannot
ignore the literal. "Instead
of" is precedented in the text and fits the
exact events without strain. The literal
text is that Abraham's hand is stayed and Isaac is alive to get married. Trying
to find otherwise to justify human sacrifice is specious at best.
As for Miriam's death, the
power of atonement was, as the red heifer was, only for people of her
generation -- not for any other time. Even then, the "death of the
righteous" which would be possible to help with atonement must be a "mitas neshika" -- an easy
death by heavenly kiss -- which is why the Moed
examples are of Aaron and Miriam, not anyone else who was righteous and died.
To generalize to include anyone whom you might consider righteous flies in the
face of the text and demands then a quantification of "righteous" --
one on which, no doubt, we would disagree.
The torah never PERMITS
human sacrifice and makes clear the items which are permitted to be sacrificed
(Lev 1:2). The torah forbids murder and also child sacrifice -- why child sacrifice
is murder is already a given? Because child sacrifice is an example of how the
practices of other religions (which we are not to follow) make us wish to
compromise the "don't murder" statute. If we think that the murder is useful for
some religious rite because it appears that way in other religions, we are
still forbidden to follow the practices of other religions. We are told not to
go in their ways but are also warned against cutting ourselves. Why both?
Because we might think that when the acts of the other religions make sense or
are explained as a necessary part of life, they would be acceptable. Through
these examples we see how looking for exceptions and implying that anything god
did not specify as a singular prohibition is permitted is faulty.
You cite the death of Avishai Ben Zeruiah and the aggadah surrounding his prominence and then assume that the
text is saying that his death caused atonement for the masses. In fact, though,
that is not what the text says. It says that god allowed him to be taken to pay
off certain sins that were committed (that Avishai
was a ruthless man who attempted to kill a king anointed by god could be seen
as a direct sin (as it was for David) which merited his death, and through his
death his OWN sin was expiated). You
might want to compare this to the story of the 10 martyrs which is said on Yom
Kippur. If, at the time of a sin, the
sinners are not punished, when the sin is uncovered, the great men of a
generation might suffer to atone for that sin. Thus, it is not the death of the
10 martyrs which atones, but their suffering which pays off specific sins which
an equivalent group did not pay off. If Avishai's death were so able to completely cleanse sin, why
would god have allowed the plague to rage until a certain point? Why not just
kill Avishai? Because a singular
man's death cannot have an effect on the overall punishment of the people. The use of actual counting which caused the
plague needed to be paid off -- a certain number of people had to be killed.
God, in his mercy did not want to kill all the people, so you could say that
the death of Avishai substituted for the application
of the punishment on 70,000 (or 75,000 acc. to others) other people. The number
having been fulfilled (though early) the remainder of the
people were no longer held guilty.
Notice that Avishai is not reconed
by the term "righteous" but only by his comparison to numbers, as is
death was not by the godly kiss, but through the plague. The hebrew word "rav" is
more literally "much" -- that is, a large enough number has been
killed -- even though that number might have been too low, Avishai
settled it by being worth many.
I think that the bottom
line is that both of our positions are steeped in the exegetical traditions we
follow. We find meanings which are consistent with our beliefs and which come
from learned sages within those belief systems.
I still take issue with your chatroom claim
that the text includes support for human sacrifice and would think that you
would be hard pressed to find a source steeped in the religious tradition that
would excuse any form of human sacrifice to atone for the sins of others [the
fringe or mystical Isaac tradition dismissed by rabbinic Judaism excepted]. You
can find messianic sites which piece together partial quotes divorced from
their interpretive contexts and that is your right (such as http://www.geocities.com/his_emissary/tab27.html
but that site says the no human sacrifice is allowed) but it is unfair to then
represent those cullings as indicative of the
original texts. I could take a series of quotes from the gospels and church
writings and make a pastiche which would, to the unlearned eye, seem to condone
most anything. Learning is about
understanding one idea deeply, not 5 simply.
The Exodus Rabbah you quote is incomplete -- and in its completion it
clearly removes Jesus from the equation. The whole entry discusses a certain
linguistic turn and explains with the quote you provided. First thing to notice
is the use of the word "as a pledge" that is, not a replacement - the
security for an obligation, not a removal of that obligation - the people are
not cleared by the death, but are given the chance to repent through the merit
of that righteous person. But the text then continues to show that the example
of such a pledge is through the death of the children (Eichah
2:4) (some say the rabbis) of
As a final note, here is an
entire section of the zohar to consider -- notice HOW
the death of a righteous person is used -- for each generation to be as if we
had brought an animal sacrifice -- not as a sacrifice, itself:
"Zohar(3:56b): [[They
continued: "Whenever the righteous are removed from the world, punishment
is removed from the world and the death of the righteous atones for the sins of
the generation. Therefore we read the section dealing with the death of the
sons of Aaron on the Day of Atonement that it may atone for the sins of
If one wanted to take
something from the death of the righteous (assuming that they died in the
appropriate manner) then one would have to say that the death of the 2 sons of
Aaron as punishment for their sin should be recalled to be tantamount to our
offering the proper animal sacrifice for ours [NB –
I have since learned that the death of Aaron’s two sons acted to help redeem
the people by serving as a cautionary tale as “do wrong and die, repent and
live.”]. There is nothing more direct to be taken from this section.
I have been recently accused of fabricating these
emails so I invite everyone to see them as they are posted on the group archice – messages numbered 6586,87,90-93,
6596, 6606, 6608, 09, 6619-21, 6626-28, 6632, 6643 and possibly 6660. I haven’t
found the final post in their archives (hmmm, wonder why)…
This began when Eurobot claimed that NO current Jew has ANY connection to ancient Jews. I cited the Nature study to show otherwise.
1.
The study presented in Nature (as far as I understand it) attempted to show
that diverse populations which had in them those who claimed to be of the
priestly line were all descended from a common ancestor. As this genetic trait
correlated positively to the priestly claim, the conclusion was drawn that, as
this excluded (in an statistically significant way)
those who did not make this claim to priesthood, all those who had the gene
were of a common family which predated certain historical markers.
This
study drew from its experimental results that those Jews who have this marker
share a unique ancestor, one which those who are not priests by tradition lack.
Therefore, this common ancestor was that unique priestly source.
This
is not to say that other people who are not Jewish don't have this gene, or
that the priests today MUST have this gene to be priests -- only that
"These Y-chromosome haplotype differences
confirm a distinct paternal genealogy for Jewish priests" -- that is, that
the priestly class has a separate and discernable (and exclusive) genealogy.
To
claim that this study shows that you ARE a priest if you have the gene, or that
you are not a Jew or are because of it is wrong. That isn't the aim of the
study -- it shows only a common and ancient continuity of a tradition as borne
out by genetic statistics.
http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html
2. I
thank you very much for your response, but your projections,
and lack of genetic and scientific background belie an inability to argue the
science. Your claims are not supported
by anything other than your own conjecture -- surely you have a genetics expert
who has dissected the study and shown that its science -- not your layman's
assessment of the science, is faulty.
The
study ties those who are of a tradition to a source. The correlation is
significant enough to draw a conclusion.
If you don't like that conclusion, then that's fine, but that doesn't
make the logical conclusion flawed.
"In order for them to make the claim that the DNA of these
European "Cohen" was that of the ancient Levites, they would have to
have the DNA of an ancient Levite."
Actually
not true -- the logical hypothesis derived from the correlation allows for a
statistically reasonable presumption; logically, any DNA marker has an origin
somewhere. That two people from
disparate geographical locations share this marker indicates a common ancestor.
When that genetic marker correlates with a tradition which excludes others who
lack both the marker and the tradition, the significance rises. Basic logic.
#1 In these people you call "Cohen" today.. in those you have tested for
this marker, have you any records to track them to any people of the middle
east. Yes or No.
I
have no records, but the DNA IS the record. Scientists have claimed to track
all human kind back to a single ancestor (they have named "Eve" --
newspaper article references available upon request). Only the DNA trace is
available, but the scientists seem convinced.
Your problem is with the scientific method.
#2 Have you tested 100 of those who claim to be Cohen and proven
they all have this DNA. Yes or No
I
haven't, but what I said was that such a test might show many others who have
the marker -- indicating they are of the same lineage -- more important is the
number of Jews who LACK this marker and who also lack the priestly tradition.
#3 Have you did any random sampling in the places of these
"Cohen" and found any non "Jews"
to see if they had this marker. Yes or No.
No,
and while that may be interesting, no one who lacks the priestly tradition NEED
be tested to prove the hypothesis.
Again, you have to keep in mind what is being proven, not what you are
trying to disprove.
#4 Do they have the DNA of an ancient DNA Yes or No
To make a study of the group of ancient Levites they would have to
dig up about a thousand of them and make sure all the ancient Levites have that
DNA marker.
Again,
no they wouldn't; all they have to show is a
statistically significant commonality in paternity-certainty to derive a common
ancestor.
#5 Have they dug up a whole cross section of ancient Levites and did
a study to ensure they all had this marker. Yes or No
Unnecessary
for the science -- consult your local geneticist.
#6 If non "Jews" also have this
marker, then it does not come by being a descendant of the Levite priest.
Not
really -- as you so ably show, the lineage patterns do intermix. What is so
amazing is that there
is still a high correlation among those with the
priestly (not Levite, that is a separate marker)
tradition which excludes Jews who do not have that tradition.
#7 Bingo, This goofy test does not tie any
European to any one in the bible.
This
is where you betray a real ignorance of science -- there was never any attempt
to tie this marker to any person in the bible, so such a lack is not a failure.
It simply indicates a common family and shared geography in the distant past.
#8 NO this does not show the common
ancestors of these "Jews" with any one.
* If there are "Cohen" who do not have this marker
* If there are non "Jews" who have this marker
Then the only thing this marker shows is those with the marker may
have some common ancestors.
EXACTLY
-- those with the marker have a common ancestor or family link, and the vast
majority of those who have a priestly tradition have this marker while a much
smaller number who don't have the tradition have this marker. QED. Maybe this means that more Jews are actually
priests...or that some non Jews have Jewish blood from way back, but you have
just conceded the central point.
Please provide a scientific refutation of this
study, not your own summary of what you think makes sense. Arguing science as
or with a lay person is meaningless. Your challenge went out for a scientist to
defend it, but without a scientific challenge, why should anyone have to defend
it? You need to better understand the genetics of it, and get a scientist to
find fault with the study and its conclusions. Till then, you just sound like
you have an agenda.
My Next email includes his earlier summation of the above email in it to show his duplicity.
3. you realize of course that you deleted all the point by
point responses I presented so as to create the impression that I ignored your
points, right? Good joke, though...
=
= = Original message = = =
A
guy who worked on the web page with the assertion the marker proved the
identity of the priest replied.
His
response is a blanket response, covered every thing and never responded to one
point or argument I made.
i.e. The
Levites exchanged sons and daughters with the Israelites of the other 11 tribes
and the Levites poked all the other Arabs around them and sent their own
children back to live in their Arab tribes or nations. So why would the Levites have a marker that
the other 11 tribes and the rest of the Arabs would not have. He completely avoided responding to every
argument or assertion I made.
Here is his response
I thank you very much for your response, but your projections, and lack of genetic and scientific background
belie an inability to argue the science.
Your claims are not supported by anything other than your own conjecture
-- surely you have a genetics expert who has dissected the study and shown that
its science -- not your layman's assessment of the science, is faulty.
The study ties those who are of a tradition to a source. The
correlation is significant enough to draw a conclusion. If you don't like that conclusion, then
that's fine, but that doesn't make the logical conclusion flawed.
End
My
response to him and all of his supporters is come into a public debate
area. Use all of your scientific knowledge You respond
to my cross examination and I will respond to yours And let the readers decide for themselves.
Instead
of a blanket statement which responds to nothing I have said, come on and
address each of my arguments point by point
I was then added to the yahoogroup so that my words could be archived. My membership has since “disappeared”
4. While
I appreciate your adding me and all, and think that there are things to
discuss, I'd like to make a few points clear, and you may do with this what you wish:
1.
Abraham and Isaac were not Israelites. Nor were they Jews, and the etymology of
the word "Jew" makes it unclear whether the first Jews were properly
from Moses' time, Joshua's, or post the divided kingdom.
2.
The "nation" of
3.
The initial point that I was discussing with regard to the genetics article had
nothing to do with whether any Jews today are linked to biblical Jews. That
cannot be proven, nor disproven, and the argument
lies on where the burden of proof remains. My point was to counter your
statement the NO Jew can link himself back, while the genetic truths indicate
that those with the specific marker can be traced back to a single male
(scientific sources available) about 3000 years ago. That's it...nothing else.
4.
As for whether or not Jews today follow the laws handed down in the desert, that is a complex discussion which is contextually
sensitive. As my understanding of Judaism demands a belief in an oral law and a
rabbinic tradition, the laws as I have them no must be seen by me as the end in
a chain connected to the desert. As you may see the written law as the only one
with authority, you will see a major disconnect and therefore say that I am not
practicing what the text demands. Each
of us cannot convince the other as we don't share common beliefs upon which to
compare arguments and opinions.
If
you still question the science of the genetics article, I really do encourage
you to contact a geneticist of your choice and have him look at the 2 studies
(I can give the journal volumes and pages) and discuss any methodological
flaws.
Have a nice day.
His response is embedded in my counter response
5. the marker came from a single patrilineal
ancestor approximately 300 years ago. As those with the marker currently are
diverse geographically, while they retain tradition which ties them, the
logical conclusion would be to tie the ancestor to the origin of that
tradition. This is a supposition with which you may argue at your leisure.
=
= = Original message = = =
#1 In these people you call "Cohen" today.. in those you have tested for
this marker, have you any records to track them to any people of the middle
east. Yes or No.
I have no records, but the DNA IS the record.
///
Did this y marker come from the middle east
to
6. So
the bottom line is that you have not had a geneticist check the science,
methodology or conclusion. That's fine. If you wish to deny the genetics and
the study, you may do so, but please subject all genetics to the same
standards. I have many other non middle east based
articles which discuss similar studies on a variety of peoples in an effort to
trace distant lineage. These other
non-Judaism related studies were also vetted by peer review and found to be
persuasive. I respect your urge to deny the entire branch of science if it is
done
consistently.
7. I'm no expert in mutations and DNA, but I assume that those who
performed the tests are. I can only excerpt what is written about their work
and let you take this to a scientist who can examine the science behind it.
"He looked at a set of three Y chromosome sites with stable genetic
mutations and six sites at which mutations occur quite often, a mix designed to
give good resolution between similar Y chromosomes during historical times. The
mutations are all at sites that lie outside the genes, and thus do not
contribute in any way to the individual's physical makeup. He found a particular set of genetic
mutations at these nine sites that was strongly associated with the priestly
caste, not so common among lay Jews, and very rare among non-Jewish
populations. Unlike forensic DNA markers, which are chosen to be almost wholly
specific to individuals, this cohen-associated genetic signature cannot be used
to say who is or who is not a priest. But it is highly diagnostic of whether a
population has Jewish ancestry, Goldstein said.
He finds that 45 percent of Ashkenazi priests and 56 percent of
Sephardic priests have the cohen genetic signature,
while in Jewish populations in general the frequency is 3 to 5 percent. Some of his subjects had the cohen genetic signature but with slight variations caused by
mutations. From the pattern and number of mutations, Goldstein was able to
calculate when the present day bearers of the cohen
genetic signature and its variations last shared a common ancestor. This date,
when all the branches of the family tree coalesce into a single trunk, has a
wide range of uncertainty and depends on several assumptions, like the number
of years in a human generation and the rate of mutation. But assuming 25 years
to a generation on average, Goldstein calculated the coalescence time as 2,650
years ago, or 3,180 years with a 30-year generation time. Though they are only rough,
these dates make an evocative match with the Jewish tradition that Moses
assigned the priesthood to the male descendants of his brother Aaron after the
Exodus from
Again, his
response is in red (with the italics being my responses to his claims), the
surrounding text is my counter-response
8. Your
ignorance of and anger towards Jewish tradition makes this less a discussion
about the validity of certain scientific testing and more a sounding board for
your own distaste for Judaism and modern Jewish practice. Thus I can not be
involved in such discussion -- your bitterness or distaste is not something
that anyone can convince you out of, nor should anyone
try. You need to come to terms with your anger on your own. Have a nice day.
= = = Original message = = =
Have you tested 100 of those who claim to be Cohen and proven they
all have this DNA. Yes or No
///
Blight responds
I haven't, but what I said was that such a test might show many
others who have the marker -- indicating they are of the same lineage -- more
important is the number of Jews who LACK this marker and who also lack the
priestly tradition.
///
#1 OF your own selected geneticist... have they taken 100 males that
have this marker and then compared their dna
with their grandpa, their great grandpa, their father and all of their brothers.
YES or NO
"The Jews" who lack this marker also lack the priestly
tradition
What is the priestly tradition?
*
Do they teach the laws of Moses, if so I can show you 10,000 people
who teach the laws of Moses and do not have the marker.
* Do they teach that people
must keep the laws of Moses. If so I will the laws of
Moses and you show me the "Cohen" who teaches their congregation they
must follow them.
* Do you mean the males with
this marker keep the laws and ceremonies of the Levites...
What do you mean the "Jews" who have this marker have the
priestly tradition?
a) the males that have this priestly
tradition teach the laws and ceremonies of the Israelites that millions of
others teach and do not have this marker.
b) the males that have this priestly
tradition teach their congregation that they are to keep the laws and
ceremonies of Moses.
c) the males that have this priestly
tradition actually keep the laws and ceremonies of the Levite priest.
d) the males that have this priestly tradition just blab about the
laws and ceremonies like millions of other non "jews"
and mock it, ignore keeping it.
What do you mean 'THESE MEN HAVE THE PRIESTLY
TRADITION"?
9. How
can you question a conclusion when your understanding of the science is not as
practiced as the scientist who made the conclusion? If I go to my doctor and he
interprets a series of medical tests one way, should I turn to him and say
"I argue with your conclusion even though I lack medical training, because
according to what I think, you must be wrong."?
You
can disagree with suppositions, method or drawn conclusion, but your feelings
don't carry any weight when measured against professionals in the field. When
you take this study to someone whose credentials match those of the author (as
was done in the peer review process) and your expert can makes a scholarly
analysis of the problems he finds, then the authors would no doubt be moved to
address these shortcomings.
=
= = Original message = = =
One writes:
So the bottom line is that you have not had a geneticist check the
science, methodology or conclusion
///
NO
I accept the
*
Procedures of YOUR selected geneticist.
*
Observations of YOUR selected geneticist
I challenge no genetics or science.
I challenge the CONCLUSION
My challenge needs NO genetic or scientific knowledge My challenge needs to find
contradictions of your geneticist self contradictions or contradictions against
the facts.
My challenge is based on my knowledge of the law of contradictions.
If what ever your geneticist claims contradicts the facts it is not
I but your geneticist which is proven ignorant or a
liar.
In YOUR geneticist conclusion this marker is ALWAYS passed from the
father to the son.
In FACT where this marker is found ALL great grandfathers,
grandfathers, fathers, brothers and sons of the person this marker is found in,
does not have this marker Your
geneticist conclusion that this marker is always passed from the father to the
son, is false.
In the people now in the middle east who
have this marker, your geneticist does not know if it came from the middle east
to
My conclusions have nothing to do with my scientific/genetic
knowledge but that of your own geneticist... because they do not have ignorance
as an excuse, their blatant contradictions of the truth exposes them as liars..
10. Your
response is still mired in anger and conjecture. You have presented no science
to bolster your claim. Are my attitudes informed by a faith in the text of the
bible as written? Sure. But yours are only driven by ad hominem
attack and hatred. There can be no dialogue when your posts are permeated by
such language.
=
= = Original message = = =
He finds that 45 percent of Ashkenazi priests and 56 percent of
Sephardic priests have the cohen genetic
///
In scientific facts.. an
axiom or a fact is a constant
If it were a fact this gene is passed from the male to the son it would not be
45 percent, it would not be 56 percent but it would be
100 percent
IN EVERY GENERATION
EVERY GREAT GRANDFATHER
EVERY GRANDFATHER
EVERY FATHER
EVERY BROTHER
AND EVERY SON ... if every male relative does not have this marker,
you have nothing but wishful thinking
You have nothing but bullshit and you can not even tie your bullshit
to any native people of the middle east.
///
Moses assigned the priesthood to the male descendants of his
brother Aaron after the Exodus from Egypt, believed to have occurred some 3,000
years ago. Goldstein and colleagues published this conclusion last July. "
///
Looking at the number of Israelites who went in and those numbered
when they came out, the only way they could have ever produced that number
would be by mass breeding with the Egyptians when they were in captivity. Maybe one of the Levite women was poked by
the high priest of the Egyptian gods and the Levites now carry the marker of
pagan worshippers?
Begin and produce your 3000 year dna with this marker.
Lets see you tie this
marker with any ancient people of the middle east, then look around stone
hinge, you might be able to track it to their real ancestors the druids.
11. Your
poor command of the language as evidenced in your prose might be the source of
your inability to understand my statements and even more so, to phrase your
questions in any meaningful fashion. The priestly tradition is the religious
belief that one springs from the priestly lineage and therefore performs the
priestly functions as a result of that belief. It is clear that you are not
aware of the responsibilities or roles of those priests within the religion as
you are confusing those of that tradition with other functionaries. I will
answer your yes/no questions, but you should understand that the answers have
little bearing on the topic at hand. By flouting such ignorance it becomes you
who changes the subject.
YOU COME UP WITH A PHRASE LIKE PRIESTLY TRADITION YOU MAKE IT APPEAR IT IS SOME KIND OF
SPECIAL QUALITY SO WE MUST KNOW WHAT
THIS QUALITY IS
What is the priestly tradition?
#1 Do
they teach the laws of Moses
YES OR NO
No,
that is not their role
#2 Do they teach that people
must keep the laws of Moses.
YES OR NO
No,
that is not their role.
#3 Do you mean the males
with this marker keep the laws and ceremonies of the Levites...
YES OR NO
Some
do, some, no doubt, don't.
What do you mean the "Jews" who have this marker have the
priestly tradition?
The Jews who have this marker and also have the
family tradition of being from the priestly lineage.
ARE THESE PRIEST DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER
SUBSET OF MEN ON EARTH?
Obviously, by DNA, yes, as I am different from
someone else because of my DNA.
#4 Do any of those with the priestly tradition ever get drunk?
YES OR NO
Sure.
So?
#5 Do any of those with the priestly tradition ever get caught in
adultery?
YES OR NO
I'm
sure. So? What do you think the role of these people
is? Do you think that they are not human, or all ultra
religious?
#6 Do any of those with the priestly tradition ever get caught
poking little boys or other men?
YES OR NO
There
seems to be an affinity towards the term "poking" among the members
of this list. All this does is makes one think that all respondents are either
the same person, or all misinformed by the same source. Sort of like a DNA
chain...but as to the question, while I don't know of any cases, it is
reasonable to expect that among those with the marker are those who have
committed a variety of sins, possibly even such attacks on minors. So?
#7 Do any of those with the priestly tradition ever get convicted of
theft?
YES OR NO
As
answered, sure. So?
#8 Do
any of those with the priestly tradition ever get convicted of murder?
YES OR NO
Possibly. So?
You have yet to make any argument other than to
concede the presence of this marker. When you are ready to debate the point at
hand, we can talk. Meanwhile, think about the British royal family. While it is
traced by blood and family (to some extent) its members are just as fallible
and liable to commit crimes. Does that invalidate their DNA?
12. So
instead of going to your own doctor for a second opinion doctor, you decide
that since you don't like the conclusion of the first doctor, you will ignore
the medical profession. Brilliant. You must have many
headaches as you are afraid to survey a number of
doctors and get their professional opinions.
If
you don't like one scientist's opinion, get others.
Don't
self medicate...
= = = Original message = = =
How
can you question a conclusion when your understanding of the science is not as
practiced as the scientist who made the conclusion? If I go to my doctor and he
interprets a series of medical tests one way, should I turn to him and say
"I argue with your conclusion even though I lack medical training, because
according to what I think, you must be wrong."?
///
Your cult members are not my doctor If I have a head ache and my
doctor tells me I will feel better if I have my head cut off And CONTRARY TO
THE FACTS no one has ever had their head cut off and lived Then I will tell
that doctor to shove his education where the sun does not shine
The process of looking for a trait is pure mechanics I do not
challenge The observations of the cult I do not
challenge
The conclusions that this trait is always passed from father to son When it is NOT always passed from father to son makes your
scientist blatant liars. Ignorance is not their excuse.
The conclusion this trait comes from some ancient people from the middle east when they do not have a cross section of dna from ancient people of the middle east makes them
blatant liars.
When people with out ignorance contradict
the facts, they are blatant liars
13. I'm
not precisely sure to what you are replying as I don't recall being in a
conversation regarding this topic. "Every Israelite" is a tough
phrase to parse, as your focus of time and place is unstated. One thing you might want to remember is that
the same forces which Europeanized volumes of traveling "Israelites"
also Arabicized merchants
who migrated to the middle east. Thus one could argue that a vast number of
those currently claiming to be Arabs (though that term is nebulous) are really
ones whose physical traits have been modified over years of intermarriage.
By
the way, the definition of race you provide creates a most bizarre possibility
-- according to the language of the American Heritage Dictionary, (some
important details of which you omit, by the way, as the definition number two
actually reads "A group of people united or classified together on the
basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution" ) any group of people, even on a global scale,
can be considered a race, which might make any one individual a member of a
series of overlapping and non exclusive races.
= = = Original message = = =
Explain to me how EVERY ISRAELITE came from a composite of 27 Arab
tribes or nations... all of the skeleton remains from
No such thing as an Arab race?
American Heritage : race
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished by
genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people classified together on the basis of ... common
geographic distribution.
3. Human beings considered as a group.
5. Biology. a. A population of organisms differing from others of
the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits; a subspecies.
Microsoft Encarta
Race, term historically used to describe a human population
distinguishable from others based on shared biological traits. All living human
beings belong to one species, Homo sapiens. The concept of race stems from the
idea that the human species can be naturally
subdivided into biologically
distinct groups.
The assertions below only include natives of these areas which are
not mixed.
While humans can not be divided into specific races, we can observe
that un-mixed populations in different areas of the earth have biological or
physical appearances different than those in people in other parts of the
world. While we have been given 3 divisions of races, there are many
differences in people in different areas of the world that make up many
different races.
* Natives of western Europe share the same
fair skin with some Orientals, but no un-mixed Orientals have blue eyes or
blond hair. Further more Europeans have different physical features than
Orientals.
* Natives of western Europe share the same physical features as
natives of the middle east, EXCEPT no un-mixed European had the brown/black
faces of the natives of the middle east and no native of the middle east had
the fair skin, light brown or brown hair of the Europeans.
* Natives of the middle east have the same
brown/black skin as Africans, but different physical features, Africans had no
straight hair, there is a difference in skulls and skin thickness between Arabs
and Africans.
* Natives of the middle east have the same
brown/black skin and straight hair as native Americans but they have different
facial features. Not is there the differences we can observe with the eye,
there are different biological differences.
Un-mixed Europeans are different than all people on earth and Arabs
are different than all other people on earth. The Arab race existed over 6000
years before the first Israelite was conceived. The Israelites had no separate
race but they were a composite of every Arab they fought against or encountered
in the scriptures. The Israelites belonged to the Arab race... that is who they
came from. They were not formed out of the clay, they
came from nothing other than all the Arabs they encountered through out the
scriptures.
AFRICANS TRICKLE IN
Later when in captivity they encountered Africans and Moses caused a
big conflict when he married a Cushite (not
Ethiopian). There was no big conflict when the Israelites took non Israelites
for husbands and wives because there was NO conflict when they married other
non Israelites (of the Arab race) ... Midiaites,
Moabites, Syrians, Canaanites. Only when Moses married the Cushite
(
Today the middle east has
many people who have taken on the physical of the Europeans who have invaded
over the centuries, before any Europeans polluted the middle east, the * yellow
area * of this map is the land of the Arab race. The red area is where 96% of
all the European invaders now in
Below is a picture of a
European who got off a plane from
American Heritage : race
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished by
genetically transmitted physical
characteristics.
Microsoft Encarta
Race, term historically used to describe a human population
distinguishable from others based on shared biological traits.
The Arab race is NOT the European race. The millions invading
The Arab race was the first race to exist on earth. The Israelites
were their descendants and yet today we have a cult in the European race
claiming they are the heirs of the families of the holy Arab race?
Here is the link that exposes the farce of the phony definitions of
Arab given by this
http://arabisraelites.fortunecity.net/i1500.htm
14. Read
carefully and you will see that I didn't claim it was your definition, only the
one you provide. And by that same definition, global groups are races outside
of genetics and physical features. So while you can choose one aspect of a
definition and defend an Arab race through it, I can choose another aspect of
ONE YOU PRESENT and show you some other "race." You make the mistake
of hitching your thoughts to only one part of a complex definition and assume I
will ignore the rest.
Interesting
scientific note -- paleontologists have reported studies tracing all mankind
back to a single genetic origin in
= = = Original message = = =
By
the way, the definition of race you provide creates a most bizarre possibility
///
It is NOT my definition
Brown skin is not caused by climate The Arab race is DIFFERENT than
the European race The genes that cause brown skin are
not present in the European race. Your European "Jews" have white
European skin, not Arab brown skin The Israelites began with Iraqis and
Syrians... Look at the physical remains of the people in these regions 2000-4000 BC
NO European race
Look in the Pyramids, NO blond hair, NO fair skin The Egyptians were
by far the major ancestor contributors of the Israelites. Your pretend Jews do
not have the genes of the Arab race, but your white skin, blond hair, light brown
hair.. they are the very same race as the rest of the
Europeans. Explain how 100% brown/black face, black hair people went into
15. Actually,
none of these claims you make is at all substantiable
without genetic testing which your own agenda says is not useful. How can you say that anyone now is a
descendent of anyone hundreds or thousands of years ago, without that earlier
person's DNA. Therefore, any attempt to invalidate a
Jewish claim and yet still support a claim about the evolution of other groups
is doomed by its own logic.
Giggle,
giggle.
= = = Original message = = =
The Europeans invaded the middle east
before Christ, the Romans and Greeks were in
THE DESCENDANTS OF THE EUROPEANS IN THE MIDDLE EAST DID NOT ALL
MUTATE INTO THE ARAB RACE BY MARRIAGE NOR
CLIMATE. TODAY THERE IS A MULTI DUDE OF
NATIVES IN THE MIDDLE EAST WHO'S ANCESTORS WERE
EUROPEANS AND YOU COULD NOT TELL FROM ANY OTHER EUROPEAN
Before Christ the Romans took Arab and African soldiers into
Gypsies.. the Arab
race from Iranians n natives from
European descendants in the middle east
retain the physical features of their European ancestors. Africans, Arabs, Gypsies live in
giggle, giggle
16. Your
concept of "pictures" is wonderful good fun. According to cave
paintings, men were all stick figures and ancient Egyptian tomb drawings had
skin tones a variety of shades. So I guess you weren't going for conclusive.
And
the proof you bring about 25 isolated Arabs is exactly the problem. Can you
find twenty five who were NOT isolated and prove that they are descended from
Europeans mixed in? If you say tat they all look like Arabs then all you have
done is prove that there was, as you so poetically put it, no European
"infestation." But if you are trying to prove that they look like
they did all those years ago even DESPITE European mixing then you would need,
by your own argument, samples of DNA past and present to prove that point. You
have just proven your own argument to be wrong. Look at the people who are
descended from the native Americans but who have had
ancestors from a series of European immigrants who had children with the native
Americans. Do they look like native Americans of even
150 years ago in skin tone and physical characteristics? No (and, yes, we have
photos from 150 years ago...) and this is a relatively short period of genetic
mixing. But would you deny someone who claimed to be of native
American ancestry because you lack the DNA of his great-great-great-great-great
grandfather? How many blacks in
= = = Original message = = =
actually there are tens of
thousands of ancient pictures in the middle
east (most from
There were no white europeans
///
Actually,
none of these claims you make is at all substantiable
without genetic testing
///
I don't need genetic testing I look at 25 kids in an isolated area in the
middle east .. where europeans
have not infested. Then I can go to
isolated places in
Don’t need any micro scope, don't need any geneticist
I took one picture of one native person of the middle
east. The rest are "Jews" or Germans..
Europeans My
first challenge was for people to pick the one person who was a native of the
middle east.. every one has been able to do it in a
snap
NO one can pick the "Jews" out from any otherEuropeans
Don’t need a geneticist to pick an arab out from aeuropean, dont need dna all israelites were arabs the cult of
false jews are anglo saxons
17. This
mish mash of vituperative and speculative anecdote lacks any basis in reality
-- you have no sample, no evidence and your narrative does not clearly address
any point. All you invective does is assure me that
your agenda has blinded you to any objective rendering of the facts.
Scientifically, we are all descended from one African ancestor. More recently,
"Americans" are made up of a variety of genetic originators.
Europeans are a distinct mix based on the trade routes and migratory patterns
of the last few thousand years. That any
group has maintained a modicum of physical distinctiveness (though without
ancient photographs, you can't be sure that the current look is identical with
the historical one -- modern Egyptians look very little like those depicted in
tomb drawings) is more an indicator of a lack of mixing. That the mass of
Europeans and Americans, and many Asians (excluding the far
east) share physical traits is proof of the mix which can have an effect
on outward appearance but yet cannot change DNA. There are two major texts out
there which bear this out having nothing to do with any specific race or
religion. I will supply references if you'd like, but your tone indicates that
you are unwilling to consider any direction of discourse which requires
scientific thinking or actual evidence based conversation.
And by the way, using the term Negroes is positively
hilarious. Keep it up; I look forward to your ramblings for their entertainment
value as I have seen that you are not interested in any intelligent give and
take.
18. This
is pretty basic and I've dealt with this in other posts. The bottom line to
genetics is that if we all evolved from a single set of African ancestors, by
your logic we should al be black now (and science has posited in many studies
that we all DO stem from a group of homo sapiens in
19. exactly -- I'm glad you understand. It is the ones who
didn't stay in the middle east and whose blood was
further mixed with that of Europeans which changed. You have proven my point
elegantly. Thank you.
"The descendants of Europeans in the middle
east have retained the appearance of their European ancestors and they
retain a mix of the physical appearance of their Arab ancestors.
The descendants of Gypsies, Africans and Arabs in
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, daniel
rosen wrote:
> On your page of abstracts, which gives summaries of genetic studies done which connect "jewish"
dna to a variety of groups, you write:
" Additional research is necessary,
and it will certainly take several more years to sort it all out. All existing
studies fail to compare
modern Jewish populations' DNA to
ancient Judean DNA and medieval Khazarian DNA, and
many of them focus on paternal ancestries rather
than maternal ancestries,"
Have there been any studies to compare the
Jewish population's dna to "ancient
Judean"?
What is "ancient Judean" DNA
and where would one find an authentic sample to compare modern DNA to it?
Where does anyone have medieval khazarian DNA?
Are you saying that current studies
which connect Jews to Khazars are flawed because they
focus on patrilineal markers?
What would a test from the DNA Family
Tree center prove? If I were to get a
test, could I then be connected to "ancient Judean DNA"?
Thank you for this clarification.
Dear John Day and Daniel Rosen:
There is no way to extract DNA from most ancient bones, so at the
present time no ancient Judeans have been tested, but it is not necessary
because comparisons with nearby populations give a reasonable estimation of the
genetic constitution of the region in old times, in particular the Kurds have
not intermarried or migrated much over the past 3,000 years so
they are a good representation of the northern section of the Middle East, and
the Lebanese probably are descended from the ancient Phoenician Canaanites
whose language and ethnicity was related to the ancient Hebrews.
Meanwhile modern Egyptians are descended from the ancient Egyptians
despite the change in culture and language with the forced Arabization
of North Africa. Same with the Berbers, who are the Berbers of old.
By the same token, one perhaps cannot extract Khazarian
DNA from medieval bones except if certain circumstances exist. Right now
there are only a few people working on collecting DNA from bones of old steppe
peoples and I don't know what the results, if any, are yet. It depends on
whether bone barrow or other remains still preserve the DNA in a form that
scientists could examine. We know about many archaeological sites of Khazars and some of the remains are stored in museums but I
do not have a full catalogue nor have all of the sites been completely itemized
yet.
A genetic test through Family Tree DNA would help to establish only the
Y-DNA and mtDNA lines of your ancestry, representing
two lines out of hundreds of thousands that you have. Y-DNA would tell
you whether your male ancestor who is going back about 2000-3000 years of your
father's father's father's father's father's etc. side is
likely to have been from a certain ethnic group or geographic region. Since
I do not know your family background I cannot speculate on what the results
would be. On average about 80 percent of Y-DNA tests of Jews trace back
to the
At the time of ordering your test, should you choose to buy one or two, please
visit Family Tree DNA through my outgoing referral link at http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/family-tree-dna.html
These issues are clarified in my paper
"The Origins of East European Jews" in Russian History/Histoire Russe vol. 30 nos. 1-2 (Spring-Summer 2003 issue) on pages
1-22. You may wish to read that. Are you both in the
performed in the
Best regards,
Kevin Brook
kbrook@khazaria.com
My Response:
I thank you for your clearly presented answers and am left with only a few
basic questions which need further clarification:
1. If Judaism is matrilineal, then how does that affect the claims based on
"father's father's father's father's
father's etc. side is likely to have been from a
certain ethnic group or geographic region"?
2. Weren't the residents of the Middle East, themselves, the result of years of
migration and intermixing (we know that the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed
by Romans and before that, Greeks, indicating a European presence which would
no doubt intermix with local groups). Even the ancient peoples from before the
Roman or Greek invaders --
the ancient Philistines are said by some to be migrant descendants of
Note - -I haven't found the article you cite online, but did find another
summary you post which I found fascinating:
""In summary, Eastern European Jews are descended from a mixture of
German and Austrian Jews, Czech Jews, and East Slavic Jews. The East Slavic
Jews may have roots in both the Khazar and Byzantine
empires, hence necessitating our further study of Jewish life in those lands.
But the largest, and most influential, proportion of Eastern European Jews came
from
”We no longer need to rely on speculation. It is now a known FACT that German
Jews mingled with other Jews when they came east. It is also clear that the
ancient Israelites possessed those Y-DNA patterns that are found in common
among Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazic Jews, Kurdish Jews,
and Indian Jews, despite the fact that ultimately those patterns
may have earlier stemmed, in part, from somewhere in Kurdistan or Armenia or
Iraq. The Middle Eastern Y-DNA patterns in the J and E haplogroups
cannot be explained by Khazars. Some of the mtDNA evidence
and Levite Y-DNA evidence can be, however."
I thank you for your time and have already bookmarked a few of your sites for
reference.
I then got a response to me (not cc:ed to the website author) and
responded:
It seems he is telling you just what I
have said. You use the DNA in populations from the region. In this case the Palestinians
who have always lived there. Lets face it most of you do not have any
Arab in you so how could you be Jew's? The people are are
killing everyday have more right to call themselves Jew's than most of you
people do who came there in and around 1948. I understand you refer to the Arabs as your cousins. Well if there
was indeed a racial link then they would indeed be cousins as they say. But in
95% of cases there is no racial link.
Get a test done..Its simple..$212 http://www.familytreedna.com/
What are you people sarced
of it you really think you are Jew's?
Sorry. The debate goes on.
***********************************
I'm not sure what email of his you read, so I'll
just quote a few sentences from his reply:
1. as to your misunderstanding of the claim that scientists have "failed
to compare": he writes " There is no way to extract DNA from
most ancient bones, so at the present time no ancient Judeans have been tested"
2. as for your contention that there is no connection, he writes "On average about 80
percent of Y-DNA tests of Jews trace back to the Middle East "
If you read through his site he agrees that there is a genetic link to the mid
east and says that IN ADDITION, there was a conversion of the
Khazars who ADDED their genetic markers to the Jewish
genes...
It would be pretty hard to hear from the expert and still contend that there is
no connection. You'd have to argue with him now -- his 80%
connected based in science far outstrips your 95% unconnected based on nothing.
As for the test, I hope you read what he said about what the test can show, he said :"A genetic test through Family Tree DNA would
help to
establish only the Y-DNA and mtDNA lines of your
ancestry, representing two lines out of
hundreds of thousands that you have. Y-DNA would tell you whether
your male ancestor who is going back about 2000-3000 years of your father's father's father's father's father's etc. side is
likely to have been from a certain ethnic group or geographic region"
So (and I'll make this simple) -- there is an 80 percent probability that this
test will establish that through my father's side, I have a
Y-DNA connection which connects to the middle east.
Of course, since Judaism allows conversion and is passed along matrilineally, none of this is useful, but it pretty
forcefully negates your argument...
And please, don't forget this quote of
his:
”It is also clear that the ancient Israelites possessed those Y-DNA patterns
that are found in common among Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazic
Jews, Kurdish Jews, and Indian Jews, despite the fact that ultimately those
patterns may have earlier stemmed, in part, from somewhere in Kurdistan or
Armenia or Iraq. The Middle Eastern Y-DNA patterns in the J and E haplogroups cannot be explained by Khazars.”
Quite clearly, the studies have shown the connection to the ancient
Israelites...
Then
a final response from the author, and my response to
him:
I am not concerned about "claims"
of religions about who belongs and who doesn't. My focus is on ethnic,
not religious, belonging. First off,
in ancient times Judaism considered the paternal line to be of most importance
anyway, and that rule only changed later. Second, the whole
concept of inheriting a religion automatically by lineage is fraudulent What really gets inherited
automatically is ethnicity, whereas other
things like culture and language and religion are not so automatic. One cannot
choose or change what one is, but one can change or choose what one believes.
Whether DNA evidence or the findings of historical research supports or
denies certain claims of Judaism the religion is not of my interest.
If you look at the background of why the rule was changed, it was
because rabbis wanted to ensure that children were identifiable as
Jewish and raised Jewish, and since it is easier to know who the mother than
the father is of a child at birth in some cases, and since mothers
imparted their faith and values to their children by virtue of how much time
they spent with them, it is seen as easier to establish "Jewishness".
If Y-DNA says that the father's line comes from Judeans, then the
descendant has some Judean ancestry, and belongs in some (at least small)
way to the Judean people, and by the way can still inherit religious titles
like Israelite, Cohen, and Levite. It's that simple. Whether a
rabbi thinks the child is Jewish based on an arbitrary rule is not important to
me. Besides, anyone can convert to Judaism, whether they
have any recent Jewish ancestors or not. Israelites/Judeans were an
identifiable people before Judaism was fixed in form around the 6th
century BCE. In the
I know that the
populations to choose from we still can cluster them geographically by genetic
distance testing in conjunction with maps. I don't know who the
modern descendants of Philistines would be, so they don't fall into this
discussion.
My response:
I read with interest your most recent
mail and appreciate your thoughts about the apparently arbitrary exclusion of
many from the
Jewish fold. My only interest in bringing up the issue of matrilineal
descent is to compare claims based on patrilineal.
The point of the
Philistines was just a concern that the local population as it is currently is
an amalgam itself so the comparison can't be pristine.
I thank you again for all your help and clarification; it has been
most enlightening.
Sadly,
Fred cannot read the facts and continues to pester me with the same old, same
old as shown here (intermixed with my responses) (and note – he does not cc:
the author on any of this):
Him:
YOU ARE JUST
GOING ROUND AND ROUND IN CIRCLES FROM THE MAIN ARGUMENT. WHY DON'T YOU JUST TAKE A TEST..YOU
MUST LAY AWAKE AT NIGHT WONDERING..ARE YOU A JEW OR
ARE NOT..I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE LONG BEFORE I TOOK
THE TEST.
Me: You are now back to
all caps and not substance. If yopu read what the
author of the site says, you might learn that the idea you hang your
hat on is baseless. Don't argue with me...it should be clear to
you by now that his main point was to INCREASE the number of people considered
Jews. If you think I am going around in circles and avoiding a main point,
please state what the main point is -- it isn't that I don't have Judean DNA
because the author makes it clear that 80% of Jews will have Judean DNA...if it
is that Jews don't exist for some reason, then you have a problem as the author
makes it clear that they do.
If it is that I should spend 212 dollars to take a test then you
forget that a) 80 percent of people tested can trace back to Judean DNA and b)
the test looks at those elements Patrilineally
traced, but Judaism is Matrilineal, so the whole test is useless.
So, please, what main point? And please...try to state clear
facts, not empty rhetoric...
Him:
TAKE THE TEST..GET IT OVER WITH..THE MAN
TOLD YOU WHERE THE JUDEAN IS. in THE LOCAL ARABS..IF
YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THAT i FELL SORRY FOR YOU. NO JUDEAN DNA = NO JEW. ALL THINGS ARE AS THEY WERE. I
RECON MOST OF YOU ARE FAKES AND A SIMPLE DNA TEST WOULD PROVE IT AND YOU KNOW
THAT.. THANK GOD FOR DNA.. I
RECON HE SEND US THAT YOU KNOW.
Me: Your English is deteriorating in both your
writing and reading areas. The author was very clear about the connection to
Judean DNA - it
exists. He gave the proof. How come you refuse to read what he wrote? And why
are you so interested in the test when the facts already show the result as a
foregone conclusion? You seem very angry -- it comes through in your writing --
I wonder why you are so angry? Could it be that "the man" has shown
that your understanding of the facts is wrong? You insistence that "no
Judean DNA=no Jew" means that if I don't have "american
DNA" from 3000 years ago, there are no Americans
(and this is applicable to any group; by that logic, no racial or ethnic group
actually exists.) If you insist on parroting the same
nonsense and ignoring the facts as presented by the objective voice of YOUR
choosing, then I guess you truly are incapable of discourse.
Of course it is laughable that you "thank god" for DNA, your
understanding of DNA is so limited that you can't see
that the Y-DNA is conclusively connected between modern day Jews and the
ancient
Him: You are certainly right that I am angry. What started out with you fake Jews stealing Arab land and killing them has now turned into muslin thing worldwide. Thanks to parasites like you going there to get something for nothing, we goy now live under the threat of attack wherever we are in the world. If you were real Jews then I suppose there could have been a vague reason for it, yet still not a reason to steal and kill for.
Get over your identity crises over with Daniel. http://www.familytreedna.com/ just $212 will end
those dreams you are having..am
I a jew..am I not a jew..did I mutilate my son for no
good medical reason? did I really stand there and
laugh as he lay there screaming.……………..
Me:
ahhh. Now we are getting to the supposed heart of it.
You now claim ahhh.
Now we are getting to the supposed heart of it. You now claim
your anger is not because the author of the website you bank on has flatly disproven your claims, but because you don't like the
policy of the Israeli government and are ignorant of history and therefore
blame all Jews for the fact the Muslims kill people. You have spread the wings
of ignorance and illogic into heretofore uncharted land. Jews have lived
in the middle east continuously for over 2000 years and have been the victims
of attacks from a variety of invading groups (Greeks, Romans, European
Crusaders and, since 638, when the Jews rejected Mohammed, Muslims). What I find
most discursively fascinating is your vaccilation in
your conception of Jews as "other."
If there are no Jews, you cannot exclude yourself from the group and have less
justification for Islamic terror, and yet you don't go that route and try to
convince Muslims that they are wrong for attacking people. Instead, you
define yourself as "goy" thereby adopting a Judeo-centric word (and
accepting the notion of Jewish existence which you want to deny) to marginalize
yourself. I think it might be you who has a self-loathing crisis. You enjoy the
language and ideas of Judaism and hate yourself for it. This all seems to
be a facade meant to cover up a very boring and commonplace anti-semitism -- but you can claim you aren't a run of the mill
anti-semite by denying that Jews exist. Elegant in its own twisted way.
Additionally, it looks as if you might have a latent hostility towards circumcision. There is no way that I could convince you that it is anything but mutilation, but I'm surprised that you don't assail "fake" Muslims (Islam began in Meca, therefore, a Chechen muslim with no "Meccan DNA" is a fake Muslim...right? And Muslims circumcize at age 13, not 8 days old before the full pain sensation will be realized.
Lastly, and in some sense, most fascinating, is not your insistence that I take a test which won't prove anything (as has already been ably proven by the website author) but that you project your own identity confusion on me. i never have had any question, yet you repeatedly claim I do...I wonder where your sense of inadequacy stems from...it probably feeds your anger.
Him: Not how I read his reply..He said the judean dna came from the local arabs which would be the right thing to do..But still, a good pair of glasses will sort that out..
Get
over your identity crises over with Daniel. http://www.familytreedna.com/
just $212 will end those dreams you are
having..am I a jew..am I not a jew..did I mutilate my son for no
good medical reason? did I really stand there and
laugh as he lay there
screaming.
Me:
Ok -- so now I know you looked at
some of what he said...after he mentioned that he didn't have ancient Judean DNA
and was relying on
other indigenous peoples *(though conceding that they, themselves, are the
product of migrations and intermixing) he said that 80% of Jews
have a Y-DNA connection to that group. I hope you read that part too.
Him: You seem to be in denial Danial. But
never mind, That’s you problem. With the advancement
of DNA I think the problem of
Me: I am in a state of denial? Your humor is improving. Let's start simple
-- please try to answer the exact questions I pose without evading or
obfuscating:
1. Do you accept that the author said that 80% of modern Jews have a DNA
connection to the middle east?
2. Do you accept that the local Arab population (as stated by the author) has
mixed DNA because of migratory patterns, as is not pure?
3. Do you understand that Judaism is matrilineal and not patrilineal,
but these DNA tests check for patrilineal connection?
Please answer with simple yes or no to each. I need to know if any of this got
through to you. If you can't keep your answers to a yes or
no, please don't bother respoding.
Him: Just checked the web site and
its still there.. All existing studies fail to compare
modern Jewish populations' DNA to ancient Judean DNA .I guess
your intervention did not make too much differance.
It seems to me you are stating he is saying one thing on one page and another
thing on the next. I will have another look..Yes, its still there ''All
existing studies fail to compare modern Jewish populations' DNA to ancient
Judean DNA Get that test done man''. I will have just one other look..no, its still there..All existing studies fail to compare modern Jewish
populations' DNA to ancient Judean DNA . I guess thats what everyone sees when they
go to the site. First page as well.Cant you do
something about it? Kill his children? Blow his house up? Wonderfull
thing this interenet you know.Seems
to me you have got to get him to change it. As far as I am concerned while its up there I will post it. If the chap who runs the web
site is happy with the statment then so am as he
knows a lot more about it than me..or
you for that matter.
Me: Well, you have conveninetly ignored the 3
questions I asked, but repeated your intial
misunderstanding of English. So let me repeat
something he said about that line and you can simply tell me if you understand
what I am about to quote:
[and remember, the author of the website wrote this about that line you quote]:
When asked if any tests had been performed on ancient DNA:
"There is no way to extract DNA from most ancient bones, so
at the present time no ancient Judeans have been tested"
Now try to stay with me without sounding so desperate as you dance away from
fact...if NO ANCIENT DNA HAS BEEN TESTED, the there have been no studies which
can compare anything to nonexistent DNA. See what "fail to
compare" means? No comparison has been done because there is no DNA to
compare it to. If I have to, I will rephrase this in only monosyllabic words,
but I think that even the most basic reader can understand this.
Him: If you are considered to be an educated Jew I sure as hell
would not like to meet a dumb one. All I am concern with is the statement ''All
existing studies fail to compare modern Jewish populations' DNA to ancient
Judean DNA'' (This you challenged me about in the chat room) which casts a lot
of doubt about the so called Jews in Israel really being Jews and have any
right to be any where in Palestine. You have accepted the fact that there is
Judean DNA to test them by which is good. What puzzles me that you told one
person in the chat room (skip) that Jews are not a race at all..You are a very confused man indeed. Best end your
confusion and have that test.
I
see that you are desperate to lead me away from the core subject ''All existing
studies fail to compare modern Jewish populations DNA to ancient Judean DNA''.
That is all I am interested in. Go off in a different direction if you wish,
but you go on your own.
Me: Your ad hominems don't cover the fact that
you are flailing again. Within the same email you concede that there is no
Judean DNA to
compare against, but still insist that your favorite quote indicates that there
have been comparisons but that they have failed to make a
link. Think for just one second. If there is nothing to compare to, how could
any tests have been done. If no tests have been done, how
can you draw a conclusion like "there is no connection"? This is so
basic that it astounds me that you don't see it. The fact that there
have been NO STUDIES can't cast doubt...that's like saying that because there
have been no studies which compare my sofa to George
Washington's sofa, my sofa must not be a sofa at all.
What I said to Skips is that Judaism has elements of being a race, religion,
culture, nationality and ethnicity but because no one can
adequatle define race, and because Judaism accepts
converts, it cannot be seen solely as a race. Please, quote responsibly...I
know you have
a hard time with understanding what people mean, but you might want to ask for
clarification to...oh...oops, we did that here and you still
cling to your mistake.
So, I'll spell it out for you, and I'll ignore what you obviously don’t
understand (matrilineal vs. patrilineal, andthe 80% proven connection):
When you reply, you can just underline the parts you don't get
1. There is no available ancient Judean DNA
2. Therefore, no comparison studies have been done -- all current studies
cannot make that comparison.
3. No conclusion can be drawn from a lack of studies.
4. Therefore, to try and prove the exitence of a
current group based on a series of logical steps which end up denying ANY
CONCLUSIONS due
to lack of facts is specious.
Just point out where my logic is wrong. You have had no success with the
concept of "yes" and "no" so just try underlining.
Him: Here is the mans reply again. Try reading one
line at a time and get help if necessary
> Dear John Day and Daniel Rosen:
There is no way to extract DNA from most ancient bones, so at the present time no ancient Judeans have been
tested, but it is not necessary
because comparisons with nearby
populations give a reasonable estimation of the genetic constitution of the
region in old times, in particular
the Kurds have not intermarried or migrated much over the past 3,000 years so
they are a good representation of the northern section of the Middle East, and
the Lebanese probably are descended from the ancient Phoenician Canaanites
whose language and ethnicity was related to the ancient Hebrews.
Meanwhile modern Egyptians are descended from the ancient Egyptians despite the
change in culture and language with the forced Arabization
of North Africa. Same with the Berbers, who are the Berbers of old. By the same token, one perhaps cannot
extract Khazarian DNA from medieval bones except if
certain circumstances exist. Right now there are only a few people
working on ollecting DNA from bones of old steppe
peoples and I don't know what the results, if any, are yet. It depends on
whether bone barrow or other remains still preserve the DNA in a form that
scientists could examine. We know about many archaeological sites of Khazars and some of the remains are stored in museums but I
do not have a full catalogue nor have all of the sites been completely itemized
yet.
A genetic test through Family Tree DNA would help to establish only the Y-DNA
and mtDNA lines of your ancestry, representing two
lines out of hundreds of thousands that you have. Y-DNA would tell you
whether your male ancestor who is going back about 2000-3000 years of your
father's father's father's father's father's etc. side is
likely to have been from a certain ethnic group or geographic region.
Since I do not know
your family background I cannot speculate on what the results would be.
On average about 80 percent of Y-DNA tests of Jews trace back to the
At the time of ordering your test, should you choose to buy one or two, please
visit Family Tree DNA through my outgoing referral link
Me: Do you even read the stuff you write? You just quoted his original
email which said that there was an 80% correlation between current
Jews and the middle east residents, and that NO tests have
been done to try and compare current Jews to anything else.
So far you have failed at the "yes" or "no" portion, have
been unable to follow a simple line of logic, so I'll ask just one question:
Do you believe that any tests have been done comparing current Jews to ancient
Judean DNA?
Just clomp once for yes, twice for no. But do so soon -- you are embarrassing
yourself when you post stuff which disagrees with your
own supposed point of view.
Him: > There is no way
to extract DNA from most ancient bones, so at the present time no ancient
Judeans have been tested, but it is not
necessary because comparisons with nearby populations give a reasonable
estimation of the genetic constitution of the region in old times, in
particular the Kurds have not intermarried or migrated much over the past 3,000
years so they are a good representation of the northern section of the Middle
East,
Your claim that 80% of jews
have middle eastern dna is fine but I dare say a lot
of gentiles have it, but the middle east is a big place..im only interested in the Judean region WHERE THE
JEWS CAME FROM. now get some sleep at nights.and get that test done..You
know it makes sense. O yes, when you get ther result,
put it on your web site for us all to see regardless if it is negative or postive if you have the guts. You never know..you could be in the lucky 5%
(You will understand in the end I am sure)
Me: Now this is what I call progress. You are finally getting to the point
of the website. if you read what the author's point
is, it is that there are substantially MORE Jews than are commonly counted
because of exactly what you said! He complains that the current state of
Judaism EXCLUDES too man -- so if anything, the odds are that according to his
standards, you, too, might be Jewish. You might want to sleep better at night
and take the test.
I'm glad you finally figured this out. It was nice showing you the error of
your ways.
Here is the author's quote just to confirm that the goal is to be inclusive in
the community, not exclusive, though the use of DNA:
"In the U.S. today there are maybe 12 million or more people total who
descend from Ashkenazic Judeans but only about 5-6
million of them are Jewish by the religious definition. Why exclude the
others from cultural activities related to, e.g., Israel, Jews as a people,
Jewish holidays with at least partial secular themes like Sukkot,
Hanukkah, and Passover, and Jewish organizations in the broad sense, etc., just
because of some arbitrary flip-flop notion conceived by some authoritarian
rabbis after the fall of the second temple?"
Welcome to the world of logic and reason.
Him: The point of the website is this...All existing studies fail to
compare modern Jewish populations' DNA to ancient Judean DNA. Now if you think
that so many people have judean DNA
(even I seem to have it now...lol) you will
not fear having the test then will you so you can be sure you are a jew..When you going to have it done
Dan? The DNA they will use to test you by will be from the local
Palestinians who have always been there and have therefore ancient
judean dna. The same DNA as the real Jews. You will put the result on
your web site. wont you Dan ..wont
you??????
Me: Well, since there is an 80 percent
correlation, you are right, the test should show my connection to middle east (Kurdish to be precise) DNA. However, this will
still have no bearing on Jewishness. You forget that
A) Judaism accepts conversion and I might be related to a convert 1000 yrs back
and B) This traces Patrilineal
connection, but Judaism is a Matrilineal function. So why should I spend 200+
bucks to end up with the knowledge that I do or do not have a Y-DNA connection
to the Kurds?
If you pay for it, and can deal with its inapplicability under Jewish law, then
sure I'll do it. And I'll post whatever it says because it doesn't impact Jewish status.
At least now you see that the issue is one of INCLUSION, not EXCLUSION.
Him: So, after all that you at last agree with what I have been saying
along in the chat room..95% of so called jews are fakes..they
are not of the jewish race.Im
glad we got there in the end. I now see no need to answer any more of
your e-mails..Dont forget to
put this reply on your site also..LOL
Me: If you'd like to run and hide after a "parting shot" which
bears no connection to the earlier emails, I'll be sure to post that in all its
glory. You conced the 80 percent connection, concede
that Jews now are connected to the Middle East and concede that the DNA testing
would show a patrilineal link to "ancient
Judean" equivalent DNA. Then run to your unsubstantiated non-connection
claim...I don't see how you can live in such a logical vacuum, but if it works
for you...I'll just know that if I ever need someone who has any memory and
logical
skills, I'll look elsewhere. You might find it useful to review the emails and
your own agreement to the material and then try and (graphically) chart out how
you leap from (your own words):
"DNA they will use to test you by will be from the local Palestinians who have always been there and have therefore ancient judean dna.
The same DNA as the real
Jews."
when the author says that there is an 80 percent
connection to the local DNA to
"95% of so called jews are fakes."
Which has no basis in anything other than your own fantasies.
I'd love to hear how you rationalize this one. Feel free not to respond, I know
how pesky facts can be.
Him: Being connected to the
Me: It seems you change your tune according to
how things go...you denied that any Jews were real Jews because they weren't
connected to ancient Judean DNA and now that the author of the website says that
Jews re as connected as modern science can prove, you suddenly change what you
say. You asserted there was ancient DNA to compare to through the local
populations. I said, OK there is, and there is an 80 percent connection rate to
your group of choice. And suddenly you are more concerned with the nonexistent
DNA and the impossible conclusions which you can no longer try to draw.
Watching you wriggle is fun -- you were so focused on there being no
connection to the people of the middle east and now you
want to say your focus is only ancient
Remember -- the only conclusion you can draw from an inability to compare to
something which we don't have is that you can't draw any conclusions.
Wriggle on.
Him:
If you read my e-mails all along I have referred to
Judean DNA. If is you, desperate to win your
argument, who brought in the Middle Eastern element. But I am sure
people can read that for themselves. I relly feel you
should get someone to asist you in reading. Off on hoilday from Thrusday night for 7
days. Make haste and learn what you can. I cant be an
unpaid tecaher for ever!
Me: Now someone's being a bit naive. Your
argument was that because there was no "Judean" DNA there were no
real Jews. Then we agreed that the local Middle East DNA was the ony equivalent to ancient Judean DNA, and that there IS a
DNA connection between current Jews and ancient Middle Eastern DNA via current
Kurdish population. Thus, the thrust of your argument has been handily
deflated. It was your contention that tests HAD been conducted on the nearest
we have to ancient Judean DNA and they were proven to show no connection.
Your FIRST email to me after we both
received a response to my questions from the website author was "use the
DNA in populations from the region. In this case the Palestinians who have
always lived there. Lets face it most of you do not have any Arab in you so how
could you be Jew's".
So who brought in the
Have a great holiday...use the time to review basic logic and your own
argument, plus what has been written here -- ask friends for help if you have
to. You'll be quite surprised.
Him: As you are going round and round in
circles I find my self repeating what I have said before.
''If
you read my e-mails all along I have referred to Judean DNA. If
is you, desperate to win your argument, who brought in the Middle Eastern
element. But I am sure people can read that for themselves. I really
feel you should get someone to assist you in reading. Off on holiday from
Thursday night for 7 days. Make haste and learn what you can. I cant be an unpaid teacher for ever!''
Me: Well, you certainly did repeat yourself.
But you also ignored that I just quoted what YOU started with --
"use the DNA in populations from the region. In this case the Palestinians
who have always lived there. Lets face it most of you do
not have any Arab in you so how could you be Jew's".
This was your quote, but I can see how you would prefer to ignore it. Do you
deny now that YOU brought up using other Middle Eastern DNA to establish
Judaism? Because if you do, then your position is clear -- you will deny and
lie and ignore to insulate yourself from the truth.
If you have any doubt that this is your quote, check your sent mail folder and
see that YOU typed it, not I.
Him: am
sure a lot of the jews who have come to Israle since 1948 have very little arab
blood in them..Blue eyes..Lilly white skin...Bronde hair..Come
on dan..Arab blood.....
Me: ahh...so now you
have totally moved away from that DNA argument and want to "look" at
people who, to you, don't "look" like the ancient Judeans. How novel.
I guess it would be silly to point out that within 1-2 generations, black
slaves raped by white owners had grandchildren who looked white and the
"Judean" DNA, as the author writes, represent
only "two lines out of hundreds of thousands that you have".
Physial characteristics vary and account for many
hundreds of other DNA lines. Facts have become unnecessary as you dance among
arguments avoiding any actual issues.
Him: No..DNA still stands..If
you don't have Judean DNA you are not a Jew in my books and a lot of real Jews
would agree with me and you know that is a fact..
Me: Except that you can't prove that a Jew has
no Judean DNA because there is none around to compare my DNA to. You are now back at the beginning. You got around this by saying that we
should compare to local Middle Eastern DNA (your claim in your first email).
The author did that and showed a connection. Remeber
that by your logic, no group exist with any connection to 3000 yrs ago as the
author of the website says that there is no way to extract and ancient DNA from
ancient bones. So no comparisons can ever be made for anyone (including your
precious test).
Please show me any proof that there exist in Israel 2 separate groups -- one
"real" and one "fake" based on DNA and that there has ever
been trouble between them. And I pray that your knowledge of Israeli politics
and history is more advanced than your knowledge of genetics and your
rhetorical skills. I must admit I like how you now change the focus and
make a baseless claim about current
Him: It was on British TV two or three years ago..God knows what group they
were but they had it in for you fakes thats for sure..Look, If you were a real Jew
who had lived there before the fake jews like yourself came, in Harmony with the Arabs for
thousands of years. How would you feel to have your once
neighbors now trying to kill you because of the actions of cranks - non
Jews who have come into the region. Or are you saying no real Jews lived
there before 1948?
As for going round and round I find my self
soon to bring these silly e-mails to an end..Your argument has been exhausted and your are trying to jump back to the beginning and starting
all over again. I am now certainly finding it very boring. Get a life.
Me: Oh wait -- your "proof" is
something that you claim was on British TV "two or three years ago".
Hmm, that's real convincing. Then, based on your fictional TV show, you don't
even know "what group they were". Wow -- I'm reeling under the weight
of all this evidence. And your claim about living in harmony
with Arabs? Oh boy...you really need a refresher in history. Would it
helped if I cited Arab on Jewish violence starting in 638 CE? Key dates
are already available online, but if you'd like me to tutor you, just say the
word. I can also teach you about the Jews who have lived there continuously for
thousands of years and their cultural connection to the Jews outside of
You ave stopped going round and round because you
recognize your initial claims are proven wrong. In your new venture, instead of
banking on the misinterpretation of a website, you invent history. Interesting choice. You may run away and bring these
to the end. I have a holiday starting in an hour which celebrates my being
Jewish. You may use the time away to review television listings or learn about
history, argumentation and logic or genetics. I shall think of you and laugh
over the next few days.
Him: The Orthodox Jews take a great
dislike to the converts and do not accept them as real Jews. This you know well.
You also have what is known as the Liberal jews, who again, are disliked by the Orthodox Jews.
The Orthodox Jew are also spited into different groups..
I believe you have one sect that’s lives as the ancient Jews lived in Moses
time and use the earliest from of Hebrew. As what is the name of these sects are I have no idea and no interest in finding out. I am sure
you are aware of them all. The thought of sending anytime af all in finding out the pecking order of a cess pit of evil and sick people called the barstard state of
I am still only concerned with the
statement you challenged me on that 95% of Jews have no Judean DNA and are
therefore fake Jews. This is proved to be
correct and I feel I have given you a fair crack of the wipe to disprove it,
which you have not been able to do. I am now bringing these rather silly
exchanges to an end.
Me: So you start by ignoring all the stuff you
said earlier and telling me what I am supposed to know. All this does is underscore your ignorance
of Judaism. Converts are considered full Jews and even higher than born Jews.
The converts I know are accepted in the community completely,
and I know more than a couple. As for your simplification that Orthodox Jews
are split into different joke, this broad statement is not only irrelevant, but
incomplete and the splits you invoke are not supportive of the points you
earlier made. There is no "sect" though, that lives like ancient Jews
using ancient Hebrew -- you made that one right up. I am much more aware of the
history and sociological groupings of Jews then and now so when you say you
have no idea, I know this to be true. So your invective is shown to be even
less based in reality than before.
Then, as to what you are still "only concerned" with, you requite
something which has been proven wrong time and again. The facts as stated over
and over make it clear that 80 percent of Jews have a genetic connection to the
indigenous poeples of the mid-east, the only peoples
with whom anyone CAN compare DNA to. If you want to claim anything about 95
percent, there is a burden of proof on you, one which you have not even
approached. You have given no statistics, studies or evidence to support this
meaningless number and now run away from the dialogue when that is abundantly
clear. Bye...don't trip over your tail between your
legs.
I must say from the outset that I am not a supporter of your views but would like clarification of your position so I may beter understand what you say and why you say it.
According
to your stance, it is against the Torah for there to be a Jewish state. Your
central support is a quote from Kesubos 111a in the
argument between R. Zerah and R. Yehudah.
The prohibition is quoted by R. Zerah WHO WANTED TO
MAKE ALIYAH and his explanation, unclear as it is, is not brought down as halacha, and ony
applies to the migration of all
Please remember that this cannot be about the number of Jews in the land, as Kesubos 110b says "One should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are idolaters, but let no one live outside the Land, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are Israelites; for whoever lives in the Land of Israel may be considered to have a God, but whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who has no God"
As
for 111a, on that same daf it says that those dying
outside of
What concerns me is another facet of your argument -- that Jews lived peacefully with Arabs and Muslims before the advent of modern Zionism. You seem to ignore the entire concept of the dhimmi unless you think it "peaceful" to be denied rights and have to wear identifying marks and pay extra taxes. Additionally, your idea of peace must include the actions of Caliph Fatimid Al-Hakim in 1009, the actions of Al Malik Al Ashraf in 1291, the destruction of the Ramban synagogue in 1474 and the actions in 1625 of Muhammed Ibn Farkoh (there are many other examples).
Additionally,
Jews have not fared that well among all the other nations where we fled over
the generations. Do you forget the expulsions from
What
really gets me, though, is that your supposed support for the nascent
Palestinian state includes condoning acts of violence against resident Jews
(who, according to the same page in Kesubos, are not
forbidden to live there as long as they do not make aliyah
"in a wall" i.e. by force). My
sister lives in
Lastly -- do the Arabs whom you support know that your ultimate goal is the removal of the state so that Moshiach will come and get rid of all the Arabs?
You
miss the important distinctions and conflate and simplify too many key
concepts. Zionist does not, by definition, refer only to non-religious Jews
unless you define "religious" as accepting the tradition as YOU
understand it. By that same token, I could say that you are not religious
because you don't support the notion which I believe in. The current state is a political and secular
entity. You need not support it simply because it is not a religious state.
That is fine with me. But to claim that its existence as a secular state has it
fall into a prohibition against the creation of a purely religious Jewish state
is specious logic. The secular state should, by its own nature, prove that it
is not the return to the messianic "
You do not have, in my unlearned opinion, the weight of history, human nature or halacha to bolster your arguments. The fact that many of the most vehement anti-zionist groups of the 30's and 40's changed their opinions shows that your halachik basis cannot be totally persuasive. And that you couch these teachings in an advocacy of violence against those who lived there in the past and who live there now is repugnant and sinas chinam. To blame the victim is a slippery slope -- you cannot know the exact nature of s'char va'onesh (and your claim that "all" the rabbis knew that Hitler's rise to punish the Zionist concept would be laughable if it weren't so demenaing to the 6 million who died) and you cannot lead by naivete. No one is claiming that the modern state is the same as what will be after Moshiach. No one is denying that many of the early zionsist were not religious, therefore no one should be saying that the goal of the early and non religious zionsist was to achieve a religious state!
I am at a loss. Please help me understand without repeating the Kesubos 111a argument.
Thank you..
This is the answer to the question.
This is the answer to the question.
Last revised: Date