Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!aecom!teitz From: teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Identity Message-ID: <1332@aecom.UUCP> Date: Thu, 28-Mar-85 12:50:01 EST Article-I.D.: aecom.1332 Posted: Thu Mar 28 12:50:01 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 31-Mar-85 02:43:11 EST References: <1243@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY Lines: 193 > 3. Christ is not a Jew. (It's sometimes confusing to write about > a Person Who exists for all time, but for a period in the past > walked as a Man.) As Christ, the Man, He was born as a Galillean > of the Israelite tribe of Judah. He followed the Israelite/Hebrew > religious practices common to the area. He was sent not to the > "Jews," but rather to the lost nations of Israel (one specific > reference to this is in Luke 22, I believe.) > How do you define Jew? A person born to the tribe of Judah is by definition Jewish. You could say, possibly ( if you believe in the ressurection) that after he rose he wasn't a Jew, but to categorically deny his being Jewish is wrong. > 4. Christians are the direct descendants of the thirteen tribes of > Jacob, whose name God changed to Israel. Now, the Bible usually > refers only to TWELVE tribes of Israel. Jacob, of course, had > twelve sons, one of whom was Joseph (with the coat of many colors). > As Jacob was dieing, he put a special blessing on Joseph's two > sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and rearranged the tribe of Joseph as > a twin tribe (sort of like having twelve births, one of which is > a set of twins, making thirteen children.) Further, at one point > the tribe of Levi (the priests) are dispersed amongst the other > twelve. > There are twelve tribes of Israel, one each for the sons of Jacob. When the land of Israel was divided amongst the descendants of Jacob a double portion was given to Joseph ( for each of his sons ) and the tribe of Levi did not get a portion ( the Bible gives the reasons for this ). This doesn't mean that there are 13 tribes. Jacob had twelve sons and they are the tribes of Israel. > > 7. Scriptural law, including but not limited to Mosaic Law, is binding > upon the Israelites. Christ did not come to destroy the law, but to > fulfill it. What He destroyed was the "Traditions of the Elders," the > ways of men practiced by the Pharisees. (Boy, did the Pharisees hate > losing their strangle-hold on the people!) > If he came to uphold the law, how come you don't abide by his mission. Much of what is commanded in the Bible, in fact most of it, is ignored by christians. I have yet to meet ( I'm sure there are some, I just haven't met any yet ) a christian who doesn't eat pork because of Biblical prohibition. > Regarding the Jews, we believe: > > 1. They are the descendants of Esau, the Edomite, who sold his > birthright for a bowl of beans. (Read scripture to find out > the exploits of Esau.) These people eventually became known as > the Canaanites, amongst others. Esau was very prolific. Where did this interesting fact come from? Did the Jews get lost on their way down to Egypt and have Esau take their place. Or maybe, on their way into Israel, the Jews took a wrong turn in the desert and Esau took over. Or was it in their exile in Babylon ( where they stayed for only 70 years, hardly long enough to get totally absorbed into a society and have someone else go masquerading around as them )? > > 2. At the time of Christ, these people were known as the Scribes > and Pharisees. Christ had absolutely nothing good to say about them. > In fact, He even identified them directly as the sons of Satan Of course not. Why should he have anything good to say about people who challenged his claims? If he was right, why did he bother with them. The only reason he fought them ( had nothing good to say about them ) could be because they were right and he didn't want those who listened to him to research and see how wrong he was. > > 3. Irregardless of the proclaimation of Vatican II, St. Paul > tells us that it was in fact the Jews who nailed Christ to the > Cross. (It is a valid point of dicussion as to whether or not > modern Jews still bear the responsibility for the Crucifixion. > After all, the crime took place two millennia ago. Should the > descendents of the criminals be held liable to punishment for > crimes of their forefathers? Personally, I don't believe so.) > In any event, if the Crucifixion were not to have taken place, > we probably would not have Christianity. Christ had to die, and > somebody had to kill Him. I thought it was the Roman who killed him? How could the Jews kill anyone, when they didn't have the right to, because the Roman forces wouldn't let them. The reason Vatican II said what they did, was because Paul was wrong. He got a little over-zealous in his hatred of Jews and the council decided to right the wrong. ( as a side point, the word is regardless, not irregardless[ which means with regard to. What you wanted to say, I imagine, is without regard to the council's ideas ] ). > > 4. Modern Jews are the descendents of the Pharisees, who Christ > condemned. (Don't quote me, but I believe there is an explicit > reference to this in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1925, in which > the Jewish author actually admits this. I personnally don't > like to cite something unless I have a hard copy in my hands.) > I don't think there is anything wrong with this statement, and there is nothing to be shameful of, so the author isn't admitting anything, just making a statement. > 5. The modern Jews, therefore, have no claim to being "Israelites." > Only according to you that Jews are really Edomites ( Esau's descendants ). What you don't explain is why the Edomites changed their identity ? Were they tired of being just plain Edomites, and tey wanted a taste of the persecution that Jews lived through? A nation of masocists, what a novel idea. > 7. It would appear that the Talmud probably has its roots in the > religious traditions of ancient pagan Babylon. Remember that the > Israelites were in captivity in Babylon for a period of time, and > many Israelites adopted the religion and practices of Babylon. > Christ also condemned the "ancient traditions of men" that were > practiced by the Pharisees. > How about the Jerusalem Talmud, which in many ways is similar to the Babylonian. Did the sages who stayed in Israel assimilate to Babylonian paganism too ( even though they weren't there ). One other thing. What jesus condemned as the ancient traditions of men was nothing less than Judaism. He couldn't get to te people as long as they practiced the religion of the Bible, so he mocked it and said that it was worthless. Then he says that he comes to uphold the same law he mocked and belittled. > > Do you see why the Jews hate Identity Christians with a purple > passion? This is straight out of scripture, and the dispersion of > the Lost Tribes and their migration to western Europe is backed up > by archeology, history, and tradition. > Yes I do see why the Jews hate identity christians so much. Because they are making false claims to a legacy which isn't theirs. They can't say that the Jews are not G-D's chosen people, so they redefine themselves as Jews and say that the Jews of today aren't really Jews. If you would say that your religion is based on a Jew's teachings and that even though the founder of your religion was Jewish you hate Jews with a passion, oksay. I see where you are coming from and can defend myself. But if you say that you are really Jewish and the Jews aren't, that's trickier to defend against. I have some problems with your theory. Why did it take the identity christians so long to lay their claim to Judaism. Why didn't they come out shouting all through the ages that the Jews are Jews and that they are. Why did the christians always say that the Jews aren't G-D's chosen people any more, that G-D changed His mind. They could have said more simply that they are Jews and those claiming to be Jews aren't. > As I have stated previously, These are VALID religious concepts. > They are recognized even by the IRS. And they really have no conflict > with the theology of any established religion (Correction: any > CHRISTIAN religion). Is it racist? Only mildly so. Is it Nazism? > Well, take a look at who's calling it that. Is it "nice?" Maybe not. > Is it true? That's up to the individual to decide, after all, it's > still a free country, isn't it? Aren't we all committed to keeping it > that way? > It's nice to know that the IRS is the final arbiter on religion. Eliyahu Teitz.