Jakomo: Khazar myth revealed.

This is a response to a message in the "Israel Fights Back" thread, but that thread is getting long and this really is a topic unto itself.

Originally posted by Jakomo

�Furthermore, most Jews today could not trace their ancestry back to the Holy Land and, therefore, are not true Semites at all. Ninety percent of the world's Jews are descended from converts to Judaism, mostly the Khazars in what is now the southern USSR. (The Khazars accepted Judaism as their monotheistic faith.) They didn't have the remotest connection with the Semites of the Holy Land.

I let this go by earlier, but it�s important, so I have to come back to it. This Khazar myth is an important piece of anti-Semitic propaganda.

The myth: About a thousand years ago there was a European kingdom called Khazar. They converted to Judaism. When Khazar finally fell, their inhabitants were dispersed throughout Europe and their descendents are the modern day Jews. That is to say modern Jewry doesn�t descend from Abraham and the Patriarchs.

Reality: There was a kingdom of Khazar. They opened their borders to Jewish immigration, and lost of Jews came to settle there. Eventually their king was so impressed with this religion that he converted to Judaism. Many of the subjects of this kingdom followed the king�s example and converted also. The Khazars enjoyed a couple centuries of prosperity before they fell to invaders.

Khazar was multicultural. Its population was made up of Jews, Muslims, Christians, and Pagans. All indications are these people lived together in peace. Not all the Khazar kings were Jews. The nation was friendly to all religions, and that was reflected in the Royal Family as well.

When Khazar fell, its population did not scatter. Most of them stayed. While it�s very likely some of its population did migrate away, and this would include much of its Jewish population, it was not in overwhelming numbers. Also, it�s important to remember that much of the Jewish population of Khazar had immigrated to the kingdom in previous generations, so while they had intermarried with the local population, they still traced their ancestry back to Abraham.

The idea that modern Jewry is descended from Khazar is a recent idea. It was first proposed by a scholar about 50 years ago, and made popular by a Russian novelist in the 70�s when it was picked up and spread by white supremacists and anti-Semites everywhere. It�s reached the status of such urban legends as the Nieman Marcus cookie recipe and the JATO rocket Darwin Award. It sounds good, it�s often repeated, it�s just not true.

So�who cares? How is the myth that modern Jewry descended from Khazar anti-Semitic and not just a harmless legend? If the Jewish religion doesn�t distinguish between a Jewish convert and someone who was born to Judaism, what�s the harm in this fairy-tale?

Well, earlier Skadi_the_evil_elf was debunking the biblical basis of the Jewish claim to Israel. While the Jewish claim to Israel is not based on the bible but on mandates from the League of Nations and directives from the United Nations, it is true that the perception of many people is that the claim is biblical. Perpetuating the rumor that modern Jews are not descended from ancient Jews fits very neatly into Arabic anti-Israel propaganda.

Also, while the major Christian denominations are not anti-Semitic, there are many minor sects that are. From a theological point of view, it�s hard to be a Christian anti-Semite when Jesus was a Jew and 2/3 of the Christian Bible was written about the Jews, but this problem is solved by the Khazar myth. It�s okay for a modern Christian to hate Jews if he believes they�re not descended from Biblical Jews.

So while Jakomo claims not to be anti-Semitic, he is pushing anti-Semitic propaganda. I hope it�s from ignorance and not malice, but that doesn�t seem likely when his criticism on foreign affairs only revolves around Israel.

Ahem, Mycroft, ignorance abounding......

If the jewish claim to Israel was purely based on, League of nations and the like.then why, oh why......Israel? Plenty of other uninhabited places around the globe to set up a new country. PLENTY. Why Israel? The place in the BIBLE, a RELIGIOUS book?

Mycroft, are you paying attention at all? Genetically, most Jews have NO claim to the holy land. Most are European descended Jews, hardly any Hebrew lineage at all. Thus, they are hardly even an ethnic group, but a religion. So, we gave a RELIGIOUS group, thier suppsed "holy land".

Most Ethnic Jews dont even live in Israel, they live everywhere else.

And if you know anything about Wold War 1, and the intrigue and aftereffects, then you know the whole story of the League of Nations.

Mycroft:
I concur with your posting except for one minor point. The entire Bible (100%) was written by Jews. Remember that Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, John, and Peter were Jews. Now if you want to talk about Old Testament versus New Testament, the Old Testament actually represents 77% of Biblical text (2/3 is 66%). Now a question, would the descendents of Rahab be considered pure "racial Jews"? Also since Jews never actively sought converts, most people became Jews either by marriage or by birth. While today many Jews can probably trace their ancestry to Khazar, they are still mostly descendents of the original twelve tribes. Also there were Jews throughout the rest of the world which did very little intermarriage to non-Jews. This leads me to believe that most Jews today could trace their ancestry back to Abraham and the Patriarchs if the records were available. I am really curious about the way Jews get redefined by the world to suit its purposes (this is especially true of anti-Semites). Now from 1933 to 1945, Jews were a race, then in 1945 they became an ethnic group, now they are a religious group. I wonder how they will be defined next. Indeed Mycroft, once again the stench of anti-Semitism is wafting its way into the nostrils of the world.

Jagdflieger,

Thank you for the correction. My figure of 2/3 was just a quick eye-ball of my own Bible, I'm sure your 77% figure is more accurate. You are also correct in that the New Testament was also written by Jews.

I've never given any thought to the racial purity of Rahab and her descendents. Racial purity of any kind is a vague thing that becomes more elusive the more you try to define it. In the modern world, it becomes even less relevent as easier travel encourages more migration of individuals from all ethnic groups.

From a religious point of view, I'm not aware of any benefit to being a pure racial Jew that one doesn't get from being a convert. Certainly nobody would say that the descendents of Ruth are any less Jewish, would they?

While Jews don't seek converts today (at least not much) my understanding is that they did in ancient times as much as any other religion did. They stopped when the Catholic Church started putting converts to death for apostasy.

I read that the Cohen's for example were the surname for the levites, a tribe from Israel.

If the Jews today can not trace their ancestry back the Old testamanet, then that does not make them any less "Jews" with the furore alone in the Old Testament people would have lost track of their Identities - with being taken off to Babylon and returned 2X.

But was recent as 2000 years ago, before the Romans kicked them out they were fully aware of their liniage as seen in Jesus who's ancestry could be described back at least 10 generations.

Genetically Jews have been seen to de a distinct race, with their closest relatives being the Palastinians, which happens to be biblical as well tracing back to Abraham.

Your argument does not hold much reality...

www.upi.com...
From a historical perspective, however, this current era of Jews marrying gentiles is not unique, according to author Jon Entine. While other peoples have come and gone over the millennia, the world Jewish community has survived both through eras of horrific persecution and eras of high rates of intermarriage. Today's Jews are almost all the descendents of that core of past Jews who raised their children within the faith and the community.


From a scientific perspective, Jews are a genetic goldmine. The question of identity has always been central to Jews' self-understanding. Biblical literalists have long contended that Jews are a "race apart," citing Deuteronomic Law: "You shall not intermarry with them (non-Jews)." As a result, some Jewish populations, such as the Ashkenazi from Eastern Europe, are among the more genetically distinct in the world, a fact even more remarkable because, unlike almost all other groups, they did not live in a geographically limited area but were dispersed throughout the world.

www.bridgesforpeace.com...
Surprisingly, the study shows a closer genetic affinity by Jews to the non-Jewish, non-Arab populations in the northern part of the Middle East than to Arabs. These findings are consistent with known cultural links that existed among populations in the Fertile Crescent in early history and indicate that the Jews are direct descendants of the early Middle Eastern core populations.






[Edited on 27-8-2003 by Netchicken]

[Edited on 27-8-2003 by Netchicken]

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Mycroft:
I concur with your posting except for one minor point. The entire Bible (100%) was written by Jews. Remember that Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, John, and Peter were Jews.

I don't agree with your opponents here, but let's look at the facts. Luke was not a Jew, he was a Roman (or was it Greek) doctor. To call Paul a Jew is to stretch the rubberband a bit too far, he was a Roman citizen, that's all we know about his nationality. The fact that he was a member of the Pharicee political party doesn't nessasarily prove that he was a Jew. Besides the three synoptical gospels were probably not written by Jews, while the gospel of John may actually have been written by the wife of Jesus, or as the gospel says itself: by the disciple whom Jesus loved, or the beloved disciple.

Now if you want to talk about Old Testament versus New Testament, the Old Testament actually represents 77% of Biblical text (2/3 is 66%). Now a question, would the descendents of Rahab be considered pure "racial Jews"?

What are you getting at here? Rahab is the sea monster that identifies Egypt in prophecy. The Egyptians were descendants from Kam, not Sem, they are the Hamites. The Semites are the descendants from Sem, Noah's fistborn son. But perhaps you're talking about Rakel?

Also since Jews never actively sought converts, most people became Jews either by marriage or by birth. While today many Jews can probably trace their ancestry to Khazar, they are still mostly descendents of the original twelve tribes. Also there were Jews throughout the rest of the world which did very little intermarriage to non-Jews. This leads me to believe that most Jews today could trace their ancestry back to Abraham and the Patriarchs if the records were available. I am really curious about the way Jews get redefined by the world to suit its purposes (this is especially true of anti-Semites). Now from 1933 to 1945, Jews were a race, then in 1945 they became an ethnic group, now they are a religious group. I wonder how they will be defined next. Indeed Mycroft, once again the stench of anti-Semitism is wafting its way into the nostrils of the world.

There should be no doubt that the Jews have a right for the Land. They have the oldest bill of coveyance for the area in the Bible. That document alone is enough to proove their right. That, it seems mr. Mycroft and like knows well enough. Therefore when they don't win by claiming the Jews have no right for the Land in the first place, they simply torn on their heels saying the Jews are not Jews and threby don't have a right in the Land.

There should neither be no doubt that the original Jews are mostly scattered around Europe and Asia, and few if any know about their descendance and inheritance. After the Babylonian captivity just a handful Jews returned to the Land, while the ten remaining tribes is believed to have migrated North and East. They have been said to have mixed with the Kelts and the other Nothern European tribes, and some again were believed to move East and mingle with the Indians and northwards. The branch of Israel we identify Israel with today, is merely a branch of the whole family, but they have equal rights in the land together with their brothers.

But. I have never seen the following ever been debated: When the Land was divided among the twelve tribes after the Exodus, the borders were set by casting lots(sp?). Each tribe was given a portion each. Now how is it that the Nation of Israel can occupy the whole of Israel, all twelve lands, when only Judah and one other tribe (don't remember which) is present in the Land?

Blessings,
Mikromarius

what if the palasteniens were the closest to the real descendents of abraham, the lost tribes of israel are in america as(were) slaves, a large new world conspiracy to take over all religions with islam being the last remaining faith not tainted by the hands of the devil whose first tonge was in latin?

Originally posted by bigsage
what if the palasteniens were the closest to the real descendents of abraham, the lost tribes of israel are in america as(were) slaves, a large new world conspiracy to take over all religions with islam being the last remaining faith not tainted by the hands of the devil whose first tonge was in latin?

It wouldn't matter, for the Land doesn't belong to the Semites in general, but to the branch of the Sem tree commonly refered to as the Jews or the people of Israel (Jacob), so the story goes, Esau sold away his inheritance for a meal. The Jews are Semites as is 1/3rd of the people of the Earth if one take the bible for absolute and literal truth even when our view of the world etc. is very different from at the time when biblical history took place. When the Bible speeks of the world, it doesn't nessasarily mean what you call the world.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by mikromarius
What are you getting at here? Rahab is the sea monster that identifies Egypt in prophecy. The Egyptians were descendants from Kam, not Sem, they are the Hamites. The Semites are the descendants from Sem, Noah's fistborn son. But perhaps you're talking about Rakel?

I assumed he meant Rahab from the book of Joshua.

Indeed, I was refering to Rahab, the Harlot. The woman who aided Joshua in his escape from Jericho. I have seen it spelled Rehab, but if I used that spelling some of the posters here would probably thought I was refering to where they spend most of their time. As for Paul being a Jew. Indeed he was a 100% Jew of the tribe of Benjamin circumcised on the eigth day according to the Law. In order to become a Pharisee, a Jewish man had to prove that he passed genetic muster and be able to trace his linage back to Abraham. Also where is the statement that makes Luke a Greek or a Roman? And the statement that the Gospel of John was really written by the wife of Jesus, that in itself is a really long stretch (say a few light years).

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Indeed, I was refering to Rahab, the Harlot. The woman who aided Joshua in his escape from Jericho. I have seen it spelled Rehab, but if I used that spelling some of the posters here would probably thought I was refering to where they spend most of their time.

Jerico, Rahab. Yes. If her husbond was a Jew all her children are Jewish, even children of a national hero. For a Jew it's enoug that one of the parents is a Jew. The children are called Jews if either parent is a Jew.

As for Paul being a Jew. Indeed he was a 100% Jew of the tribe of Benjamin circumcised on the eigth day according to the Law. In order to become a Pharisee, a Jewish man had to prove that he passed genetic muster and be able to trace his linage back to Abraham.

You're right about him being of Benjamin tribe and that he is a Jew born in Kilikia, but his father was a Roman, and Paul was a Roman citizen and had all the priviliges a Roman citizen had. He was even the one who abolished circumcission among the Christians. He even called himself the Apostle of the gentiles.

Also where is the statement that makes Luke a Greek or a Roman?

From the Catholic Enclop�dia:
"St. Luke was not a Jew. He is separated by St. Paul from those of the circumcision (Col. iv, 14), and his style proves that he was a Greek. Hence he cannot be identified with Lucius the prophet of Acts, xiii, 1, nor with Lucius of Rom., xvi, 21, who was cognatus of St. Paul. From this and the prologue of the Gospel it follows that Epiphanius errs when he calls him one of the Seventy Disciples; nor was he the companion of Cleophas in the journey to Emmaus after the Resurrection (as stated by Theophylact and the Greek Menol.). St. Luke had a great knowledge of the Septuagint and of things Jewish, which he acquired either as a Jewish proselyte (St. Jerome) or after he became a Christian, through his close intercourse with the Apostles and disciples."

And the statement that the Gospel of John was really written by the wife of Jesus, that in itself is a really long stretch (say a few light years).

I'd say it's a longer stretch to make the wife of Jesus into a man, calling her John, and saying Jesus wasn't married eventhough he was over thirty years of age, a rabbi of the greatest, a prophet of the few, a king of kings etc. He was the messiah for God's sake? Many of these offices I have mentioned demands a marrital status. Why is it so impossible? Who would gain on Jesus not being married? In some of the apocrypha the the identity of the disciple that Jesus loved more than the other disciples is reveiled: She is Mary Magdalen. Jesus even says that Mary will come to the kingdom when she is transformed into a man. Besides, the book of Hosea suggests that the marriage(s) of Jesus means everything since Hosea and Jesus is the same name.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

What about the Sephardic Jews are they real jews? Do Sephardic Jews have a right to be out in Israel?

reply to post by Marabella22

Woah...blast from the past . 8 year old thread!

Sephardic jews have been in the Iberian peninsula since...it could be anywhere from the 8th century BC to 200-300BC.

But I think your question (and the premise of this old thread) is faulty. I personally do not believe that a particular genetic (or ethnic or especially religious(?)) background gives one group of people greater right to a piece of land than any other group of people, all other things being equal.
Otherwise, I could say we all have a "right" to be in Africa. After all, we all came from there. And I am originally of Irish ancestry. Does that give me a right to be in Ireland (despite the fact that neither I, nor my parents, nor my parents' parents, nor their parents have ever been there before)?

The racial argument does not apply. Even IF the Jews are really the tribe of Judah, nevermind the other eleven tribes, their claim to Palestine is not valid on Biblical grounds. It is made clear in the pages of the OT that God, who had married Israel (all tribes of it) at Sinai, later divorced Israel and Judah for their sins and infidelity. God made it clear that He was kicking them all out of the house (Palestine), just as any husband would send an unfaithful wife packing. This will not be rescinded until Christ sets up his Kingdom and remarries Israel.

Palestine rightfully belongs to the Palestinians.