It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Debunking the 'Fake Jew' AKA The 'Khazarian Jew' Myth.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 04:51 PM

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I urge everyone to read Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe and decide for yourself whether this is a myth or not.

Mr. Koestler was an Ashkenazi Jew and took pride in his Khazar ancestry. He was also a very talented and successful writer who published over 25 novels and essays. His most successful book, Darkness at Noon, was translated in thirty-three languages.

As expected, The Thirteenth Tribe caused a stir when published in 1976, since it demolishes ancient racial and ethnic dogmas...At the height of the controversy in 1983, the lifeless bodies of Arthur Koestler and his wife were found in their London home. Despite significant inconsistencies, the police ruled their death a suicide...

[edit on 3-1-2009 by GoldenFleece]

Thank you for posting that.

That book looks very interesting.

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 08:12 PM
So what of the people who claim that Britain is the tribe of Ephraim, that the United States is the tribe of Manasseh, that the nation of Denmark is the tribe of Dan, etc?

I call it the European Israelite Theory .. and alot of people hold firm to it. Just about as many as those who hold firm to the pre-Egyptian Kemetic "ideas" that all Middle Easterners and Biblical Hebrews were African-Black skinned, and that the paler skinned peoples are some genetic experiment gone wrong, or better yet .. a DEVOLUTION of mankind from his former glory into a pale, cave dwelling "barbarian".

Yes .. there's many whackos out there today. And they believe it wholeheartedly.

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 11:55 PM
how do yo feel about the claim that Ashkenazi people originally spoke what today is spoken by most Jews -Yidish. A Kazarian language not even related to Biblical Hebrew. Do you feel this is an assertion with no historical backing?

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 11:57 PM
reply to post by juiellineau

More like an assertion with no intelligence backing. The intelligence part is all you.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 12:24 AM
The fact that Yiddish was very popular among Jews before ww2 supports the argument that most of todays modern Jews have no genetic link to Abraham. But are in fact the offspring of the original Yiddish speakers-Khazarian. It's a valid point. I realize most modern "Jews" don't speak Yiddish today however, their parents probably did. I shouldn't have said 'most' in my last post. Some use this to point out that Israelis are not really Israelites.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 01:31 AM
There are many 'shades of grey' when discussing genetics. We've been around and mixed among one another much longer than we've been told in those buildings with steeples.

Our Creator's knowledge and wisdom was accessible by man long before the invention of papyrus. Our intellect is a gift, as described by a previous post discussing the pineal gland in the brain. The Pineal Gland is to the 'mind' as the pituitary gland is to the body. They regulate the function of both though operate without your concession. They are autonomic processes. Why is this? The Pineal glan is where it 'comes all together' so that we may decipher reason, rationale and jurisprudence via use of ones Sapience as the guide.

One can find a book written by 'man' to satisfy any belief. If the book of life was complete in written form, it would comprise of much more knowledge and wisdom than can be found in any book.

It is true humankind only uses a fraction of his/her intelligence. We spend most of our lives distracted from reality. Reality is too hard to bear in a world brought up by a 'book' or two with no room for contingency scenarios for life's 'situations'.

Public 'Order' among any nation state is an illusion. No human has ultimate authority over another unless one consents themselves to another.

The key is for a society to accept a set of codices based on ideals of which all of mankind could ascribe. Though far from complete, the US Bill of Rights and the US Constitution are the closest ideal toward achieving Liberty and Justice for all in a society.

It's too bad it has been hijacked by a 'Statutory' legal system of which has corrupted the use of 'reason' towards finding and establishing justice with jurisprudence. The International bankster class were it's authors and benefactors toward achieving their End of the so called NWO. A good lawyer can manipulate the Statutory 'law' as he pleases with a simple technicality. It's merely a business in itself though the common man is no shareholder in justice but rather a shareholder of it's legal fees. Sovereignty and Citizenry are mutually exclusive. Why is the 'public' uninformed as to what a social security number really means? Topics such as these must be known if one is to know where they stand in their? world.

OJ Simpson did himself in. He became is own worst enemy. Whether the law took notice or not, an invisible 'hand' of justice prevails in the End.

Carpe Diem in a new world. You can start right now. Why not spend more time in nature? Is Nature not of our Creators creation? Is this 'source' not to be trusted as truth? Are the elements and essence of a life form not a unique combination or re-combination of these same components?

Were the Indian peoples stressed over making ends meet in a scheme such as a Monetary sys-tem?

Does the 'private' Federal Reserve have the right to tax it's subjects for money created at the whim of a switch. Who gave these tyrants the privelage to tax another for profit when the profit is accredited to the Federal Reserve Members? Losses in the 'system' are merely debited or inhereted to it's shareholders, the 'citizen'.

Did the govt. tell the American 'citizen' that when their Mother signed their Birth 'Certificate' that she just signed her child into financial and quasi legal bondage to the State? You inheret your place in the system with a literal 'bond' of burden on your head from inception pre-conception!

Is their a 'reason' for the gold lining around the US flag in your neighborhood court rooms? They never explained to you what that meant? Have you asked yourself why or did we assume it's setting was to suffice for justice?

It is difficult for humans to live with a guilty conscious and conscience. Karma is a good 'word' though words are too limited in themselves to express truth alone.

Where does the 'conscience' come from? Is it not a Divine trait found uniquely in humans? Of course. Is Conscience not subordinate to Sapience? Why were you uninformed of the word Sapience? Why is this word left out of your educational 'curriculum'? Who is to gain and why? Is it not apparent?

These traits I mentioned above are not found elsewhere in the animal kingdom.

Your pets 'need' you. If you stopped feeding them, their next 'master' would.

One has a natural desire to be needed and loved without judgement. Pets are perfect. When one looks in the eyes of another human, they see their reflection however contorted that may be. Some see their worst, some see their best though "thinking makes it so". Whether their is a heaven or hell, thinking makes it so. Can we think our way into that of the divine? Human life is far too short to develop the collection of knowledge necessary to achieve a so called state of Zen complete with the knowledge of the Universe and its inner workings though Meditation is the closest one may come to discovering oneself and their place in the world.

Are prayers and dreams not a form of meditation via the conscious in the former and subconscious the latter. What inhibits using both at the same time? Perhaps a golden mean of justice among oneself and the other is to be achieved when these two sets of consciousness intertwine with one another. What keeps mankind from achieving this state of 'being'? Has one been defined without their knowledge, did they not choose to succumb to the way of another? Did the 'other' rob the 'individuality' of mankind? Why was this necessary? What made you conform? You are who you are in the past, present and future though were you the author of your own existence? Why not?

Until mankind begins to realize and actualize their collective self, in essence seeing one's self in another, they will never come together as a 'people'.

Those who benefit with divide and conquer schemes do so for their End, not yours. Only an 'individual' can stay true to himself and his neighbor.

Pardon me while I blow a ring on this screen.

How does one define the word 'weird'? Is weird simply something that is not understood or somewhere your not suppose to venture? Every human being I know is 'weird' in true sense of the definition though most are accustomed to wearing masks unto others as well as themselves.

Truth is self-evident when known. As they say "Weird things happen to those who least expect it".

[edit on 4-1-2009 by Perseus Apex]

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 01:33 AM
Maybe this will help you see fact from fiction:

Modern DNA studies on the Y chromosome of Jews worldwide have largely disproven the Khazar origin theory for the vast majority of Jews, including the Ashkenazi.
A 1999 study by Hammer et al, published in the Proceedings of the United States National Academy of Sciences compared the Y chromosomes of Ashkenazi, Roman, North African, Kurdish, Near Eastern, Yemenite, and Ethiopian Jews with 16 non-Jewish groups from similar geographic locations. It found that "Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level... The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."[44] According to Nicholas Wade "The results accord with Jewish history and tradition and refute theories like those holding that Jewish communities consist mostly of converts from other faiths, or that they are descended from the Khazars, a medieval Turkish tribe that adopted Judaism."[45]

Put down the David Icke, lay off the end times Christian propaganda. Take a walk outside, enjoy the real world for a change.

Time to step away from the computer and the conspiracy theories for a while.
For you health.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 06:30 AM

Originally posted by St Udio

in this mankind governed world order, the creation of Israel is not based on Genetic heritage...I understand Jews in Israel will accept most any, reasonable persons into the country as immigrants and to apply for citizenship.

that's all fine and true, after all, racism (and that's what genetically motivated discrimination is) is supposed to be a fringe phenomenon.

On this board, the OP is arguing along the lines of 'pure' and 'fake'. that's not about belief or citizenship, just genetics. iow, if you're a 'pure' Israelite, you may live on 'holy land', while the fake ones may not.

what if somebody attempted to apply this to, say Greece? (or Germany, if you wanted some real blustering) i can almost hear the outrage and indignation, yet the very same logic is being applied here and by the amount of replies, many find it normal to argue this way, which could have come directly from Nuremberg, 1935.

just add one line, the pure Israelites may live in the holy land

and only there

one thing leads to another.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by Bigwhammy

"And after the Levites left, those from all the tribes of Israel, such as set their heart to seek the Lord God of Israel, came to Jerusalem to sacrifice to the Lord God of their fathers." (2 Ch 11:16)

So there were representatives from all tribes in the southern kingdom prior to the northern kingdom being sacked and exiled by Assyria, putting to rest the whole notion of "lost" tribes.

This is incorrect.
First,the verse refers to those who followed Yahweh,not all the tribes did.They did not 'set their heart to seek God.'

Secondly,and more importantly.
In 2 Chronicles the events described are those that lead up to the the conquest of Judah by Babylon,almost a century after the conquest of Israel by Assyria in 722 BC.Therefore all the tribes were not represented prior to these events.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 08:52 AM
Um I can convert to Judaism - it is a religion like Christianity- there is no difference in saying Christians have a right to own italy at the expense of ALL OTHERS and the italians living there now.

It is a frivolous argument from either side.


posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:14 AM

The first problem is,which DNA is correct?
The different Jewish groups have different views,some accept only the male,some only the female,others accept both.

The male DNA line leads to the Middle East,whereas the female line leads to Europe.

DNA research on Ashkenazi origins may shed some light on the mechanism of Jewish migration from the Southern Mediterranean to the Northern European regions. One study [[ref|Hammer]] indicates that the Y chromosome of both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are of Middle Eastern origin, similar to Lebanese and Syrian DNA types. Since the Y chromosome is only passed from father to son, it may be used to trace Jewish male origins. Another study of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA [[ref|Goldstein]] (mtDNA can only be passed from mother to child) allows the tracking of maternal origins. According to this study the mtDNA generally matched that of local European populations and not Middle Eastern populations. These studies would indicate that male Jewish traders moved from Middle Eastern and Southern European communities into Northern European communities and intermarried local females in those regions./

Remember, at the time Revelation was penned, the term 'Christian' was not in popular use, although Acts records it's first use in 1st century A.D. At that time, 'Christians' were still widely considered and called Jews, even the Gentile converts to 'Christianity.' This was prior to the Christian/Jew rift.

I believe it was.Many Greek and Roman authors used this word.Even Tacitus says it was a well known term.

Annals of Tacitus.Book 15. get rid of the report,Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations,called Christians by the populace...

So I'd say Icarus Rising brings up a very good point.

As I have already explained, the point of bringing up the religious aspect was due to the fact that even if scientific evidence was not in favor of my case, Jewish converts are still considered Jews according to the Jewish law.

Which Jewish Law?
The different Jewish sects each have their own laws.For example,Orthodox Judaism recognizes only those conversions in which a convert accepts and undertakes to observe halacha as interpreted by their own teachings.The controversy around this subject continues to this day.


But I was wondering if it's the interest of the Jewish people to define themselves as a race and not just a religion.

1. It's easier to label someone as a racist than as a "religionist"
2. Races tend to have their own land and generally religions don't

Thats a good way of looking at it.Controversial too.So no doubt most people will say its an incorrect theory.


For instance some "Palestinians" claim an Abrahamic heritage through Ishmael.

Actually they claim descent from Joktan,one of the sons of Eber.(the one who didn't help build the Tower of Babel so his language wasn't confused.This language became known as Hebrew)

It is more PC to say "Arab" than Muslim.

Arabian is a race,Islam is a religion.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by DantesLost]

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:21 AM
My apologies for the anonymous post I have limited time on a frienTds computer
With all due respect to Ashely D and, without prejudiced the opening sentence of opening topic " Debunking the 'Fake Jew' AKA The 'Khazarian Jew' Myth"starts sets the tone for the inclusion of current events:
"Current events dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict..."
I have seen the claims of persecution ladled out with a lavishness deserving of Blessings from God, him or her self, Persecution, the word, is worthy of investigation . is it not?
c.1340, "oppression for the holding of a belief or opinion," from O.Fr. persecution (12c.), from L. persecutionem (nom. persecutio), noun of action from persequi "pursue, start a legal action," from per- "through" + sequi "follow" (see sequel). The verb persecute is attested from 1482 in the sense of "to oppress for the holding of a belief or opinion," from M.Fr. persécuter "pursue, torment, open legal action" (14c.), from L. persecutus, pp. of persequi. Psychological persecution complex is recorded from 1961; earlier persecution mania (1892"
To say"persecution" arises out of hate is a claim in need of factual support, furthermore, any such claim of persecution (oppression) would need more than rumour to support, at least in the world of logic.

Many peoples have migrated to other lands and disguised their ethnicity mostly due to propaganda which had its birth because of war(s). In my life of 70 years I have witnessed this phenomena of choosing to hold oneself out as a nationality when in fact being another. The point is that many arguments contain red herrings and are presented to favour the position(s) of the one trying to make their point.

Israelis in: those in the partitioned land previously known as Palestine are by their action defining themselves in a manner that will result in, or must result in legal action: persecutionem (nom. persecutio), noun of action from persequi "pursue, start a legal action,...

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:27 AM
This is all very interesting and all I can say is that this world has been enriched and deceived all in the name of religion. Religion has brought people together and torn them apart. Religion has been used for conquest and human rights abuse worthy of the "synagogue of Satan". More and more it's appearing that religion has become oneupsmanship - my religion's better than your religion mentality. Caesar of Rome obviously knew the frailty of human beings and realized his greatest opportunity was to divide and conquer. I see this happening at the dawn of the 21st Century. Another term is "balkanization" and both are very devisive - and isn't that the real plan?

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:41 AM
First of all, we need to have a clearer understanding of the historical aspects of this conundrum. There were originally 12 sons of Jacob, who founded the 12 tribes of the House of Israel. When Moses left Egypt, he freed these tribes from Pharaoh's bondage and they settled in Canaan. All of these tribes were to follow the laws of Moses, i.e. the Torah and it was forbidden to any races outside of the 12 tribes. Moses was of the tribe of Levi, who were originally the teachers of the Torah. According to the Bible, many of these tribes died out, except for the Tribe of Judah. So the House of Israel was later comprised of the remnant of peoples from those tribes and the tribe of Judah, who became the keepers of the faith (of Moses). The people of the tribe of Judah founded the city called Judea in the land of Canaan. This place has had several names throughout history: Canaan, Judea, Phillistines, and today - Palestine. Many of the indigenious Palestinians today, should be able trace their ancestry back to Judah. During the time of Moses, they were forbidden to mix with the Canaanites, but inevitably it happened. Yet, just because a person lived in Judea, as did many Canaanites, this did not allow for them to be of the tribe of Judah, nor followers of the Torah.

The Biblical term "JEW" only meant that a person was of the tribe of Judah. There is no debate about this. It does not mean that any person who accepts the Torah (or Kabbala - a modern phenomena) can be a JEW. It is a bloodline that traces back to Judah, the son of Israel. Today, the term coined "judaism", which came about after the times of Jesus to distinguish between those of the House of Israel who followed the Torah and those who followed him (christians), has set forth confusion as to who the real "JEWS" are. The fake JEWS are any of the "goyim" or gentiles that have converted to the belief system of the Torah AND NOT of the bloodline, whether he be Khazar, Ashkenazi, American, Canaanite, Ethiopian, Chinese, Martian or Plutonian. This is a biblical fact! Actually, the word Judaism is incorrect because neither Judah nor his tribe were the founders of the religion they practiced. So to call yourself or someone a "Jew" solely based on you/they following the Torah is a cycle of dangerous unadulterated ignorance because Judaism (the way of Judah???) was not supposed to be a religion. Moses was not a "Jew", he was a levite. Again - the Torah was only sent for the House of Israel, which the tribe of Judah made up the majority of those peoples in later times.

Fast forward - 20th century
The colonization of Israel is similar to what happened in Early America. Instead of Manifest Destiny, the Judeo-Christian world now uses the concept of GOD's (supposed) chosen people (JEWS) in order to justify the mass land grab going on in Modern day Judea. Problem is, their justification is wrong and so are their actions. Senseless deaths have occured in the name of religion, on both sides, because people dont have a clue as to what they believe in!

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by juiellineau

how do yo feel about the claim that Ashkenazi people originally spoke what today is spoken by most Jews -Yidish. A Kazarian language not even related to Biblical Hebrew.

Three things:

1). The original 'Kharzarian language' was actually a turkic language- not Hebrew or Yiddish.

2). One cannot say Yiddish is 'not related to Biblical Hebrew' when they both use Hebrew characters. That's a pretty big relation.

3). This doesn't mean that Ashkenazi Jews are all pure descendants of the Khazars and their Jewish heritage somehow magically disappeared. It shows they had Jewish ancestors that influenced the evolution of the language.

The fact that Yiddish was very popular among Jews before ww2 supports the argument that most of todays modern Jews have no genetic link to Abraham.

How so? Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, let me use an analogy to explain the point I think you're making. Then let me know if this is what you are trying to imply.

An English speaking clan lives among a Spanish speaking clan. Five hundred years later, we see a 'Spanglish' speaking clan. Later a conspiracy theory develops that the English lineage was somehow completely destroyed and magically only the Spanish lineage survived. In spite of scientific and linguistic evidence of heavy English influence.

My apologies if I didn't understand you correctly. Please correct me if I misunderstood what you were trying to say so I can respond to you more appropriately.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 01:29 PM
1). The original 'Kharzarian language' was actually a turkic language- not Hebrew or Yiddish.

2). One cannot say Yiddish is 'not related to Biblical Hebrew' when they both use Hebrew characters. That's a pretty big relation.

3). This doesn't mean that Ashkenazi Jews are all pure descendants of the Khazars and their Jewish heritage somehow magically disappeared. It shows they had Jewish ancestors that influenced the evolution of the language
Hello Ashley
You're quite correct I should have said germanic language developed around the 10th century in the Rineland by the Ashkenazi culture.
2nd-the only reason i can find Yiddish having any Hebrew words is for the sole purpose of describing specificlly Jewish artifacts.
from external source-
Standard Hebrew, as developed by Eliezer Ben Yehuda, was based on Mishnaic spelling and Sephardi Hebrew pronunciation. However, the earliest speakers of Modern Hebrew had Yiddish as their native tongue and often brought into Hebrew idioms and literal translations from Yiddish. Similarly, the language as spoken in Israel has adapted to Ashkenazi Hebrew phonology in the following respects:
so it seems to me Yiddish was brought into the new Hebrew
3rd-I didn't say "Ashkenazi Jews are all pure descendants of the Khazars and their Jewish heritage somehow magically disappeared"
I said I mearly gives support to the aurgument, i point that i believe is noteworthy.-ei. that Yiddish is not a language of the Israelites but of Ashkenazi. If their origin was Jewish why did they adopt Yiddish and then bring Yiddish words to modern Hebrew.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 01:58 PM
There may be some Ashkenazi Jews who are of pure genetic stock but it seems to me its unlikely given the fact that they were mostly converts (in comparison with people who were already there) who in or around the 10th century adopted a new language. The Ashkenazi culture surely had some if not many Jews however they (Ashkenazi) were obviously not all pure stock of Jacob. This mix must have been stirred continueously for the last 1000 years. The reason I bring Yiddish into this descussion is to point out the heritage of the language. It's not a Jewish origin. Some say it's a way for the orinial Ashkenazi culture to identify their non-Jewish roots. Which i personally don't agree with. I'm not trying to disprove or prove your postings. I'm interested in all evidence. Afterall its only after seeing evidence on both sides that one can reach a decision. Evidence isn't proof it mearly supports its side of the argument.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by AshleyD[/

What if the spirit "breath" enters the bones first and then Israel is returned to their land? "He is a jew who is a jew inwardly and not by circumcism of the flesh." These dry bones may not have anything to do with the jews in Israel, but others in ther world that heard the word and get restored.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 02:57 PM
Thank you Ashley. I have kept a copy of your posting, it summarizes what I have read elsewhere and have tried to explain to others. As someone of Ashkenazi and mixed descent the travels of the 'Wandering Jew' interests me greatly. My parents were of European Ashkenazi Jewish/British descent and on both sides these roots were almost lost to assimilation. It has been fascinating for me to discover these 'buried' Jewish roots. In my studies, I have come across a disturbing trend for supposedly 'legit' pastors and ministers of the Christian Faith to write articles attempting to 'de-legitimize' the place of the Ashkenazi in Judaism. The fallacy of the '13th Tribe' (Khazarian Jews) as having usurped 'legitimate' Jews (e.g. Sephardim) is rife in much Christian thinking. Interesting mitochondrial DNA research is also showing that Ashkenazi are descended from several common female ancestors with semitic roots. Fortunately, there are Christians who do not accept the thinking of those who would deny that Ashkenazi are descended from those who fled Eretz Yisrael in past diasporas. The fallacy of the 'Fake Jew' aka the 'Kazarian Jew Myth' is closely allied with 'Replacement Theology' where some believe G-d has finished with the Jews and the Christian Church is now the focus of His love and attention and prophetic fulfillment.

posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by DantesLost

1). I agree with those who say both should be used to get as close to the truth as possible. The OP consisted of evidence showing the DNA being tracked through the male and a follow-up post to another member provided evidence of the DNA being tracked through the mother. Both showed middle eastern decent in many (but not all) cases.

2). I am familiar with that Tacitus passage. Please pay special attention to your use of the words 'Greek and Roman' sources in your objection. The term 'Christian' was more popular in those cultures due to the fact their population consisted of mostly gentiles, therefore Gentile converts. Contrarily, the author of Revelation is believed to be a Jew. It is not surprising at all he would use the term 'Jew' instead of 'Christian.'

3). It is true different groups of Judaism differ regarding the handling of converts and the conversion process. But that does not change the way they are expected to be handled and considered according to the Torah.

reply to post by juiellineau

You're correct in saying they do not share similar words- that is very true. However, what I pointed out was the similarity in characters- not translation. This was done to point out a relation to the two after you said none existed. Very true, though, that they share very few actual words when it comes to translation. I was trying to point out the languages shared the same Hebrew characters to denote Hebrew influence compared to Latin characters, as an example.


Thanks to everyone else for their posts. I do read them all even if I don't reply to everything.

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in