Originally posted by Rustami
Your post is filled with so much misinfo it is unbelievable.
mitochondria. Their DNA shows that today's Jews from the largest group, the eight million Ashkenazim – most of whom once found their home
in central and eastern Europe, and who now represent the majority of American Jews..A scan of half a million variable sites across the genomes of
several hundred Europeans and Americans, each aware from their family history of having had a recent Jewish or a non-Jewish ancestry, gave an absolute
separation between Jews and others: even a single Jewish grandparent was enough to provide an unambiguous identity, written in DNA
--A study of haplotypes of the Y-chromosome, published in 2000, addressed the paternal origins of Ashkenazi Jews. Hammer et al. found that the
Y-chromosome of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews contained mutations that are also common among Middle Eastern peoples, but uncommon in the general
European population. This suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East. The proportion of male
genetic admixture in Ashkenazi Jews amounts to less than 0.5% per generation over an estimated 80 generations, with "relatively minor contribution of
European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim," and a total admixture estimate "very similar to Motulsky's average estimate of 12.5%." This supported the
finding that "Diaspora Jews from Europe, Northwest Africa, and the Near East resemble each other more closely than they resemble their non-Jewish
A 2001 study by Nebel et al. showed that both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish populations share the same overall paternal Near Eastern ancestries. In
comparison with data available from other relevant populations in the region, Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the
Fertile Crescent. The authors also report on Eu 19 chromosomes, which are very frequent in Eastern Europeans (54%-60%) at elevated frequency (12.7%)
in Ashkenazi Jews. They hypothesized that the differences among Ashkenazim Jews could reflect low-level gene flow from surrounding European
populations and/or genetic drift during isolation.
A 2005 study by Nebel et al., based on Y-chromosome polymorphic markers, showed that Ashkenazi Jews are more closely related to other Jewish and
Middle Eastern groups than to their host populations in Europe. However, 11.5% of male Ashkenazim were found to belong to R1a1a (M17+), the dominant
Y-chromosome haplogroup in Eastern Europeans, suggesting possible gene flow.
. . .
However, a 2006 study by Behar et al., based on high-resolution analysis of haplogroup K(mtDNA), suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi
population is descended matrilineally from just four women, or "founder lineages", that were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating
in the Middle East in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. Although Haplogroup K is common throughout western Eurasia, "the observed global pattern of
distribution renders very unlikely the possibility that the four aforementioned founder lineages entered the Ashkenazi mtDNA pool via gene flow from a
European host population:
"..Both the extent and location of the maternal ancestral deme from which the Ashkenazi Jewry arose remain obscure. Here, using complete sequences
of the maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), we show that close to one-half of Ashkenazi Jews, estimated at 8,000,000 people, can be traced
back to only four women carrying distinct mtDNAs that are virtually absent in other populations, with the important exception of low frequencies among
non-Ashkenazi Jews. We conclude that four founding mtDNAs, likely of Near Eastern ancestry, underwent major expansion(s) in Europe within the past
In addition, Behar et al. have suggested that the rest of Ashkenazi mtDNA is originated from ~150 women, most of those likely of Middle Eastern
"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." The Jewish
But the eye of their God was watching over the elders of the Jews
*, and they were not stopped until a report could go to Darius and his written
reply be received.
*Strongs - (Chaldee); patrial from H3061; a Jehudaite (or Judaite), that is, Jew:—Jew.
H3061 - (Chaldee); contracted from a form. corresponding to H3063; properly Judah, hence Judaea:—Jewry, Judah, Judea.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828)
ARTFL > Webster's Dictionary > Searching for jew:
Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition:
JEW, n. [a contraction of Judas of Judah.] A Hebrew or Israelite.
Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a "Jew,"
Oh, he wasn't?
Yeshua (Jesus) is from the Tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). His earthly father was descended from David (Matt. 1:6-16) and His mother was as well (Luke
1:27, 32-34, 3:23-31).
In addition, Yeshua was born King of the Jews (Matt. 2:2). The King of the Jews must Himself be Jewish (Deut. 17:15). His aunt Elizabeth was Jewish (a
descendant of Aaron, Moses' brother) and His uncle Zacharia was a Jewish priest (Luke 1:5, 36). Yeshua was circumcised according to Jewish law (Luke
2:21, Lev. 12:2-3), and redeemed according to Jewish law (Luke 2:22-23, Num. 18:15). His mother atoned according to Jewish law (Luke 2:24, Lev.
12:6-8). He is called The Consolation of Israel (Luke 2:25) and The Glory of Thy People Israel (Luke 2:32). Jesus was born a Jew.
In adult life, His disciples were Jews (John 1:47, Matt. 20:25-26) and they called Him 'Rabbi' (John 4:31). Mary called Him 'Rabboni' (John 20:16).
They sought Him because they believed the Torah and the Prophets (John 1:45).
A Pharisee who had not yet come to faith in Him also addressed Yeshua as 'Rabbi' (John 3:2), as did a crowd of people (John 6:25). A Samaritan woman
easily recognized He was a Jew (John 4:9).
Yeshua self-identified as a Jew (John 4:22) and as King of the Jews (Mk. 15:2). From His birth to His last Passover seder (Luke 22:14-15), Jesus lived
as a Jew.
When Yeshua was taken prisoner by a Roman captain, his cohort, and some Jewish officials (John 18:12), He was delivered into the custody of the Jewish
priests, elders, and scribes (Mk. 14:53). The Roman soldiers would not have placed Him under Jewish jurisdiction if He were not Jewish.
Later, Yeshua was brought before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council (Luke 22:66). He was charged with an offense against Jewish Law (Matt. 26:65-66,
Lev. 24:13-14, John 19:7). Pilate, head of the Roman occupation, also recognized Jewish jurisdiction over Yeshua (John 18:31). This was because Yeshua
was a Jew (John 18:35).
But, no . . . He was not a Jew. Riiiight.
However, the point here is this: the very first time the word "Jew" is found in the modern Bible, they are at war with Israel.
You are perverting the history to your liking.
Israel, as a whole was not at war with Jews. The house of Israel (northern kingdom) and the house of Judah (southern kingdom).
After the death of King Solomon, who succeeded his father King David, Solomon's son Rehoboam became king of all of the Tribes Of Israel, the the
children of Jacob. Solomon's Kingdom had been magnificent, but that required tremendous quantities of money and labor. The people under Solomon were
The result was a split of the united kingdom of the 12 tribes of Israel (the Levites were distributed among all of the others) into 2 kingdoms - the
10 tribes of "Israel" under King Jeroboam with their capital up in Samaria, and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin forming the kingdom of "Judah" under
King Rehoboam at Jerusalem. From that time on, Israel and Judah were two completely separate and independent kingdoms. While they were sometimes
allied when faced with a common enemy, there were other times when wars were fought between them.
The 1933 edition of The Oxford English Dictionary is helpful in this respect and lists the first published usage of the word "Jew."
which referred to Judaeans, the residents of the Babylonian province of Judaea, and not as a reference to members of the tribe of Judah.
The word Judean is from the name of the region, Judea. The name Judea is a Greek and Roman adaptation of the name "Judah", which originally
encompassed the territory of the Israelite tribe of that name and later of the ancient Kingdom of Judah.
they are not the true biblical Covenant People
False. Anyone who follows the Torah is art of the covenant. It is in the Torah. Read it.
until "Shiloh," came who would then assume headship and receive the allegiance of true spiritual Israel as Isaiah 9:6-7 foretold. That is, when
the Messiah arrived.
No, the Messiah would bring the two houses back together. The scepter would stay with Judah (which it has) until the two houses come back
In the modern, colloquial idiom "Jews" are descendants of Judah while in the Bible it means anyone dwelling in Judaea regardless of lineage or
Yes, because they lived in Judea.
Numerous copies of these revised 18th century English editions ( especially the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New
Testament) were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. And so, the new readers of these 18th century editions
were introduced to a new word both to them and the English language, the word "Jew." For, these readers did not know the history of the origin of the
English word "Jew" and accepted it as the legitimate modern form of the ancient Greek "Ioudaios" and the Latin "Iudaeus." Thus, these new readers did
not understand or care to question the meaning and use of the word "Jew" since it was a new English word to them. Consequently, the use of the word
"Jew" was not only stabilised by these 18th century editions but also its anachronistic application to people and places fully established.
What you are trying to pull off is called word games. Akin to tomayto/tomahto.
A simple study of REAL and PROVEABLE history would show you this. But you are blinded by your own desires.
Jesus was not a Jew and therefore he was not a Judaean.
Wait, I though anyone living in Judea was a Judean. That is what you said: --in the Bible it means anyone dwelling in Judaea regardless of
lineage or ethnicity
Furthermore, he was of the tribe of Judah as shown by prophecy and by his own lineage.
So He was technically a Jew even doubly so.
Moreover, Jews are not the Tribe of Judah. Correctly, members of the Tribe of Judah are Judahites. That is, Judahites are of the Bloodline of
Times change, and words change with time. All Judahites were Judean, while not all Judeans were Judahites.
Would you say that we can't call Rick Perry an American because he is Texan? Same deal. All Texans are
Consequently, Jesus was not a "Jew," he was, correctly, a Judahite ("Yhuwdiy") of the Bloodline of Judah, a direct decedent of King David and
an Israelite living in Galilee and so was a Galilean.
Who lived in the land of Judah/Judea and followed the national religion which was known by then as the name of the people that practiced it.
"Jew" is a nationalistic word not a racial word and means someone living in Judaea.
No # sherlock. You just contradicted your whole spiel.
The southern part of ancient Palestine coming after the Kingdom of Judah and a Roman province at the Time of Christ.
Again, no. You fail in history.
In 586 BC, Judah was conquered by the Babylonians and Jerusalem and the First Temple destroyed. Most of the surviving Jews, and much of the other
local population, were deported to Babylonia.
After the Persian Empire was established, the region became part of the Eber-Nari satrapy or District number V (corresponding the regions of (Syria,
Phoenicia, Palestine and Cyprus) according to Herodotus and Arrian, which included three administrative areas: Phoenicia, Judah and Samaria, and the
According to the bible and implications from the Cyrus Cylinder, Jews were allowed to return to what their holy books had termed the Land of Israel,
and having been granted some autonomy by the Persian administration, it was during this period that the Second Temple in Jerusalem was built.
The Persian Empire fell to Greek forces of the Macedonian general Alexander the Great. After his death, with the absence of heirs, his conquests were
divided amongst his generals, while the region of the Jews ("Judah" or Judea as it became known) was first part of the Ptolemaic dynasty and then part
of the Seleucid Empire.
An independent Jewish kingdom under the Hasmonean Dynasty existed from 140–37 BC
After approximately a century of independence disputes between the Hasmonean rivals Aristobulus and Hyrcanus led to control of the kingdom by the
Roman army of Pompey. The territory then became first a Roman client kingdom under Hyrcanus and then, in 70 AD, a Roman Province administered by the
governor of Syria.
In 132AD, the Emperor Hadrian joined the province of Judea (which already included Samaria) together with Galilee to form a new province. He changed
the name of the province from Iudaea to Syria Palaestina, to complete the disassociation with Judaea.
I would also like to note
--Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el, formerly also פלשׂתינה,
Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) was a conventional name, among others, used between 450 BC and 1948 AD to
describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands. Other terms for the same area include
Canaan, Zion, the Land of Israel, Syria Palaestina, Southern Syria, Jund Filastin, Outremer, the Holy Land and the Southern Levant.
Edit: By the way. I would not be so enthused about sources that use The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
as a source. It is a known fraud. Follow the link (by the way . . . the whole Khazar thing has been debunked
NUMEROUS times here on ATS, and around the world. The only ones who spout that stuff are the crazies who live life in extreme prejudice.)
Hey look! I found all this stuff on Stormfront!
It is the sort of crackpotism that inspired jack-booted Nazis to burn a continent and
slaughter millions of people. You think all this is new? I can find the crap on any of a dozen neo-nazi and other hate sites. Why do I find the
same stuff in the Nazi propaganda films and books and articles from the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s?.
Enjoy your delusions, I guess.
edit on 6/19/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)
edit on 6/19/2011 by Lemon.Fresh
because: (no reason given)
edit on 6/19/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)