>Your agenda is to try to say that the Jews in the NT have a racial connection with the modern Jews. Right?
No, it's to get at the truth, in spite of the interference.
>Your agenda is to wrongly say that most biblical Jews were Edomites. Right?
No, "our" "agenda" is to get at the truth, and the truth is that thousands have read Pastor Weiland's excellent study at http://fathersmanifesto.net/weiland.htm and AGREED with the key points of his analysis, which you have yet to sufficiently rebut.
>You have a fixation about biblical "Jews" as not being Israelites. Right?
Isnt it you who claims that this is nothing but a geographical term which applies only to those in Judaea? If so, as Hank aptly points out, wouldnt every race in Judaea be referred to as a "jew".
>You will not accept anything to the contrary, even if proved. Right?
Wrong. but what have you proven so far, other than to intimate that you may have jew ancestry?
>I keep on asking why the apostles ministered to the Jews, if the Jews were not Israelites in your view. You will never answer! Right?
Numerous people have answered in spades, for months now, that His Twelve Disciples did exactly what He commanded of them, which is to go ONLY to the twelve northern tribes of the House of Israel, and NOT to the House of Judah, and especially NOT "they who say they are jews and are not but are of the synagogue of satan" [read: Caiaphas, Herod, Annas, Gamaliel, and perhaps Nicodemus]:
The Tribes of Reuben, Gad, Aser, Naphtali, Manasseh, Simeon, Issachar, Zebulon, Joseph, Dan, Benjamin, and Ephraim, plus most of the Tribe of Levi.
>If you believe that the Jews were Edomites then the apostles ministered to Edomites in your view. Right?
There are no Edomites of the House of Israel, so none of His Disciples, not even Paul, ever did any such thing.
>You wrongly say, "There are no Christian Jews" and deny John 8:31, "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him". Right?
All edomite jews pretended they "believed on him"-then each and every last one of them betrayed Him, lied to Him, demanded his crucifixion, tried to stone Him, tried to kill Him, etc.:
Sounds just like todays crybaby jews who whiiiiiiiiiiiiiine to the rooftops about White Americans being "raaaaacists", while they prance around the world claiming to be "d-gs CHOSEN race", doesnt it?
>You think you can find reference to Edom in the NT when it is not written there as a biblical connection with "Jews". Right?
>You therefore have invented to phrase, "Edomites pretending to be Jews". Right?
>You believe that Jews rejected Jesus as Edomites because of their race when Jesus is the Redeemer of Israel only. Right?
>"Judahite" and "Judean" do not appear in the Greek, yet you wrongly use them to indicate a difference between Judah and Edomites. Right?
No. The context has proven to our satisfaction that at least three different races, Israelites of the House of Israel, Israelites of the House of Judah, and "they who say they are jews and are not but are of the synagogue of satan", are called "jews".
>You claim Edomites rejected Jesus because of their race, yet you will not accept the "we" in Isaiah 53:3 "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not" and you deny Jesus in Luke 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man". Right?
Judas, an ISRAELITE, of the House of ISRAEL, rejected Him. Peter, an ISRAELITE, of the House of ISRAEL, denied Him three times.
>When you say, "The Jews brutally murdered him" you wrongly mentally change "Jews" to mean Edomites when it is not there or in prophcey. Right?
>When a list is compiled of verses showing all the bad things "Jews" do or did in Bible days, that is not a right basis for claiming that they must be of another race than God's people. Right?
This is PRECISELY what the Holy Bible is all about. Its a LIST of all the bad things the "jews" did to the House of Israel. The jews were NOT even of His God.
>In http://fathersmanifesto.net/judaean.htm you have invented a color code based solely upon the behavior of Jews. Right?
Context, others, analyzed. Based on what Jesus and His Disciples said about the "children of the devil", the "race of vipers", etc.
>Your color code might deceive the simple when it has no language or other direct backing. Right?
Are you deceived?
>You want a consensus based upon your own imagined and invented color code. Right?
We want all astute, but sincere, analyses. Many thousands have viewed the analyses of the "jews", the Math, the Enosh [as well as Geber and others], it has been discussed in numerous forums, we've had thousands of inputs, and you're the first one who can't seem to keep his underwear from getting all gnarled up when discussing it. MOST of the thousands have expressed agreement, and only the jews have reacted like you.
We have a counter which shows that this page on Enosh has been viewed more than 30,000 times--take a guess at how many disagree? Bertrand Comparet, Willie Martin, many Greek scholars youve never met to whom we didnt have to explain what the Greek words "aner" and "goonay" meant, have all concurred, very few Israelites have expressed any form of disagreement, and NONE of them have been insulting as you have with the following language:
This has been a completely open and honest discussion with no hidden agendas whatsoever, except from the jews
>You refuse to look at the different word-forms for the one word translated as "Jews". Right?
You've have had many good inputs, Arnold--but this time, were confident that you're wrong, particularly when your replies are accompanied with all the arm waving and other distractions.
>You say, "The Jews crucified Jesus because they were not his race" and so you do not believe John 1:11, "He came unto his own, and his own received him not". Right?
Jesus Himself said "His own" were the House of ISRAEL. Not ONCE does He even intimate that His Mission was to include the House of Judah, the Edomites pretending to be jews, Ishmaelites, Egyptians, Canaanites, etc. Your own analysis of "His own" refutes your own question. His own were hoi, not hoj, & not edomites. Only a few of His own rejected Him--the vast majority accepted Him, including 11 of His 12 Disciples, most Israelites in the House of Israel in Galilee, Israelites of the House of Israel like Paul who was from Cilicia.
>John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me": Those Jews concerned were not his sheep for this reason of not following Him as they were Talmudists. It was not a matter of not being Israelites. Right?
You have this exactly backwards. You believe what the church told you, and not what Jesus SAID. Here it is again, so read it very CAREFULLY:
Did Jesus say to the jews that they could become "of my sheep" if they'll just "believe"?
Jesus told the JEWS that they did NOT believe [read: understand] Him BECAUSE they were NOT "of my sheep".
You need to iron this out in your mind, Arnold. DO NOT read any further until you understand this part first.
>The Israelites who worshipped Ba'al remained Israelites. Likewise, the Jews who kept the traditions of the elders remained Isrealites. Right?
No. Israelites never did then, and do not now, keep the traditions of the elders". Only jews did then and only jews do now, as their "TalMUD", which is simply the "traditions of the elders" in written form.
>Mark 7:9 "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition". This has nothing to with race. It had to do with traditions. Yet you wrongly presume "because of their race". Right?
Edomites are a race, descendants of Esau, of their father the devil, a race who God HATES.
By definition, even mamzerized jews today are a race, and this race CLAIMS to be descendants of Esau. How can YOU prove that they are NOT descendants of Esau? They all follow the TalMUD because of their race. No other race, particularly ISRAELITES, ever follows or ever has followed the TalMUD.
>You mix up different words for "wicked" to suit yourself. You are wrong here. Right?
Our complete and exhaustive exegesis of both math and enosh proved to our satisfaction that they NEVER refer to Israelites. Until you complete that exegesis, your wild assertions are meaningless.
>You try to say the Saduceean High Priest was an Edomite so that when Peter said, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" so that "ye slew" might seem to apply to Edomites. Yet you ignore, "The God of our fathers" in this passage. Right?
Why do you KEEP ignoring what JESUS said?? OUR fathers and THEIR fathers are NOT the same. OUR God and THEIR God are not the same. Peter was referring to OUR FATHERS and our God, not their fathers and not their d-g.
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; Joh 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
>You do not believe the "wicked" are those [Israelites] who "keep not thy law". Right?
There might be verses which refer to Israelites as wicked, but the fact that all the verses you quoted were references to non-Israelites makes me wonder. I will look into that.
>"Math" does apply to Israelites despite what you claim in 1 Chron. 16:19, Ps. 105:12; Isaiah 3:25, 5:14;41:14, Jer. 44:28, etc. Right?
>You say that "Enosh are never called Israelites", yet they are in many places in the Bible, e.g. Num. 14:32, 31:3, Josh. 10:24, 1 Sam. 6:15, Ezek. 14:1 and many other places. You are promoting wrong doctrine about this! Right?
We're not promoting a doctrine at all. We're simply doing an exegesis of words which the KJV obviously mistranslated. There is a "son of Enosh", or "ben enosh", suggesting that Enosh must be a person, not a state of mind nor a particular kind of Adamite [who btw are not Israelites, as God commanded the Israelites to completely destroy the Adamites]:
>As Enosh are Israelites, then the distinction is one of behavior, character and attitude, not race as you claim. Right?
Do you deny race determines behavior? Do you deny God HATES Esau because he married Canaanite women? Do you deny his behavior was based on race?
>You say Adam and Enosh are two different races. You ignore the above evidence to the contrary as bot are Israelites. Right?
NO. Neither Enosh nor Adam are Israelites. Neither are the patriarch of Israelites, as Israelites are a patriarchy, and their patriarch is God, who begot Jacob, and not Adam, nor Adams descendants the Syrians who both Jacob and Isaac married.
>All your comparisons between Adam and Enosh are answered within Deut. 28. Right?
The words "enosh" and "Adam" never appear even once in Deu 28, as this is a reference ONLY to Israelites, not Adamites, and not Asians:
>If Asians were Enosh, they could be Israelites then. Right?
Neither Enosh nor Asians are ISRAELITES!!! Whether or not you want to believe Enosh is the patriarch of Asians is irrelevant--the simple point is that Enosh is never a reference even to Adamites, much less to Israelites.
>This throws a lot of doubt upon Bertrand Comparet who did not believe Enosh is used of Israelites. Yes?
No. It enhances his credibility. Willie Martin and many of the forum members on Paltalk agree almost 100% with Comparet, particularly on this point. What's the big problem here? Why should a simple exegesis of "enosh" cause you to sling the following slurs?:
>In Psalm 28:3 you mentioned, do you not think you would not have absolute proof who it refers to if you looked at the grammar? You never do. Right?
We already know that you're just waving your arms and jumping up and down because you've not been able to locate a single verse where Enosh refers to Israelites. Once you think you've found it, let us know, sans all the theatrics, and we'll complete an exegesis on it.
>You say, "The only time a "fine jewish historian" tells a truth is when he makes a mistake". Yet you do not apply this to Joesphus, Luke or Paul. Right?
Josephus, Caiaphas, Harod, Annas, and perhaps Nicodemus were jews. Luke, Paul, Jesus' TWELVE Disciples [one for each of the TWELVE TRIBES of the house of ISRAEL], Mary and her other sons and daughters, John the Baptist, and Jesus Himself were ISRAELITES.
>You say "Paul was not a "Jew" and therefore say he is a liar when he said, "I am a Jew". Right?
No, Paul himself said he was an Israelite, and a Roman citizen [which no racial jew could be] who became AS a jew, not that he actually BECAME A jew.
>You do not know how to distinguish the difference between Jews by race or Jews by religion or Jews with the wrong religion, and thus do not understand how Paul could become as a Jew by religion for a purpose as a racial Jew. Right?
Well, you almost got this right. Yes, Paul 'BECAME AS A JEW' by studying under the Pharisee Gamaliel and making a religious conversion, which he quickly rejected, condemned to the hilt, then apologized to the rooftops for his error:
>You say, "Paul was not a Jew" yet deny his connection with the House of Judah as a Benjamite. Right?
Not even Israelites of the House of Judah living in Judaea would want to be referred to as "jews", because it became a pejorative term when Jesus identified the "jews" as children of the devil, liars and the father of lies, and a race of vipers. But the Tribe of Benjamin was of the House of Israel, otherwise Paul could not have become an apostle, as Jesus warned them all to stay away from the House of Judah. Now, if Paul WAS of the House of Judah--then you must toss every word he ever wrote out the window, just as Yaya and many others on this forum already have.
>When you say of Paul, "He was a racial Israelite", you are again inferring that Jews are not Israelites. Right?
No, this is no inference--this is a fact of life. Paul made it very clear that he was an Israelites of the House of Israel who considered the jews to be a sub-species, just like Jesus did when He accused them of being of their father the devil, and just like jews today prove with their despicable Talmud [read: traditions of the elders, written down].
>In all this you can see you are often wrong and that you jump to wrong conclusions. Right?
All you've proven by this statement, Arnold, is that you know your position is weak and that you've already lost the debate );
>You do not want me to look through your web pages and point out some more of your statements that are not valid. Right?
Yes, absolutely--particularly if you can do so without gnarling up your Fruit of the Loom.