re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites

quote:

---

It’s no bullshite and well documented that Khazarians adopted Judaism in the 8th century before immigrating to northern parts of Europe.

---

When Tucker interviewed Putin, for historical context he started in the 8th century here. I guess he was promoting a conspiracy theory.

Once again, the Bible proves to be accurate.

quote:

---

Augustus516

---

I respect your point but I just still find it hard to think of a being that knows its eternal having the same sort of visceral response to being tortured that maybe I would have.

quote:

---

Imagine you have an immunity to say, pancreatic cancer, one of the more painful ones, but you choose to remove that immunity and go through the pain of dying from it

---

I can imagine exactly that and one thing I can assure you is it would be far less scary than it is for the person who just knows it's going to kill them. I'm not saying it's nothing. I'm just saying it's a lot more nothing when you know how it's all going to turn out

quote:

---

What do you call it when you are prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination towards semites?

---

A non-existent problem in today's world.

quote:

---

I literally just looked up the word.

Damn what an ill defined word.

---

Again, in a discussion where you attempt to criticize dishonesty, you continue to promote it (while now trying to cover it by playing ignorant).

quote:

---

Ah, so you're making up some artificial criteria and then saying it's false because it doesn't do what you think it should do. That's not how serious scholarship works

---

I am basing my beliefs in God’s word the Bible. I truly believe it is his gift to us; it makes sense. The criteria is right here
(1 John 4:1,2).

quote:

---

Nothing I said was "out of context." It was a literal reference

---

A literal reference typically has context to it. At John 6:53, Jesus told his disciples to eat of his flesh and drink his blood. I could take this completely out of context and say Jesus was promoting cannibalism. Is that the case?

quote:

---

Oh my word. I don't have time to give you an education on the trinity. Can you just google it?

---

This is the problem with discussing the Bible on its merits. Rather than place your faith in a podcast, or someone else’s interpretation, it should be by use of scriptures, not man-made doctrines. Here are 5 scriptures for you:
(John 14:28) the Father is greater than I am
(John 17) The entire chapter is Jesus praying to God, his Father.
(Matt. 27:46) Dying on the stake, he says My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
(John 16:5, 28) He speaks of the one who Sent me, and going back to him.
(John 5:30) he does not do his will, but the will of the Father
(John 6:44) similar

Give me one scripture to support the trinity. I’ll give you 5 more, different from these, that prove Jesus is not equal to God

quote:

---

Before you go make claims about stuff, how about you actually study the topic from an academic level

---

Matthew 11:25, Jesus acknowledges truth would be hidden from wise and intellectual ones, but revealed to children. The Bible should certainly be studied, but an academic exercise won’t change the truth in it, nor will it be successful in twisting its words to support false teaching. A humble attitude and a sincere effort to find the truth is what will help people understand the Bible

quote:

---

Then you should probably sit this one out until you do

---

Other than what I stated, please again, tell me what the expression, son of man means. I thought I got the gist of it

quote:

---

But the truth of scripture hasn't been injured one bit by people doing these things. You are conflating societal/cultural issues with the truth of scripture

---

I completely agree with that. My original assertion was that Christianity has drifted further and further away from the truth of the bible. God’s word remains unblemished.

That is why, every time I have these discussions with people, i try my best to provide scriptures and use God’s word. It is perfect in my opinion (2 Tim 3:16,17).
Anything less (podcasts, linked articles, opinion pieces) is not needed when you can use the scriptures to back you up.

quote:

---

Did the Khazarian not exist?

Did the Khazarian war with the Russians over the centuries?

Did the Khazarian adopt Judaism?

Just trying to figure out what is theory and what is real?

---

A main component of the CT is if the "Khazars" exist today, especially in Jewish form.

Then, if you can show it exists, linking it to Ashkenazi Jews is the next step.

Saying Khazars existed and converted to Judaism is a truthful statement. That doesn't make it a significant statement. Hence, why I called it a "kernel of truth". All CTs begin with a kernel of truth, but the problem is in how they extrapolate data/arguments from it.

Here is the fun part. There has been DNA testing to analyze the 2 steps above. Guess what the limiting factor is in the analysis.

quote:

---

And I discover here that the very word "antisemitism" is a dishonest word at face value.

---

It's not. The use and connotation of words changes over time.

You're not stupid. You know this.

quote:

---

Because if antisemitism is meant to be anti-Jewish, just say anti-Jewish so we are not confused with semitic people of the ME because they come in all religions. Why steal semitic from the smites?

---

Reddit post explaining it

quote:

---

To understand this transformation, it is important to understand what the context is. The 19th century is marked by a huge shift in terms of paradigms on how to explain the world, especially in regards to such factors as nationalism, race, and science. To break it down to the essentials: The French Revolution and its aftermath accelerated a trend that had been forming for some time: God, in the broadest sense, became obsolete as an explanation/justification for why the world was it was. Neither political rule nor the fact that people e.g. in Micronesia were distinctly different in how they organized their society, lived their lives etc. etc. from people in Europe could be explained in a theological sense anymore.

And while there had been previous attempts to theorize about these things without the use of theological arguments / God as a strict fact – such as Kant and Voltaire debating whether humans have two different origins or just one –, the 19th century sees these ideas combined and investigated with methods and theories we today would classify as scientific, e.g. Mendel or Darwin.

Out of this endeavor to explain why people were different, soon emerged what we today understand as modern racism, meaning not just theories on why people are different but constructing a dichotomy of worth out of these differences. Jews as a group got also swept up in this trend and discourse. u/sunagainstgold talked about it here and u/medieval_pants went into this a bit more here.

While the exact process of how this happened and when it started is a long and complicated one, what is important for the context of the term "anti-Semitic" is that both in order to distinguish themselves from a religiously motivated othering of the Jews as well as to encompass their new world view, which out of factors such as nationalism and new philosophies of history (Hegel, Whigs, Marx), saw history as a constant conflict between races, adherents chose to utilize the terms "Semitism" as well as "Aryan".

The use of these terms to mean that behind nations lay races and that the Jews not only constituted their own "race" but also that they were dangerous and on contrarian terms with the Aryan race, was intended to show that not only was this a new way to understand the world but also to lend themselves scientific credence. Heinrich von Treitschke, who popularized the term "anti-Semitism" in Germany, used it to argue that Jews, no matter how areligious they were and how "German" they had become in the manners how they lived their lives, were always different from the Germans and a danger to the national German character since they, as a people without a homeland, were comparable, in his mind, to parasites undermining "Germanness".

Within this whole context, anti-Semitism whether as a self-descriptor, a name for a political movement (like Wilhelm Marr's League of anti-Semites), or as the name used by people opposing these ideas, always meant exclusively Jews and not Arabs since like the term "Aryan" as it was used by the völkisch movements, it had been almost completely divorced from its original context and use in linguistics.

In essence, with the development of modern racism eschewing old categories and instead embracing scientific and pseudo-scientific explanations and categories not just for why people were different but also why they had different "worth", a special context emerged for Jews, which while using terms and monikers with a different original meaning, developed their own connotations and meanings. Anti-Semitism refers to Jews exclusively because the people who coined the term as a political label and name for their theory used it to describe Jews exclusively and divorced it from its linguistic meaning.

Like the völkisch movement and the Nazis using the term "Aryan" as a descriptor for the German race and not in its original meaning of Iranians, anti-Semitism took on its meaning because the term was used to convey this meaning historically. That, combined with the fact that neither Jews nor Arabs are Semites strictly speaking but that Hebrew and Arabic are semitic languages in a linguistic use, is the history behind the usage of the term to describe modern, race-based prejudice and hatred towards Jews.

---

quote:

---

I thought this was common knowledge

---

No shite. F'ing duh.