Answer by Brian Holdsworth with two footnotes by myself.
Is Christianity False if Judaism is False?
Brian Holdsworth | 5 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv3giMzu8PM
the 5:44 people who practice what we would call 5:46 Modern Day Judaism or just Judaism are 5:49 descendants so they're still Jews but 5:52 their beliefs are something that are a 5:54 little bit altered
5:55 However, they are not the only physical continuation of the back then Jewish nation.
Guess what Palestinians are?
They are Jewish and Samarian ethnics of Christian or Muslim confession. Christian Palestinians are THE oldest version of Konversos or Jews for Jesus. Muslim Palestinians are ONE OF the oldest versions of Dönmes, or Jews for Muhammed.
[I got a response under my 5:55 comment, but it was deleted.
I'm not sure whether Lyn B. deleted it herself or not, but I will quote what I saw in the feed and respond to it:]
@lynb.3040 a publié la réponse suivante : "Palestinians claim to be arab. Also, historically, palestinian was everyone who lived in palestine. So, if we consider the arabs of that area palestine, then we should consider the Jews palestinian..."
Well, the Jews of that area could be classified as Palestinians of Jewish confession. That's Mitsrahi Jews. Israelis are 55 % Sepharad and 45 % Ashkenazi, I read somewhere. Not sure if the Mitsrahis are only insignificant or if they "count as" Sepharads, but either way, there are Sepharads who are not Mitsrahi and together with Ashkenaz Jews, that makes up more than half of the Israelis as not of the area.
Traditionally, the Mitsrahis, Christian Palestinians and Muslim Palestinians were referred to as Jews, Christians, Muslims.
In Islamic lore, where "Arab" is not just an ethnic marker, but also a honorific, there is a difference between "Arab" and "Mustariba" which latter means more like "Arabised" ... like Syrians and Egyptians so also Palestinian Arabs count as Mustariba.
Assimilated into the Arabic language from other ethnicities, and all three groups used to speak somewhat different dialects of Aramaic. Muslims ceased to do so 200~300 years after the Islamic Conquest, Christians only after the Countercrusade, and Mitsrahi Jews, I'm not sure the language even died ...
[above was posted in a comment separately from original post, and under that one, I had this dialogue:
- SanctusPaulus1962
- @SanctusPaulus1962
- The vast majority of palestinians are ethnically Arab, not Jewish.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @SanctusPaulus1962 As ethnicities count now.
I speak of Jewish descent, like what their ancestors to a vast majority were.
They are more purely Jewish than the larger ethnic groups of confessional Jews, and the Christian Palestinians are more purely Jewish than even some Oriental etnnicities of confessional Jews (more Jewish than Iraqi Jews).
The ethnicity you are counting is "language and culture" ... and the one item that's easy to verify once you abstract from confession is language, saying Palestinians are not from Palestine 2000 years ago is like saying Irish who speak English are not from Ireland 2000 years ago. Palestine 2000 years ago being Judaea, Samaria and Galilee. If some Irish these days speak English more fluently than Irish Gaelic, it's due to Strongbow, Cromwell, William of Orange and Industrialism. If some Palestinians these days speak Arabic more fluently than Aramaic, it's due to Omar + some centuries for Muslim Palestinians and due to Saladin and Baybars for the Christian ones.
10:58 You may be thinking of the house of David. Bossuet in a universal history written for the Dauphin (Lewis of France, 1661 to 1711) affirmed that Jews couldn't find out who was of the house of David. The records were kept in the Temple and therefore lost at its destruction AD 70.
I'd be happy to agree with him. There is however a way around it. Jesus had "brothers" and I am not into saying they descend physically from Mary, it's not about denying Her virginity, I tend to hold with Proto-Gospel, though what we have could have been altered, it's not inspired and divinely preserved canon. St. Joseph was a widower and the brethren come from his first wife.
But the point is, all of them were of the tribe of Judah, more than one of them eventually were Christians, and not all of them were celibates.
One of them (or if you prefer, one of His cousins, as per St. Jerome's account) could have married someone designated as Jesus' widow, and their first son could have counted within Judaism as His legal son. That's the maximum of truth there could be to recently surfacing insinuations like those of Teabing in a famous novel by Dan Brown (or infamous, unless you take it as a document of how gullible Sophie Neveu and Mr. Langdon were to believe Teabing's allegations). I had to confront them in their somewhat older form with Baigent for his novelistic stand-in Teabing, since I had class mates and home mates (I'm allergic to boarding school stories, that's why I haven't read even one Potter novel), and in particular one who was both, who were into esoterica and he was into Baigent.
However, such a line would have started out among Christians as likely as among Jews. ANY line from ANY brother or cousin or third cousin of Our Lord would have initially had some kind of standing among Christians, and then Jews could have needed to attend to that line, not least if some of them then became Rabbinic Jews. "Desposynoi" doesn't have as dictionary definition what Teabing says, but it DOES mean "relatives of the Lord" and some such featured in early Church history after AD 70.
I'd be more attentive to Daniel's weeks and the very obvious fact that Bar Kokhba was not the Messiah, even if they calculated the chronology fraudulently to fit the weeks to him (and that's why putting for instance Ramses II as the Pharao of the Exodus is a very liberal reading for a Christian, but nearly a literalistic one for Rabbinic Jews).
Plus their claims that Jesus didn't create the peace or kingdom that was promised is answered in Palestinians:
- remaining an extant population
- reuniting Judah and Ephraim (see Acts 2 and Acts 8)
- not being sovereign and therefore not holding standing armies.
Another part of the peace prophecies was God's word of peace going out to all nations, they interpret it as God's omnipotent word, and therefore an immediate peace, but it can refer to the Church preaching peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment