Silent For Too Long said:

---

The USS Liberty was a very unfortunate accident. Something our own military has done.

How has the US been blessed the last 80 years? Its only one of the prosperous times any country has had in human history.

I'm afraid you are being sucked in by antisemitic propaganda. Genetic testing is allowed in Isreal, although it is regulated.

---

It was no accident. Have you not seen any of the interviews of the men on board that ship who survived?

Yes, if by prosperous you mean the legalization of abortion, the rottenness of our culture, the complete takeover of universities and the minds of young people, the incredible debt we have incurred, endless wars, legalized gay marriage, the most corrupt government in the history of this country (and that's saying something)? No sir, we have not been blessed. We have been cursed. You are the one who's been propagandized. We all were, but many still are. Go find out who owns every major media outlet. Go find out who owns the vast majority of the technological industry. Who owns Black rock? State Street? The vast majority of banks, not just here but worldwide? Have you not looked into the Epstein files? Do you not understand that they have blackmailed and bought a vast majority of the power in federal government? Yes, there is a lot of junk online that can take you down incredibly complex rabbit holes. But the only way to wake up, is to start looking. There's not a thing that I have said to you today that is not true. Not even conjecture. The Israeli government itself admitted to the King David hotel incident.

And it's impossible to be antisemitic against people who are not Semites. The only true Semites in Israel are the Arabs and any Sephardic Jews that still live there. But they don't have any power. Yet they are true descendants of Shem. You sir, simply have not been noticing. Or wanting to.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I strongly disagree that they were "evil." Misguided, maybe, but dispensationalism has done more to improve Christian and Jewish relations then just about any other Christian theological development in history.

Dispensationalism prepared America for the events in 1947. Just as America was ascending to the catbird seat of hegemonic global power, Isreal was put back on the map. I see the Holy Spirit working through all of these events.

Incidentally, 1947 was the year the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Think about that for a second. They were burried the year before the Temple was destroyed, and were randomly discovered the year Isreal came back. The oldest attestation to the ancient wisdom of the scriptures, randomly discovered the year Isreal is refounded.


And, again, just as Isreal is reformed, the most powerful country on earth is sympathetic to their existence.

I don't think that means Jews have a special backdoor into heaven or any other such ideas. Christ is the way. But the Jewish people have been dragged through hell for 3,000 years, and the scriptures strongly imply that the hell Isreal is enduring is to the benefit of man kind. Its all part of His plan, and He rather demonstrably repeats, over and over and over again, that He will never forget His people.

---

Is your perspective on the importance of Israeli/United States relations religious or philosophical?

I agree with this. Additionally, watching the Ezekiel 38 coalition begin to form against Israel is also very eye-opening.

I guess religous?

I think we are seeing a long story arc unfold before our eyes that was authored by the creator of the universe.

Agreeing with Cheetah and Silent a new publication entitled Recent Pre-Trib Findings in the early Church Fathers further highlights not only the names mentioned above but also those of Eusebius, Ephraim the Syrian and Irenaeus that support the doctrines of a Pre-Trib Rapture, a literal Millenium and what the word "Church" meant in very early church history.

Cheetah01 said:

---

Okay Brother, here is what I've got. In all, I'd say we have a mix of premillennialism and some futurism mixed in. To me, there is ample evidence that premillennialism was debated early on. Replacement theology was pervasive, and amplified by Origen. If you're looking for a lack of quotes on dispensational thought in the early church, it would center on this concept as there is little to find.

Personally, I draw on scripture here, in particular Daniel 12 and Romans 9-11.

Quotes following:

Irenaeus
On the Rapture:

In Against Heresies 5.5.1 we read, "For Enoch, when he pleased God, was translated in the same body in which he did please Him, thus pointing out by anticipation the translation of the just. … Wherefore also the elders who were disciples of the apostles tell us that those who are translated are translated to that place (for paradise has been prepared for righteous men, such as have the Spirit; in which place also Paul the apostle, when he was caught up, heard words which are unspeakable … ), and that those who have been translated shall remain there until the consummation [the end], as a prelude to incorruptability."

In Against Heresies 5.29.1 he says, "And therefore, in the end when the Church is suddenly caught up from this, it is said, There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be. For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome, they are crowned with incorruption."

On the millennium

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the
rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Against Heresies 5.30.4

Tertullian

"We do confess that a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence; inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem, "let down from heaven," which the apostle also calls "our mother from above;" and, while declaring that our , or citizenship, is in heaven, he predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven." Ante Nicene Fathers Vol iii

Justin Martyr

"I admitted to you formerly, that
I and many others are of this opinion (temporal 1000 year reign), and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise." Dialogue with Trypho

"For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: 'For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My I people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days. For the young man shall be an hundred years old; but the sinner who dies an hundred years old, he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound. Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent[shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, i saith the Lord.' Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree[of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the nay fie ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection." Dialogue with Trypho

Papias

"The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth." (Eusebius speaking of Papias in Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord - Fragment VI).

---

Man, that was a lot

That was just more than I was willing to take on so I'm just gonna offer you the following:

"It makes total sense that you find this confusing and "out there." The reason these quotes don't seem to support Dispensationalism is because they actually don't.
Your friend is confusing two very different theological ideas:
1. Historic Premillennialism (which these quotes do support).
2. Dispensationalism (which developed in the 1830s and includes concepts like the pretribulation rapture and a strict separation between Israel and the Church).
Notice that in your friend's opening paragraph, he actually concedes this point without realizing how much it undermines his argument. He writes: "If you're looking for a lack of quotes on dispensational thought in the early church, it would center on this concept as there is little to find."
Here is a breakdown of why these quotes feel disconnected from Dispensationalism, how your friend is misinterpreting them, and what the Church Fathers were actually saying.
1. Premillennialism \bm{\neq} Dispensationalism
This is the single biggest point of confusion.
Premillennialism is simply the belief that Jesus will return before a literal 1,000-year reign (the Millennium) on Earth.
Dispensationalism is a specific system created by John Nelson Darby in the 19th century that includes a secret, pre-tribulation rapture, distinct ages ("dispensations") of history, and a rigid theological wall between God's plan for ethnic Israel and His plan for the Church.
All Dispensationalists are Premillennialists, but NOT all Premillennialists are Dispensationalists.
The early Church Fathers (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Papias) were Historic Premillennialists (sometimes called Chiliasts). They believed Jesus would return to establish a 1,000-year reign on Earth, but they believed the Church would go through the Great Tribulation alongside Israel. They had no concept of a two-stage secret rapture or dispensational ages.
2. Breaking Down the Quotes
Here is how your friend is using (and misreading) these specific Church Fathers:
A. The Irenaeus Quotes (Against Heresies)
Your friend cites Irenaeus to prove a "Rapture," but Irenaeus is talking about something completely different:
The Enoch Quote (5.5.1): Irenaeus is simply noting that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into Paradise as a preview of human bodily resurrection/immortality. He is not describing a secret end-times rapture of the modern Church.
The "Sudden Catching Up" Quote (5.29.1): Dispensationalists often highlight the words "caught up" here. However, in context, Irenaeus believed the Church would suffer directly under the Antichrist during the Tribulation. When he speaks of the Church being caught up or delivered, he views it as happening at the Second Coming (the end of the Tribulation), not 7 years prior to rescue believers from it.
The Antichrist Quote (5.30.4): This quote actually contradicts Dispensationalism. Irenaeus explicitly states that the Antichrist will reign for 3.5 years, and then the Lord will come from heaven to destroy him and set up the kingdom. This is standard Historic Premillennialism (Post-Tribulation), not Dispensationalism (Pre-Tribulation).
B. The Tertullian & Justin Martyr Quotes
Your friend cites Tertullian and Justin Martyr talking about a earthly 1,000-year kingdom in Jerusalem.
What they prove: They prove that early Christians believed in a literal 1,000-year earthly reign of Christ (Premillennialism). Justin Martyr even admits in his Dialogue with Trypho that while he holds this view, "many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."
What they DO NOT prove: They do not mention a Pre-Tribulation Rapture, a division between the Church and Israel, or Dispensational ages. In fact, Justin Martyr viewed the Church as the true spiritual Israel inheriting the promisesthe exact opposite of Dispensational theology.
C. The Papias Quote
Your friend includes a quote from the historian Eusebius describing Papias.
Eusebius (who lived in the 300s and disliked premillennialism) calls Papias's views "fabulous" (meaning like a fable or fairy tale) because Papias held very literal, vivid views of earthly abundance during the 1,000-year reign.
Again, this only shows that Papias was a Chiliast (Premillennialist). It says nothing about Dispensationalism.
Summary: What Is Your Friend Actually Proving?
Your friend is trying to find Dispensationalism in the Early Church, but the historical record simply isn't there.
1. He admitted it up front: He acknowledges that evidence for dispensational thought in the early church is "little to find."
2. He substitutes Premillennialism for Dispensationalism: Because he cannot find distinctively dispensational quotes (like a secret pre-tribulation rapture or a strict separation of Israel and the Church), he pulls quotes showing that early Christians believed in a 1,000-year reign, hoping that counts as proof.
3. He falls back on Scripture: Notice he says, "Personally, I draw on scripture here..." When early church evidence fails to support modern Dispensationalism, proponents usually pivot to saying, "Well, the Bible supports it anyway."

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I guess religous?

I think we are seeing a long story arc unfold before our eyes that was authored by the creator of the universe.

---

Yeah, I think that's what makes it hard to have this conversation because from a religious standpoint I don't feel as if Jewish and Christian relations matter one iota.

Culturally and respectfully, I care very much for the Jewish people, but from a religious standpoint, they are no different than any other group that does not accept Christ.

I just don't think we can have a conversation about it because we are too fundamentally apart on the basics.

You think something really matters and I think it doesn't matter at all.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

You are being lead down a very dark path, brother. Like a literal nazis path.

I'll pray for you, and I mean that with love and sincerity.

Genetic studies prove the Ashkenazi had levantine origins. Period. Its a scientific fact.

---

I appreciate the thought, but you are not correct. I don't hate Jews, I hate the works of those who SAY they are Jews, but are not. If Christ said it, I believe it. Revelation 2:9, and 3:9. There are many wonderful anti-Zionist Jews all over the world. They see what's being done, and they can't stand it either.

For your edification:

"The Khazars: The Khazars were a powerful Turkic khanate in the Caucasus region during the Middle Ages. In the famous Khazar Correspondence, King Joseph of the Khazars explicitly traced his people's lineage back to Japheth (through Togarmah, a brother of Ashkenaz) rather than Shem. Historical evidence indicates that the Khazar ruling elite converted to Judaism around the 8th or 9th century."

They are eastern European converts. Netanyahu's real name is Malikowski. If Israel is claiming statehood on the basis of genetics, then there are many Christians still living there whose families (Jewish converts to Christianity) have been living in that area for 2000 years. They are infinitely more Semitic. Not to mention the Arabs, who descended from Ishmael.

Only Semites are descended of Shem. The Khazar's are of Japheth, not Shem. That's why it is illegal to take a DNA test without a court order in Israel.

I think the major flaw in the biblical interpretations of the scriptures you referenced by the dispensationalist is that you are selectively choosing to read New Testament passages through an Old Testament lens

Whereas you should be reading Old Testament passages through a New Testament Christ centered lens.

Romans 9 even goes on to state that there is no salvation due to you lineage and states that there is but one tree that God has grafted the Gentiles to.

The Orthodox Church takes the actual approach that I have always had on the matter. I would not be surprised if there were a mass option and conversion of the Jews, but there is no second pathway.

Again, I agree there is no second path to salvation. That is not a dispute. The dispensationalist view of every adherent I know is that Jews are only saved by faith in Jesus Christ. It just takes a world of hardship (tribulation) to realize this.

Regarding Romans, you are correct. We (Gentile believers) are grafted in. No argument. However, Paul is clear in the same passage he writes:

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved."

This seems so clear to me. Once the full number of Gentiles forknown by God is saved, He will deal with Israel. They (a minority, not all) will then recognize Jesus as savior.

I appreciate the exchange as I know we won't agree. I do enjoy challenging each other's views and either way trust we are both followers of Jesus who will one day know with absolute clarity.

Cheetah01 said:

---

Again, I agree there is no second path to salvation. That is not a dispute. The dispensationalist view of every adherent I know is that Jews are only saved by faith in Jesus Christ. It just takes a world of hardship (tribulation) to realize this.

Regarding Romans, you are correct. We (Gentile believers) are grafted in. No argument. However, Paul is clear in the same passage he writes:

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved."

This seems so clear to me. Once the full number of Gentiles forknown by God is saved, He will deal with Israel. They (a minority, not all) will then recognize Jesus as savior.

I appreciate the exchange as I know we won't agree. I do enjoy challenging each other's views and either way trust we are both followers of Jesus who will one day know with absolute clarity.

---

Agreed… I always appreciate the conversation and like you I don't know that we have to agree right now.

Depart as friends and chat another day about something else.

In Christ

Yes, I'm well aware of the Khazar hypothesis. It's been thoroughly proven wrong by both science and history.

You are being fed lies.

Amen

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I guess religous?

I think we are seeing a long story arc unfold before our eyes that was authored by the creator of the universe.

---

Yeah, I think that's what makes it hard to have this conversation because from a religious standpoint I don't feel as if Jewish and Christian relations matter one iota.

Culturally and respectfully, I care very much for the Jewish people, but from a religious standpoint, they are no different than any other group that does not accept Christ.

I just don't think we can have a conversation about it because we are too fundamentally apart on the basics.

You think something really matters and I think it doesn't matter at all.

---

So when God says he will never turn his back on Isreal, and will always remain faithful to Isreal, even when they themselves stray, what you think he was saying is he would replace Isreal with his new Christians and completely abandon the OG's?

I just don't think scripture supports that position.

Leviticus 26:44: "Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the Lord their God."

Jeremiah 31:3: "I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."

Isaiah 54:10: "For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,' says the Lord, who has compassion on you."

Isaiah 49:15-16: "Can a woman forget her nursing child, that she should have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you. Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands"

Psalm 89:30-37 (regarding the Davidic line/Israel): "Even if his children forsake God's law, "I will punish their transgression with the rod… but I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to my faithfulness. My covenant I will not break… Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David. His offspring shall endure forever…"

Psalm 94:14: "For the Lord will not forsake his people; he will not abandon his heritage"

Malachi 3:6: "For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed."

Romans 11:1-2: "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! … God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew."

Romans 11:28-29: "… as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable"


I really don't understand how anyone could read those passages in any other way then...God will never completely abandon Isreal.

And, to be clear, replacing Isreal with Christian new Isreal is abandoning Isreal.

Man breaks oaths, God does not.

And some more:

Jeremiah 31: 35-36------Thus says the Lord, Who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; 36 "If this fixed order departs from before me," declares the Lord, "then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before me forever."

The whole Creation will be changed before Israel is forgotten!

St. Peter calls the Christians a "chosen race, a royal priesthood. St. Paul calls the church the new Israel. We are no longer Jew and Greek, but ONE in Christ. The ethnic Jews will be saved just like St. Paul was...by joining the Church and forgetting about circumcision, kosher foods, ritual purity. etc.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

You are being lead down a very dark path, brother. Like a literal nazis path.

I'll pray for you, and I mean that with love and sincerity.

Genetic studies prove the Ashkenazi had levantine origins. Period. Its a scientific fact.

---

I appreciate the thought, but you are not correct. I don't hate Jews, I hate the works of those who SAY they are Jews, but are not. If Christ said it, I believe it. Revelation 2:9, and 3:9. There are many wonderful anti-Zionist Jews all over the world. They see what's being done, and they can't stand it either.

For your edification:

"The Khazars: The Khazars were a powerful Turkic khanate in the Caucasus region during the Middle Ages. In the famous Khazar Correspondence, King Joseph of the Khazars explicitly traced his people's lineage back to Japheth (through Togarmah, a brother of Ashkenaz) rather than Shem. Historical evidence indicates that the Khazar ruling elite converted to Judaism around the 8th or 9th century."

They are eastern European converts. Netanyahu's real name is Malikowski. If Israel is claiming statehood on the basis of genetics, then there are many Christians still living there whose families (Jewish converts to Christianity) have been living in that area for 2000 years. They are infinitely more Semitic. Not to mention the Arabs, who descended from Ishmael.

Only Semites are descended of Shem. The Khazar's are of Japheth, not Shem. That's why it is illegal to take a DNA test without a court order in Israel.

---

You're not wrong in what you're saying.

Dispensationalism is incorrect from the get-go

Getting into an argument over lineage is in a way to sort of validate the mentality because you're trying to disprove it through lineage validity.

It falls apart long before that…

---

You're right, it absolutely does. I just hate to see the damage that has been done to the American church. It was insidious, and pervasive. Even my own Pastor and I disagree about it. But he was taught the same way we all were, to support Israel under any circumstance. I just can't do that anymore. And with more biblical study, it's obvious that none of us should.

The lineage viewpoint I went to is because of all the online debate. You learn a lot of things that may or may not be true, so you have to investigate. And I did a lot of it.

I find it interesting that you call dispensationalism "insidious" while you are here disseminating neo-nazi propaganda.

Just a little info to help with your research, ashkenazi are not "sons of Japheth." The term comes from a tendency for Jews from the middle ages naming regions after biblical figures. In this case, the region of roughly modern day Germany was named after Ashkenaz, so the Jews who had lived in that region for over a thousand years became known as Ashkenazi.

It has almost nothing to do with the table of nations other then its source for creative nomenclature.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I find it interesting that you call dispensationalism "insidious" while you are here disseminating neo-nazi propaganda.

Just a little info to help with your research, ashkenazi are not "sons of Japheth." The term comes from a tendency for Jews from the middle ages naming regions after biblical figures. In this case, the region of roughly modern day Germany was named after Ashkenaz, so the Jews who had lived in that region for over a thousand years became known as Ashkenazi.

It has almost nothing to do with the table of nations other then its source for creative nomenclature.

---

I find it interesting that anytime anybody says anything against any Jewish people they are Nazis. That's the first thing you go to. So typical.

Once again, you are incorrect.

As for propaganda, how about a Jewish website? Is this Nazism in disguise?

Refute this:

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/5804883/jewish/Who-Were-the-Khazars.htm


They are eastern European converts that have no Semitic blood. They are of Japheth, just like Caucasians. Have you even bothered to look up why it is against the law to get a DNA test in Israel? Probably not.

The narrative you are disseminating is primarily propagated by neo-nazis and radical Muslims. That's just a fact.

Did you read the website you linked?

Quote:

---

As mentioned, the final fate of the Khazars after their decline remains unknown. Nevertheless, this has not stopped some scholars from postulating that Ashkenazic Jewry is largely descended from Khazars, a theory that has been exploited for political and anti-Semitic purposes. However, this theory has no basis and has been debunked by historians, linguists and geneticists.

---

No one is saying the Khazars never existed. The theory that they have anything to do with Ashkenazi is what has been thoroughly disproven.

Again, genetic studies are not against the law in Isreal. They are regulated, but they are not against the law. I know for a fact genetic studies have been run on the Samaritans, the people of Beta Isreal (Ethiopian Jews) and the Ashkenazi.

You are disseminating lies. Pray about it.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The narrative you are disseminating is primarily propagated by neo-nazis and radical Muslims. That's just a fact.

Did you read the website you linked?

Quote:

---

As mentioned, the final fate of the Khazars after their decline remains unknown. Nevertheless, this has not stopped some scholars from postulating that Ashkenazic Jewry is largely descended from Khazars, a theory that has been exploited for political and anti-Semitic purposes. However, this theory has no basis and has been debunked by historians, linguists and geneticists.

---

No one is saying the Khazars never existed. The theory that they have anything to do with Ashkenazi is what has been thoroughly disproven.

Again, genetic studies are not against the law in Isreal. They are regulated, but they are not against the law. I know for a fact genetic studies have been run on the Samaritans, the people of Beta Isreal (Ethiopian Jews) and the Ashkenazi.

You are disseminating lies. Pray about it.

---

I guess you didn't even bother to click on the link that I posted in my last post. It comes from Jewish sources. They readily admit that they were converts around the eighth or ninth century. They even say why. It's not propaganda, it's from their own mouth. Are you saying Jews lie? You Nazi.

The Banned said:

---

Pierow said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The narrative you are disseminating is primarily propagated by neo-nazis and radical Muslims. That's just a fact.

Did you read the website you linked?

Quote:

---

As mentioned, the final fate of the Khazars after their decline remains unknown. Nevertheless, this has not stopped some scholars from postulating that Ashkenazic Jewry is largely descended from Khazars, a theory that has been exploited for political and anti-Semitic purposes. However, this theory has no basis and has been debunked by historians, linguists and geneticists.

---

No one is saying the Khazars never existed. The theory that they have anything to do with Ashkenazi is what has been thoroughly disproven.

Again, genetic studies are not against the law in Isreal. They are regulated, but they are not against the law. I know for a fact genetic studies have been run on the Samaritans, the people of Beta Isreal (Ethiopian Jews) and the Ashkenazi.

You are disseminating lies. Pray about it.

---

I guess you didn't even bother to click on the link that I posted in my last post. It comes from Jewish sources. They readily admit that they were converts around the eighth or ninth century. They even say why. It's not propaganda, it's from their own mouth. Are you saying Jews lie? You Nazi.

---

He literally quoted the article you cited. Did you read it?

---

I only was interested in the history of Judaism and the Khazar's.

This was what I was referencing:

"The Khazars Accept Judaism
The initial attempt by Hasdai failed, since the Byzntines, who feared a direct alliance between Spain and the Khazars, held up Hasdai's emissary on the pretext that the roads were not safe. But Hasdai persevered; he sent a new emissary and was eventually able to make contact.

In his return letter, King Joseph replied to Hasdai's questions regarding the history of the Khazars and which tribe they were from.

King Joseph explained that his ancestor King Bulan decided to give up his pagan beliefs in order to accept one of the three leading faiths: Judaism, Christianity or Islam. King Bulan then arranged for representatives of each of the three faiths to participate in a debate in his presence:

On the third day he called all the sages together and said to them, "Speak and argue with one another and clarify which is the best religion." They began to dispute with one another without arriving at any results, until the king said to the Christian priest, "What do you think? Of the religion of the Jews and the Muslims, which is to be preferred?" The priest answered: "The religion of the Israelites is better than that of the Muslims."

The king then asked the imam: "What do you say? Is the religion of the Israelites or that of the Christians preferable?" The imam answered: "The religion of the Israelites is preferable."

Upon this, the king said: "If this is so, you both have admitted with your own mouths that the religion of the Israelites is better. Therefore trusting in the mercies of Gd and the power of the Al-mighty, I choose the religion of Israel, that is, the religion of Abraham . . ."

King Joseph then described how, after King Bulan accepted Judaism, a descendant of his, King Obadiah, "reorganized the kingdom and established the Jewish religion properly and correctly. He built synagogues and yeshivot, brought in Jewish scholars, and rewarded them with gold and silver. [The Jewish scholars could have come from Baghdad and Constantinople.] They explained to him the Bible, Mishnah, Talmud and the order of divine services . . .""

To say that they didn't convert is a lie. There were very prominent converts to Judaism. They even referred to themselves as Ashkenazi, because of the region from whence came. You can't have it both ways.

The Banned said:

---

My goodness. The end of the article says that this theory (which it outlined) has been debunked and used as propaganda against the Jews. Read it again. To the end. This is really embarrassing.

---

My point was you can't have it both ways. You literally describe the history of Jewish conversion in that part of the world at that time, and then you claim it didn't happen? And then, you take the region from where they came, and use it to describe that particular sect. It's not embarrassing at all. It's common sense.

No one claims they didn't exist. No one claims they weren't Jewish converts.

They have nothing to do with central European Ashkenazi Jews.

Like, you know Jews have existed all over Europe for 2,000 years, right? Its called "the Diaspora."

Silent For Too Long said:

---

No one claims they didn't exist. No one claims they weren't Jewish converts.

They have nothing to do with central European Ashkenazi Jews.

Like, you know Jews have existed all over Europe for 2,000 years, right? Its called "the Diaspora."

---

Yes, they did by diminishing the effect of their conversions. Regardless of that fact, DNA would prove that they were part of the original Levant. It would end all discussion. Milikowski is a central European name. Just for instance. And the reason the diaspora reached most of Europe, is because they kept getting kicked out of countries over and over due to usury and business practices. 109 and counting. Or are you going tell me that's not true either?

https://www.scribd.com/document/667732277/109-Locations-From-Which-Jews-Have-Been-Expelled-Since-250-A-D

So you are admitting that they aren't descendants of the Khazars?

We have already been over your 109 countries meme. It has some truth to it, but so what? That's like using the holocaust as "proof" Jews should be exterminated.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I guess religous?

I think we are seeing a long story arc unfold before our eyes that was authored by the creator of the universe.

---

Yeah, I think that's what makes it hard to have this conversation because from a religious standpoint I don't feel as if Jewish and Christian relations matter one iota.

Culturally and respectfully, I care very much for the Jewish people, but from a religious standpoint, they are no different than any other group that does not accept Christ.

I just don't think we can have a conversation about it because we are too fundamentally apart on the basics.

You think something really matters and I think it doesn't matter at all.

---

So when God says he will never turn his back on Isreal, and will always remain faithful to Isreal, even when they themselves stray, what you think he was saying is he would replace Isreal with his new Christians and completely abandon the OG's?

I just don't think scripture supports that position.

---

No, that true Israel has always been those who have true faith, descended from Abraham or not. There are some wonderful examples in the OT of redeemed individuals who were not descended from Abraham. Jesus' own blood wasn't even "pure" in that way. There was/is no replacing.

Wow, I saw 30 new post on this thread and thought I would come check it out.

This thread has gone re-tard-ed. Hard life turn to Tardville.