PDA

View Full Version : Clarity in the terms Jew, Zionist, Judaism, Zionism



Zook
27th September 2010, 03:48
Clarity ... can go a long way in understanding the situation in the Levant, not to mention the global situation that's largely being manipulated by banksters slash Zionist financiers. I'm not a scholar, nor a Jewish person (heck, I barely know the history of my own Hindu ancestry/religion/culture). Group identities simply don't hold much fascination for me. I prefer exploring individual identities. Having said that, the tentacles of Zionism wrap around many of the world's major powerpoints and plays. For this reason, understanding Zionists as a group piques my interest moreso than understanding them as individuals. Who knows, perhaps this is because Zionists project themselves as a group and not as individuals. In any event, as I see it, the reality of the world is more or less this: banksters/Zionists control things at the top of a hierarchial order and subcontract some control to associates lower in the order. These associates are chosen from all religious/ethnic/cultural backgrounds (Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist - yes, even Buddhists, after all, who is the Dalai Lama without the CIA benefactors and without his riding fleet of Mercedes?).

I don't claim any privileged knowledge, whatsoever. But I want to understand. So input from any Jewish persons out there is much appreciated; of course, everyone's input is welcome. To get things started, who/what is a Jew? If we can satisfactorily answer this question, then perhaps we can proceed to understanding the term Zionist and how it relates to the term Jew.


Cheers
Uncle Zook

Snowy Owl
27th September 2010, 04:01
A Jew is a Product of Judaism Culture with a religion, an history and of a net trend to imposed intra-Jew marriages.

A Zionist, is a group issue from the resentment on how they where treated in the last centuries and at the end of the 1800's decided to return to Palestine and try to settle there.

When US imposed UN creation of Israel for repentance of refusing boats of german jews refugees, it allowed, armed, finace the conquest of Palestine.

Sionists or Zionists hac=ve sadly interpret the Zohar, the Torah and the Talmud as written words of God and along it that Zionist Jews where bound to reconquer the Gteat Israel until the final destruction falls on Humanity and as the Elected People it Granths them all kinds of priviledge.

You say your Hindu, well Sionists Jews are the Khalsa of the Sikhs.

Zook
27th September 2010, 16:13
I came across this very interesting link where the Bible is analyzed to arrive that Jesus was a Judean from the lineage of Judah, son of Jacob=Israel. Moreover, that the Jews of the time and in the region known as Judea, were known as Judeans; and that Jesus - the Judean - adhered to the covenant handed down to Moses, while many of the other Judeans opted out of the covenant and sought Pharisee and rabbinical teachings. Input from Bible scholars would be well-appreciated. Here is the link:

http://www.israelect.com/reference/WillieMartin/SamaritanWoman.htm


Cheers
Uncle Zook

RedeZra
27th September 2010, 18:53
Yeshua was a member of the House of Yehuda

who was 1 of the 12 sons of Yacob

who became Yisrael because he wrestled with an Angel of God

n so the ancestor of the 12 tribes of Israel ( Yacob )


King David from the House of Yehuda was king of all Israel in 1000 BC


10 of the 12 tribes rejected his grandson Rehoboam as king n united into the Kingdom of Israel as opposed to the tribe of Yehuda n Binyamin who formed the Kingdom of Yehuda


the Kingdom of Israel fell in 720 BC when it was conquered by the Assyrian Empire

the Kingdom of Yehuda fell in 586 BC when it was conquered by the Babylonian Empire


at the time of Yeshua there was not so strong tribe identity but Yeshua was a member of the Yehuda tribe n related to King David


the captivity into Babylon n the power politics of the time resulted in schools of thoughts as the Pharisees the Sadducees the Essenes

Yeshua was a member of the Essene movement criticizing the Pharisees who acted as High priests at the 2nd Temple

Carmody
27th September 2010, 19:13
The interesting thing about a traveling roadshow tribal religion is the breeding and the result. Specifically with respect to the point of those who disagree with the tenants.....dropping out and opting out. I know more than a few who dropped the whole thing and have lived their lives well outside even a shred of the entire package. Two of such are close friends and incredible examples of excellent human beings.

But the traveling roadshow tribal aspect, or group, that stays within the confines of that roadshow..are of a different type and nature at the base psychology and physiology level. Those ones remain in the system and breed true to the books and rules and browbeating of the group... and thus learn to have a serious and problematic 'us vs them' lifestyle/existence - and pass that on to their children. Like breeding cows or fighting dogs, the end result is the same, after about 100+ generations.

In the system, the unwanted bits are thrown away and discarded whereas the wanted bits stay inside the confines of the rules... and reinforce and concentrate the essence of the dogma to truly psychotic levels, over the generations. Essentially due to the influence of the 'leaders' of the system, over time and generations....the people are slowly but surely warped into the expressed dogma.

RedeZra
27th September 2010, 19:57
this Ideology of the Pharisees which Yeshua criticized was adopted by an Eurasian tribe some 1000 years ago n this tribe is today the force of the Western world n heavy into the mystery religions of Babylon

it is mostly a self serving collaboration with lesser spirits which need sacrifices rite blood

Zook
28th September 2010, 12:35
Hi Redezra,


this Ideology of the Pharisees which Yeshua criticized was adopted by an Eurasian tribe some 1000 years ago n this tribe is today the force of the Western world n heavy into the mystery religions of Babylon

it is mostly a self serving collaboration with lesser spirits which need sacrifices rite blood

I found two links of interest. The first, from a putative Jewish viewpoint (I qualify the term Jewish here because I don`t yet really know what/who a Jew is):
http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm

This second link is from a Christian viewpoint which, unlike the Jewish viewpoint, is purely religious and has no ethnic limitations on the viewholder:
http://mariannedorman.homestead.com/Covenant.html

First, I should clarify the background of my own viewpoint. I was brought up as a moderately religious Hindu, but growing up virtually my whole life in Canada (40 of 47 years) surrounded by Jewish and Christian theologies, I was more or less nurtured with three religious teachings. I have since escaped the gravitational pull of all religions and consider myself to be a pure spiritualist with a direct connection to my Creator. I believe, too, that all of us on the planet Earth have each our own direct relationship with our Creator (if we are strong enough to recognize it); more the further, that the respective priesthood classes in each religion (and, too, in each cult) have tried to appropriate this direct relationship and modify it to the detriment of spirituality. I observe the rituals of all religions when the occasion demands (e.g. festivals, friend invites, etc.) ... but that`s an expression of my own inner spirituality and not any adherence to externally imposed faith. Here, it must be stated that my own inner spirituality has been shaped by the good in all religions, in addition to the good that resides within me (in whatever quantity). I`d like to think that I`m purely good, but being human, I also recognize the presence of impurities.

Having explained my background, I tend to be very skeptical of those that hold rigid views from any religious background (Jewish, Christian, Hindu., Buddhist, Muslim, etc.). So my search for terminological clarity in this thread is strictly an intellectual quest. Simply put, if a Jewish covenant exists, who is the rightful owner of that covenant? I don`t bother with the merits of such a covenant. Covenants appear to exist in many if not all all religions, only they are not necessarily called covenants.

Getting back to the Jewish covenant, my preliminary research tells me that only the tribes within the Kingdom of Judah, e.g. tribes Judah and Benjamin, can rightfully claim this covenant. The other ten tribes hail from the Kingdom of Israel, not the Kingdom of Judah; and although all twelve are Israelites (having descended from Jacob/Israel), only the tribes from the Kingdom of Judah are afforded the right to the covenant. In short, the two tribes that remained in the region and not the ten tribes that had been conquered or fled.

So, who can call themselves Jews (with covenant) and who are merely Israelites (without covenant) ... that is the question. IMHO, all this other stuff involving the ritualistic conversion of nonJews to Judaism - and consequent genetic admixing - comes later on and is directed by the priesthood class and not by the original covenant. At least, that`s how I read it from my preliminary research. If there are any scholars reading this thread, please give us your input.

Certainly, if ten of the twelve tribes of Israel have no legitimate claim to the Jewish covenant, it makes even less sense that the Khazars (who converted to Judaism in the 8th century) should have a claim.


Cheers
Uncle Zook

RedeZra
28th September 2010, 14:47
hi Zookumar


Jesus made a new covenant with all mankind


the Old Testament foretold n pointed to Jesus but the Pharisees did not recognize Him


so we have no chosen clique of people but the whole human race

truthseekerdan
28th September 2010, 15:30
Perhaps 'we' should join these guys. ;)

8JFGdH5wgCs

RedeZra
28th September 2010, 15:56
this tendency today to turn oneself into the Most high is just why Lucifer fell ;)

tone3jaguar
28th September 2010, 16:48
Zionists, Scionists = Off shoot of the Luciferian illuminati

Judaism, Jewish = Off shoot of the Solar Worship Cults of Ancient Egypt

So basically The Zionists are the end result of the left hand path (dark path) of the ancient Egyptian mystery schools, and Jewish are the end result of the right hand (light path) of the ancient Egyptian mystery schools.

Unfortunately most Americans think that Zionist is just Iranian slang for Jewish. They do not educate themselves. They let others think for them.

Snowy Owl
28th September 2010, 16:55
Prime Minister Netanyahu put it in a nutshell few weeks ago in his tour of Galilea

He said in each reunions there are two ways to deal with the Palestinians, the Zionists Way or the Humanitarian Way.

It was in Haaretz, will try to find the link

Zook
28th September 2010, 17:13
Hi TSD,


Perhaps 'we' should join these guys. ;)

8JFGdH5wgCs

A beautiful video. A beautiful song.

Not sure if I`m comfortable with the other stuff, however. The robes, to me, are not much different from the burkhas that some Islamic societies force women to wear (either through psychological pressure or decree). I`m Aquarian (e.g. amethystian). Maybe if the group included purple robes I might reconsider. Nah.
:confused:

Also, any society that doesn`t feature the female sex prominently is a no-go for me. Remember the plaque that was sent with one of the Voyager spacecraft ... that, to me, represents humanity, including human spirituality. Equal parts woman and man. Soft and hard. Ying and yang. Ball and box. Etc.

Mind you, the concept of weird-dressing white guys is solid, like granite, if not altogether avant-garde ... though I think it works better with ghosts. Humans?? I dunno, it might lead to confusion between white guys in robes and guys in white robes.

In short, I prefer nudity to grim reaper garmentry; intergender duality to intragender monastic association; inner spirituality to outer modular arrangements of same; etc. But hey, maybe I`m just chagrined because they didn`t think to include purple robes!! You will agree that that was some unbelievable oversight, wot? Fine. Have it your way. :boxing:


Cheers
Uncle Zook

RedeZra
28th September 2010, 23:19
Unfortunately most Americans think that Zionist is just Iranian slang for Jewish. They do not educate themselves. They let others think for them.

Zion is mentioned in the Old Testament as another name for Jerusalem

so Zionism was a Jewish political movement for a national Jewish homeland in Zion ( Jerusalem )


which Walter Rothschild secured already for the Zionist Federation from the British with the Balfour Declaration of 1917


still the world would plunge into another war


before the United Nations in 1947 voted in favor for a partition of Palestine into a Jewish state an Arab state and a UN-administered Jerusalem

since then there has been trouble in the Middle East to say the least

---

now the talk is about NWO

not a homeland but a homeworld


is this not a Zionist struggle too

then no wonder it's called Homeland Security ;)

---

is Zionism pure power politics or spiritual as well

as in Mystery Babylon

Zook
29th September 2010, 16:35
Ho RedeZra,


[I]Zion is mentioned in the Old Testament as another name for Jerusalem so Zionism was a Jewish political movement for a national Jewish homeland in Zion (Jerusalem )

[...]



I'm not sure this is correct. At best, Zionism is a Kingdom of Israel political movement, not a Jewish one. Only the Kingdom of Judah can derive ethnic Jews, and therefore, rightfully claim to be Jewish. At least, by my research. We should perhaps note here that Judaism is essentially Judahism. Those ten tribes that did not share in the Jewish covenant, strayed (in my best estimation) from the teachings of the Written Torah. They essentially rejected Judahism or Judaism when they grafted Pharisee and rabbinical teachings onto Judahism.

http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

From what I understand, two classes of Israelites existed. One class practiced Judahism or Judaism and they held the five books of the Written Torah as their sacred text(s). The other practiced a derivative religion (much like Christianity is a derivative religion). This derivative religion basically shifted teachings from the Written Torah to the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah was codified over time into the Mishnah (the putative written form of the Oral Torah) and the Gemara (putative amendments to the Mishnah). The Mishnah was appended in both Jerusalem and Babylon, with the Babylonian version becoming the dominant influence over time. Together, the Mishnah and the Gemara constitute the Talmud.

Here, my best guess is that only the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin stayed true to the Written Torah because they were not conquered or uprooted in any way, i.e. their Oral Torah was not forced to adapt by outside pressures and influences. The other ten tribes likely had to adapt in the immediacy of conquest; and here, their codified Oral Torah, e.g. Mishnah, would have given them the opportunity to move away from the strictures of the Written Torah. If one factors in the fact that members of the ten tribes of the Kingdom of Israel were not entitled to the covenant handed down to Moses (only the tribe of Judah in the Kingdom of Judah was so entitled), the 10-tribe Israelites would not have had the same imperative for abiding the Written Torah (as those belonging to the Kingdom of Judah). Scholarly input would be greatly appreciated here.

At this point, I think it is crucial to separate the Israelites with covenant from the Israelites without covenant. The former we can safely call Jews (e.g. from the tribe of Judah in the Kingdom of Judah). In addition to the Jews, the Kingdom of Judah also consists of Benjamins, Levis and Simeons. But what should we call the remaining Israelites? I submit that we should call them by their tribal names. You know, the Reubens, the Ephraims, the Napthalis, etc. Calling all members of all tribes, Jews, defies logic and distorts history.

In short, Jews consist of those that have the covenant handed down to Moses (who is a Levi, I think). Those without this covenant are nonJews (albeit here, the Benjamins, the Levis, and the Simeons are all subjects of the Kingdom of Judah, and may be considered Jews in a loose sense). Why make it more complicated than this?

I`m sure there are inaccuracies in the above;. especially with respect to the codified Oral Torah of Jerusalem. For instance, how did the tribes in the Kingdom of Judah differ (if at all) from the conquered tribes of Israel in their respective understandings of the Oral Torah? Who exactly codified, and what exactly went into the Mishnah when the Oral Torah of Jerusalem was being codified? Those are key puzzle pieces, IMHO. So again, scholarly input is requested.


Cheers
Uncle Zook

RedeZra
29th September 2010, 17:57
I'm not sure this is correct. At best, Zionism is a Kingdom of Israel political movement, not a Jewish one. Only the Kingdom of Judah can derive ethnic Jews, and therefore, rightfully claim to be Jewish.

hiho Zookumar

why differentiate between the 12 tribes ?

God gave Moses the Covenant for all Israel after the Exodus from Egypt


just because Israel split into 2 Kingdoms does not nullify the Covenant for neither of them but the Israelites became more n more interested in governing themselves according to desires n not law so God let them do just that til they eventually were overrun n conquered by other nations

10 of the tribes were conquered by Assyria n some escaped back into the Kingdom of Yehuda which was later conquered by Babylon

Jesus came n made a new Covenant with all Israel n all mankind for that matter

captive in Babylon the Israelites became influenced n incorporated some of the thoughts n mysteries from Babylon so the Talmud is just a written down discussions between the rabbi interpreting n expounding on The Old Testament ( Tanach ) influenced by Babylonian Egyptian n Greek thoughts n mysteries

there was not a unified school of thought amongst the Israelites at the time of Jesus

the first Christians were members of the various 12 tribes n Paul brought the Gospel to those that were not Israelites

back then all the 12 tribes were Israelites

just because some were from the important tribe of Yehuda as David n Jesus does not make it an exclusive tribe with some special rights but modern Jewry Jew n Jewish are names taken from this tribe to make itself more important ( ?) in the power politics of the world

if modern Jewry Jew n Jewish are Israelites at all n not just a converted Eurasian tribe guided by the Pharisees school of thought which is just a sect n a cult which Jesus criticized n got Him crucified as it was forseen n foretold in the Old Testament

the Pharisees school of thought did not disappear with Jesus or the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 AD but became the basis for Rabbinic Judaism which is the basis for all contemporary forms of Judaism except for the Karaism

Zook
29th September 2010, 19:11
Hi RedeZra,


hiho Zookumar

why differentiate between the 12 tribes ?
God gave Moses the Covenant for all Israel after the Exodus from Egypt


Thank you for that clarification. Yes, I think I`m getting a better picture now. So basically, if I read you correctly, the covenant was unconditional and unilateral and given to all twelve tribes of Israel. Moreover, it did not hinge on the morality of the twelve tribes (ten of which later became dissolute and were conquered by the Assyrians).



just because Israel split into 2 Kingdoms does not nullify the Covenant for neither of them but the Israelites became more n more interested in governing themselves according to desires n not law so God let them do just that til they eventually were overrun n conquered by other nations
10 of the tribes were conquered by Assyria n some escaped back into the Kingdom of Yehuda which was later conquered by Babylon

Jesus came n made a new Covenant with all Israel n all mankind for that matter

captive in Babylon the Israelites became influenced n incorporated some of the thoughts n mysteries from Babylon so the Talmud is just a written down discussions between the rabbi interpreting n expounding on The Old Testament ( Tanach ) influenced by Babylonian Egyptian n Greek thoughts n mysteries


Yes, this comports with what I`ve been finding. The Oral Torah evolved away from the Written Torah (most significantly after the conquests and the associated external influences).




there was not a unified school of thought amongst the Israelites at the time of Jesus

the first Christians were members of the various 12 tribes n Paul brought the Gospel to those that were not Israelites

back then all the 12 tribes were Israelites

just because some were from the important tribe of Yehuda as David n Jesus does not make it an exclusive tribe with some special rights but modern Jewry Jew n Jewish are names taken from this tribe to make itself more important ( ?) in the power politics of the world


Yes, all tribes descended from Jacob=Israel, so they are all genetically Israelite. My confusion derives from the apparent unconditional aspect of the covenant. I had assumed that ten of the tribes were never afforded the covenant; and that only the tribe of Judah in the Kingdom of Judah had been chosen to receive it. If I read you correctly, the tribe of Judah was given the responsibility of administering the covenant. One wonders how this administration was affected after ten of the tribes (i.e. the Kingdom of Israel) rejected the son of King Solomon and waged war against the Kingdom of Judah.



if modern Jewry Jew n Jewish are Israelites at all n not just a converted Eurasian tribe guided by the Pharisees school of thought which is just a sect n a cult which Jesus criticized n got Him crucified as it was forseen n foretold in the Old Testament

the Pharisees school of thought did not disappear with Jesus or the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 AD but became the basis for Rabbinic Judaism which is the basis for all contemporary forms of Judaism except for the Karaism[/I]

Well, you certainly are vastly more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am.

About the word Jew ... I think it remains safe to say that only the tribe of Judah in the Kingdom of Judah can actually be called Jews; and perhaps Benjamins, Levis and Simeons via their subject association with the Kingdom of Judah. And this excludes all pretenders to the throne, as it were (e.g. the other ten tribes, Eurasian converts, etc.). Equally, the ten tribes do have a share of the covenant (if, indeed, the covenant is unconditional). I`m still not certain if it`s unconditional. I`ll have to read more. If it turns out not to be unconditional, then only the tribes that remained true to the covenant can make a claim on it. As of now, it appears to me, a Johnny-come-lately, that the covenant is, indeed, as you imply, unconditional.

I guess the logical followup is ... you can only make a claim on the covenant if you can prove your descendancy from any one of the twelve tribes. That excludes Eurasian converts. But it also throws into serious jeopardy the claims of those that cannot trace their ancestry to the twelve tribes; specifically, those that claim ancestry in the ten tribes of the Kingdom of Israel, the so-called lost tribes.


Cheers
Uncle Zook

ps: All this is purely an intellectual exercise with me, i.e. a puzzle to solve. For all cultures have their own covenant equivalents. More than one would-be messiah, this world embedded in human narrative has in centuries seen ... so who really knows where the truth ends and where the truth begins?

RedeZra
29th September 2010, 19:39
So basically, if I read you correctly, the covenant was unconditional and unilateral and given to all twelve tribes of Israel.

the Covenant was an agreement between God n Israel in which God would guide Israel n provide them the land promised to Abraham the Grandfather of Jacob ( Israel ) if Israel kept the 10 Commandments

Israel was pretty good at keeping the Law at the beginning but then human nature got the better of them n they forgot about God n the Commandments

God occasionally warned the Israelites to repent through the Prophets but to no awail so He let them go their way til Jesus came n made a New covenant with mankind

Zook
29th September 2010, 21:44
the Covenant was an agreement between God n Israel in which God would guide Israel n provide them the land promised to Abraham the Grandfather of Jacob ( Israel ) if Israel kept the 10 Commandments

Israel was pretty good at keeping the Law at the beginning but then human nature got the better of them n they forgot about God n the Commandments

God occasionally warned the Israelites to repent through the Prophets but to no awail so He let them go their way til Jesus came n made a New covenant with mankind

If that is, indeed, the case, then how many of the twelve tribes can still claim a share of the covenant? None? Two? I think we can agree that ten of the tribes forfeited their share through their various actions.


Cheers
Uncle Zook

Zook
29th September 2010, 22:50
Hi RedeZra,


the Covenant was an agreement between God n Israel in which God would guide Israel n provide them the land promised to Abraham the Grandfather of Jacob ( Israel ) if Israel kept the 10 Commandments
[...]


I was thinking about this further. Is it possible that only the promise to Abraham was unconditional, whereas the later covenant handed down to Moses was conditional upon the fidelity of the descendants of Jacob=Israel? In which case, the ten tribes would have forfeited their claim on the covenant at the time of their dissolution and conquest. Question begs, did the Kingdom of Judah ever succumb to the vices of human nature?

RedeZra
30th September 2010, 06:05
Question begs, did the Kingdom of Judah ever succumb to the vices of human nature?

'Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not.' - Ezekiel 9:9

Zook
30th September 2010, 07:04
'Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not.' - Ezekiel 9:9

Well, I guess that pretty much takes care of the covenant handed down to Moses, then. I mean, there`s no one left to receive it.

Which brings us back to the promise made to Abraham (who had demonstrated faith by sacrificing his son). Is the New Covenant the restoration of that promise? But if that is the case, since this new covenant belongs to anyone and everyone in every nation who abides it - not just the lineage descended from Jacob=Israel - where is the exclusivity of the promise made to Abraham? Or are we not to assume exclusivity, but assume instead that each and every person has their own unique burden of faith, and that Abraham`s burden (as gut-wrenching as it is) was unique only to him?

This is getting interesting.

Rimbaud
30th September 2010, 23:45
From a personal perspective I was married to an Israeli girl for many years and we had two kids together. My ex Wife is now in AirForce High Command at Colonel rank. I lived in Israel between 85-87 and I absolutely loved it! I loved bobbing about in the Dead Sea and visiting historic sites. In those days; the Israeli and Arab kids used to get on so well together..they went to the same schools' lived in the same neighbourhoods..the grown ups went to same bars, pubs and clubs...Sure the Golan Heights bombardment was going on in those days but it was relatively peaceful.

My concluding point is simple..there was a workable status quo between Arabs and Israelis back in those days..sure it wasn't perfect..but it was surely better than now. Both sides have become radicalised and short of knocking their heads together..I don't know what the solution is...What I do know is that we shouldn't blame God!...The Divine Spirit isn't responsible for this ugliness!

Rimbaud

Zook
4th October 2010, 16:53
Hi Rimbaud,


From a personal perspective I was married to an Israeli girl for many years and we had two kids together. My ex Wife is now in AirForce High Command at Colonel rank. I lived in Israel between 85-87 and I absolutely loved it! I loved bobbing about in the Dead Sea and visiting historic sites. In those days; the Israeli and Arab kids used to get on so well together..they went to the same schools' lived in the same neighbourhoods..the grown ups went to same bars, pubs and clubs...Sure the Golan Heights bombardment was going on in those days but it was relatively peaceful.

My concluding point is simple..there was a workable status quo between Arabs and Israelis back in those days..sure it wasn't perfect..but it was surely better than now. Both sides have become radicalised and short of knocking their heads together..I don't know what the solution is...What I do know is that we shouldn't blame God!...The Divine Spirit isn't responsible for this ugliness!

Rimbaud

This thread's aim is to understand the differences between Judaism and Zionism; between Jews and Zionists ... not to retry the Middle East conflict here. If you have insights in that area, please present them. Would be greatly appreciated. Much thanks in Ad Vans.

Rimbaud
5th October 2010, 01:12
Zookumar,

I'm sorry that you don't wish to debate or allow any other perspective than your own..and I'm sorry for interloping on your thread..it won't happen again I assure you.

Rimbaud

RedeZra
5th October 2010, 02:15
Which brings us back to the promise made to Abraham (who had demonstrated faith by sacrificing his son). Is the New Covenant the restoration of that promise?

Abraham almost sacrificed his son Isaac but God prevented it n made it clear that it was just a test to see if Abraham really trusted Him

Abraham passed the test cause he had faith that God knows best n wants the best for all His free will children


the Covenant between God and Abraham's nation proved too hard for the people to keep cause they constantly broke the Commandments n made a mockery of the Covenant


so God sent the Word into the world through the line of Abraham to restore the balance between good n evil so that not all would be lost to Satan

Christ was crushed on the Cross with all the perverse evil filth commited by humanity up to that time so as to start anew n afresh

He took all the sins of the world upon Himself n bloted it out


everything hangs in a balance and sin is balanced with suffering

when we commit sins someone is suffering



'If you love me, you will obey my commands' - Jesus

Teakai
5th October 2010, 02:33
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwrUEZk5NLM&feature=player_embedded#!

I came across this yesterday and I think these Orthodox Jews explain it pretty well.

http://www.nkusa.org/index.cfm

This site is also an informative read through.

Rimbaud
5th October 2010, 03:07
Guys...I really don't want a lesson in the Torah...I just don't see its pertinence here!..we're trying to head towards the stars whilst you guys keep us entrenched within the Earthbound mire. I simply am not interested in Zionism vs Judaism and I doubt if many of us here are. There must be many websites to continue that debate but surely not here? Maybe I speak for myself, but I'm looking forward to an enlightened time of equality and Universal love...I have absolutely no desire to listen to Religions of archaic provenance that have no message for me personally. I joined Avalon to be a part of the future..not the grotty past

Rimbaud

Beth
5th October 2010, 03:26
Guys...I really don't want a lesson in the Torah...I just don't see its pertinence here!..we're trying to head towards the stars whilst you guys keep us entrenched within the Earthbound mire. I simply am not interested in Zionism vs Judaism and I doubt if many of us here are. There must be many websites to continue that debate but surely not here? Maybe I speak for myself, but I'm looking forward to an enlightened time of equality and Universal love...I have absolutely no desire to listen to Religions of archaic provenance that have no message for me personally. I joined Avalon to be a part of the future..not the grotty past

Rimbaud

As long as people aren't slamming one another and going against board guidelines, they are free to discuss this topic. So far I haven't seen any of that. Another freedom you have is not to participate in it and add to it.

Zook
5th October 2010, 04:19
Hi Rimbaud,


Zookumar,
I'm sorry that you don't wish to debate or allow any other perspective than your own..and I'm sorry for interloping on your thread..it won't happen again I assure you.
Rimbaud

It was only my thread for one post. With the second poster, it became everybody's thread. I don't understand the source of your animosity, Rimbaud. I'm a fairly easy going guy. I pointed out that the topic was the clarity of the aforementioned terms. I then politely asked for your input wrt the topic at hand. And you come back with this??

Negative energy is easy to create and hard to destroy.

Hope you reconsider your withdrawal from this thread and contribute to the knowledge base. FWIW, before this thread started, I didn't know anything about the Sadducees or the Pharisees ... or why ten tribes split from the other two ... or the origins of the sacred texts of Judaism. This thread has forced me to do some research, or suffer the consequences of the spouting fool. Mind you, I may yet play the fool; but at least I've given myself the opportunity to learn.

Rimbaud
5th October 2010, 04:38
Hi Rimbaud,



It was only my thread for one post. With the second poster, it became everybody's thread. I don't understand the source of your animosity, Rimbaud. I'm a fairly easy going guy. I pointed out that the topic was the clarity of the aforementioned terms. I then politely asked for your input wrt the topic at hand. And you come back with this??

Negative energy is easy to create and hard to destroy.

Hope you reconsider your withdrawal from this thread and contribute to the knowledge base. FWIW, before this thread started, I didn't know anything about the Sadducees or the Pharisees ... or why ten tribes split from the other two ... or the origins of the sacred texts of Judaism. This thread has forced me to do some research, or suffer the consequences of the spouting fool. Mind you, I may yet play the fool; but at least I've given myself the opportunity to learn.

No animosity on my part friend I can assure you...I'm all for lively debate so long as it's fair and non-secular..I've invited several Palestinian friends to join this Forum and hope that they are allowed to put their point of view across as liberally as you have recently. I'm sure that they would love to discuss the issues that you have raised in fair debate.

I assure you that I bear you no animosity zookumar, however I confess that I am concerned with the secular nature of your debate. I am a multi-faith individual and bear no grudge against anyone, so long as the same respect is returned. I personally don't want to see a "Bible Study" group within Avalon...but what does my opinion matter?

Rimbaud

frank samuel
5th October 2010, 05:11
As we are all from the different backgrounds religious or non religious in nature political or non political, the constant as part of our forum culture is respect for others opinions even if it varies from our own. My mod hat on just wanted everyone to keep that in mind in the spirit of learning is always good to engage in a healthy debate from which we can learn remaining respectful is a common courtesy afforded to everyone in this forum, in that way we can continue learning and sharing our experiences.

Many many blessings to all.:thumb:

Ahkenaten
5th October 2010, 05:45
Mr. Zook - this is a very big, difficult and important subject because the belief systems are at the root of major human conflicts today..............as they were in the distant past. However - clarity in terms may be helpful but may not lead one to any clear conclusions because too much has been left out of the historical narrative for us to understand what happened in the past, which is needed to understand how we came to where we are today. In the "present" the important thing is to understand the dominant threads of beliefs and how they drive history. Is that even possible? Can we ever truly be a detached and objective observer of human activity inasmuch as the observer affects the outcome of the experiment? Until, and unless TIME ENDS, living in the present as we do, the important thing is to know where we stand today and to understand how we shape our individual and collective realities. We cannot build a complete picture of the past even with the most exhaustive and detailed study because we did not live it. And yet, try we must, to understand.

Rimbaud
5th October 2010, 05:46
Thanks Frank...I concur with your comments and will adhere to the guidelines

Thanks

Rimbaud

Zook
5th October 2010, 11:35
Bonjour Rimbaud,


No animosity on my part friend I can assure you...I'm all for lively debate so long as it's fair and non-secular..I've invited several Palestinian friends to join this Forum and hope that they are allowed to put their point of view across as liberally as you have recently. I'm sure that they would love to discuss the issues that you have raised in fair debate.


Speaking for myself, there's been nothing unfair or secular about this debate. As for RedeZra - who offers a decidedly secular Christian view of Judaism - even he has not unfairly jaundiced this debate (as you intimate). Please invite your Palestinian friends. The more points of view, the better. Secular and nonsecular views are welcome. IMO, the exclusion of either subtracts from the knowledge base.



I assure you that I bear you no animosity zookumar, however I confess that I am concerned with the secular nature of your debate. I am a multi-faith individual and bear no grudge against anyone, so long as the same respect is returned. I personally don't want to see a "Bible Study" group within Avalon...but what does my opinion matter?
Rimbaud

Well, I cannot stop you from perceiving what you perceive. You are responsible for your own perceptions ... and ejaculations thereof (premature or punctual). In my defense, I think you've confused my excoriations of Zionism (which is an ideology and not a religion) for an unfair attack against Judaism (which is a religion, a culture, and an ethnicity). Not only do I support and respect Judaism (as I do all major religions; FWIW, I myself am a spiritualist and not a religionist); but because I support and respect Judaism I seek to defend it from the ravages of Zionist ideology. Which is why I want to explore the origins of both, e.g. so I can expose the false - indeed, perverted - association of Judaism and Zionism.

Zook
5th October 2010, 12:05
Hi Ahkenaten,


Mr. Zook - this is a very big, difficult and important subject because the belief systems are at the root of major human conflicts today..............as they were in the distant past. However - clarity in terms may be helpful but may not lead one to any clear conclusions because too much has been left out of the historical narrative for us to understand what happened in the past, which is needed to understand how we came to where we are today. In the "present" the important thing is to understand the dominant threads of beliefs and how they drive history. Is that even possible? Can we ever truly be a detached and objective observer of human activity inasmuch as the observer affects the outcome of the experiment? Until, and unless TIME ENDS, living in the present as we do, the important thing is to know where we stand today and to understand how we shape our individual and collective realities. We cannot build a complete picture of the past even with the most exhaustive and detailed study because we did not live it. And yet, try we must, to understand.

Your point is well taken. I offer this, in return. We never really know first hand anything that happened before we were born. Even now as we breathe, we never really know much first hand. We get all our accounts through secondary, tertiary, quaternary and beyond accounts. But even if we can't and can never have satisfactory access to exact details on basically anything, does that really stop us from roughly understanding what happens or happened? And if it does, what's the point of keeping historical records at all?

I submit that history is more than just the written accounts of victor historians; that it's also the oral accounts handed down through the descendant lines of both conquerors and those conquered. I further submit that the victor's themselves - not unlike the boasting criminal - have an inbred need to authenticate their victories. Getting intro the criminal mindset (perhaps this is true of all mindsets, who knows??) ... if I use cunning to gain something, or if I'm psychopathic and use brutality against my victims, wouldn't I want to tell the whole world about it (you know, to demonstrate my genius; or in the second case, to project fear)? From this point of view, it's not so surprising that the Nazis kept meticulous records of their atrocities.

Steven
5th October 2010, 13:05
Hi Zookumar,

I had a very interesting reading. A hot topic brought and evolving with maturity and respect!

I just want to throw in some little information that are most interesting in this topic. It might go a little bit on the sides.

1. Abram, father of all jews, was a man from the Sumerian city of Ur, a city of the ancient Sumer; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur He became later Abraham when he accepted the convenant with 'god' and his wife Sarai became Sarah. The information that Abram comes from Ur is rather a biblical datas rather then historical. It might be historical, but hasn't been proved yet with archeological findings or historical findings.

2. The Sumerian had contact in their history, with a race of beings from another world, according to the sumerian tablets interpretation of Zechariah Sitchin. Of course, there are people who say it isn't an accurate interpretation, and Sitchin himself acknowledge some mistake he made. But the claim he made about the relationship between a race of being and the sumerian ruling elite as never been proven flase. Further more, Credo Mutwa, David Icke and Michael Tellinger have very interesting information that tends to confirm this interpretation.

3. These beings 'Annunaki' introduced them as 'gods' to the human people. This comes from both Zecharia Sitchin and Credo Mutwa.

4. Abraham came from Ur, a mesopotanian city located in today's Irak, and went west. He settled in the region of Canaan where he had two sons amongs others. But Ismael and Isaac are the two most important figures. Sarai his wife, was sterile, and she gave her servant Agar to her husband, so he could have a descendant. The union of Agar and Abram brought Ismael to the world. Ismael and Agar were later freed by Abraham and they went east. Ibrahim is a major figure in the Coran. He his father of all muslims and Ismael is considered the first son of the arabic people. There are struggles between the islamic perspective and the jewish perspective, as for who really was offered to sacrifice, Isaac or ismael? But they agree on these previously mentionned information above.

5. Here is what 'god' says to Abram when he was still in his homeland. Quotes: 'There God spoke to Abram, telling him to leave the land of his birth, his father's house, and his kindred and go "to the land that I will show you", where Abram would become a great nation and the vehicle for the blessing of all mankind.' End of the quotes.

6. Here is the promisses that god made to Abram. Quotes: 'God again promises Abram a multitude of descendants during an episode in which Abram sacrifices to God, who also reveals to Abram the future enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt, as well as their escape.' End of the quotes.

7. In my humble opinion, a 'god' who speaks to one man, make promisses to him that he will have a lot of descendants (at that time, it worth more than any treasures), who asked for sacrifices, and predict the enslavement of a people isn't the Creator of all things, but rather a highly advanced being playing 'god' with a lesser race.

8. I really beleive the coming of Christ in the world was purposefully to correct the false direction a part of humanity had taken, manipulated by an advanced race of beings palying 'gods' with these people in particular. But again, his teaching and words have been altered to fit the old scheme. That is my opinion.

9. The root of all the dispute and war between the jews and the muslim originates from Abraham legitimate sons. The 'god' who promisses Abraham a very long lineage had also, by his intervention, created a very efficient quarrel that is still very alive today. How convinient if you want to manipulate behind the scene, divide and rule. I do not beleive this 'god' to be the creator of all things.

10. Ultimatly, there is one people here on Earth, and its the human familly. No religion whatsoever will succeed in uniting all human, as no country, no enterprise or no science. What will unite the human people is spirituality, the recognition that we all have the same 'Creator of all things' and accept to stop labeling him with the mistakes of the past.

Namaste, Steven

RedeZra
5th October 2010, 19:00
who was the Father that Jesus spoke of if not YHWH the God of Israel


it is nothing but nuage to try to twist n turn the lesser gods of old into aliens when the ancient texts present them as spirit beings

who does it serve to shift our focus from the Divine n the spiritual hierarchy n replace it with ET n manipulation of mankind

Ahkenaten
5th October 2010, 19:25
Hi Uncle Zook.................yes we find ourselves in somewhat of a quandry....................our "understanding" is always limited because we color events, nay - shape and events past, present and future - with our mental perceptions.......

Someone wiser than I once said that History is S**T that happens......and that about captures the futility of that exercise for me anyway. But as I said, even so, we must try to understand and I admire your efforts. Simply, looking at our current reality, there must be a better way for us to live. We must face the fact that it just isn't working out well for the species, valiant efforts of a few notwithstanding. The majority of us must change our ways of thinking and acting, and soon......otherwise we will become part of the archeological record. That change requires of us not only understanding but actual concrete behavioral and attitudinal changes at the most fundamental levels. Are we up to that change? Has there ever been any sign in history or in the archeological record that any group of humans has actually made such radical changes even when faced with extinction? And yet, such change is required. Simply put, with respect to the thousands-year-old drama that continues to play out in the Middle East, now enmeshing the entire world in that ancient struggle between relatives ---- all involved must change their ways. That would mean simply stopping the struggle, period. But similar to boys fighting on the playground, all refuse to stop unless, and until the other side stops, and so it continues. And this, my friend, is HISTORY.

Zook
7th October 2010, 16:12
Bonjour Rimbaud,
Speaking for myself, there's been nothing unfair or secular about this debate. As for RedeZra - who offers a decidedly secular Christian view of Judaism - even he has not unfairly jaundiced this debate (as you intimate). Please invite your Palestinian friends. The more points of view, the better. Secular and nonsecular views are welcome. IMO, the exclusion of either subtracts from the knowledge base.
[...]


Mea culpa. My brain must've crosswired when I wrote the above. Hey, it happens from time to time, and more times than I would like to acknowledge since crossing the Age 42 Rubicon, many many moons ago. Here, I meant sectarian in place of secular; nonsectarian in place of nonsecular.

He who admits his own mistakes ... is allowed to make many more! LOL.
:jester: