Genesis Chapter 1 lecture
Oct 15, 2019 01:00:25 #
Josephus and Genesis Chapter Ten
A Wonderful Stepping-Stone
The writings of the historian Josephus provide interesting insights into the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian with an intriguing history of his own! He served as governor of Galilee, fought against Rome in the first century, and was eventually captured. His surrender ultimately took him to Rome, where his captors became Roman Emperors (Vespasian and his son Titus). He was ordered to write a history of Jewish nation because of all the strife that had been going on in that area.1
But the history I want to discuss is not Josephus’s life, but something he wrote about. In his book about Jewish history, The Antiquity of the Jews (specifically chapter 6, which is reprinted in the appendix of this article), Josephus gave Christians a brilliant “stepping-stone” to the genealogies in Genesis 10.
Josephus connected many of the nations that formed after the confusion at the Tower of Babel with the nations around him. He often listed the common Greek name for these nations, which provided a solid translation of ancient history into his era. From his work, Christians can connect those nations to the nations we have today. Hence, we have a stepping-stone between nations and people groups soon after the Flood and those today.
For example, Josephus mentions that Gomer, one of Noah’s grandsons, had descendants that the Greeks called Galatians! If you recall, Paul wrote an epistle to the Galatians who were living in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey).
Another intriguing connection is that of Magog—also one of Noah’s grandsons. Josephus’s research reveals that the Scythians were descendants of Magog. The Scythians are now a variety of people groups living north of the Black Sea.
Japheth
Now they were the grandchildren of Noah, in honour of whom names were imposed on the nations by those who first settled them. Japheth, the son of Noah, had seven sons; they inhabited so, that, beginning at the mountains Taurus and Amanus, they proceeded along Asia, as far as the river Tanais, and along Europe to Cadiz; and settling themselves on the lands which they came upon, which none had inhabited before, they called the nations by their own names; for
1. Gomer founded those whom the Greeks now call Galatians, [Galls,] but were then called Gomerites.
2. Magog founded those who from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians.
3. Now as to Javan and Madai, the sons of Japheth; from Madai came the Madeans, who are called Medes, by the Greeks;
4. but from Javan, Ionia, and all the Greeks, are derived.
5. Thobel [Tubal] founded the Thobelites, who are now called Iberes;
6. and the Mosocheni were founded by Mosoch [Mechech]; now they are Cappadocians. There is also a mark of their ancient name still to be shown; for there is even now among them a city called Mazaca, which may inform those who are able to understand, that so was the entire nation once called.
7. Thiras [Tiras, Tyras] also called those whom he ruled over, Thirasians; but the Greeks changed the name into Thracians. And so many were the countries that had the children of Japheth for their inhabitants.
1A. Of the three sons of Gomer, Ashkenaz founded the Ashkenazians [Germany], who are now called by the Greeks Rheginians.
1B/ So did Riphas found the Riphasians, now called Paphlagonians; and
1C. Togarmah the Togarmans, who, as the Greeks resolved, were named Phrygians.
4A. Of the three sons of Javan also, the son of Japheth, Elishah gave name to the Eliseans, who were his subjects; they are now the Aeolians.
4B. Tarshish to the Tarshians; for so was Cilicia of old called; the sign of which is this, that the noblest city they have, and a metropolis also, is Tarsus, the tau being by change put for the theta.
4C. Cethimus [Kittim] possessed the island Cethima; it is now called Cyprus; and from that it is that all islands, and the greatest part of the sea coasts, are named Cethim by the Hebrews; and one city there is in Cyprus that has been able to preserve its name; it has been called Citius by those who use the language of the Greeks, and has not, by the use of that dialect, escaped the name of Cethim. And so many nations have the children and grandchildren of Japheth possessed.
Now when I have premised somewhat, which perhaps the Greeks do not know, I will return and explain what I have omitted; for such names are pronounced here after the manner of the Greeks, to please my readers; for our own country language does not so pronounce them; but the names in all cases are of one and the same ending; for the name we here pronounce Noeas, is there Noah, and in every case retains the same termination.
Ham
The children of Ham possessed the land from Syria and Amanus, and the mountains of Libanus; settling all that was on its sea coasts, and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own. Some indeed of its names are utterly vanished away; others of them, being changed, and another sound given them, are hardly to be discovered; yet a few there are which have kept their names entire.
1. For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Cush; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites.
2. The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name, for all we who inhabit this country [of Judea] called Egypt Mestre [Mizraim], and the Egyptians Mestreans.
3. Phut also was the founder of Libya, and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself; there is also a river in the country of Moors which bears that name; where it is that we may see the greatest part of the Greek historiographers mention that river and the adjoining country by the appellation of Phut;
2A. but the name it has now, has been by change given it from one of the sons of Mizraim, who was called Lybyos [Ludites]. We will inform you presently what has been the occasion why it has been called Africa also.
4. Canaan, the fourth son of Ham, inhabited the country now called Judea, and called it from his own name Canaan.
The children of these [four] were these:
1A. Sabas [Seba], who founded the Sabeans;
1B. Evilas [Havilah], who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli;
1C. Sabathes [Sabtah], founded the Sabathens—they are now called by the Greeks, Astaborans; (135)
1D. Sabactas settled the Sabactens; and
1E. Ragmus [Raamah] the Ragmeans; and he had two sons, the one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans [Sheba?], a nation of the Western Ethiopians, and left them his name; as did Sabas to the Sabeans.
1F. But Nimrod, the son of Cush, stayed and tyrannized at Babylon, as we have already informed you.
Now all the children of Mizraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt, though it retained the name of one only,
2A. the Philistim [Casluhites; for the Greeks call part of that country Palestine. 2B. As for the rest, Ludicim [Ludites], and
2C. Enemim [Anamites], and
2D. Labim [Lehabites/Lybybos], who alone inhabited in Libya, and called the country from himself,
2E. Nedim [Naphtuhites] and
2F. Phethrosim, and
2G. Chesloim [8th son that that came after the biblical table of nations?], and
2H. Caphthorim; we know nothing of them besides their names; for the Ethiopic war, which we shall describe hereafter, was the cause that those cities were overthrown.
4A. The sons of Canaan were these: Sidonius, who also built a city of the same name—it is called by the Greeks, Sidon;
4B. Amathus [Hamathites] inhabited in Amathine, which is even now called Amathe by the inhabitants, although the Macedonians named it Epiphania, from one of his posterity;
4C. Arudeus [Arvadites] possessed the island Aradus;
4D. Arucas [Arkites] possessed Arce, which is in Libanus; but for the seven others, [Eueus,]
4E. Chetteus, [Hittites?]
4F. Jebuseus [Jebusites founded Jerusalem],
4G. Amorreus [Amorites],
4H. Gergesus [Girgashites],
4I. Eudeus [Hivites?],
4J. Sineus [Sinites, Sinai is named for this tribe, and perhaps those that left and settled in the Orient],
4K. Samareus [Zemarites] we have nothing in the sacred books but their names, for the Hebrews overthrew their cities; and their calamities came upon them on the occasion following.
Shem
Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean.
1. For Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians.
2. Ashur lived at the city of Nineveh; and named his subjects Assyrians, who became the most fortunate nation beyond others.
3. Arphaxad named the Arphaxadites, who are now called Chaldeans.
Aram had the Aramites, which the Greeks called Syrians;
4. as Laud founded the Laudites, which are now called Lydians.
5. Of the four sons of Aram,
5A. Uz founded Trachonitis and Damascus; this country lies between Palestine and Coelosyria.
5B. Ul [Hul] founded Armenia; and
5C. Gather the Bactrians; and
5D. Mesa [Mechech] the Mesaneans; it is now called Charax Spasini.
3A. Sala was the son of Arphaxad;
3A1. and his son was Heber [Eber], from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews.
3A1A. Heber begat Joktan and Peleg: he was called Peleg, because he was born at the dispersion of the nations to their various countries; for Peleg among the Hebrews signifies Division. Now Joktan, one of the sons of Heber, had these sons: Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. These inhabited from Cophen, an Indian river, and in part of Asia adjoining to it. And this shall suffice concerning the sons of Shem.
A Wonderful Stepping-Stone
The writings of the historian Josephus provide interesting insights into the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian with an intriguing history of his own! He served as governor of Galilee, fought against Rome in the first century, and was eventually captured. His surrender ultimately took him to Rome, where his captors became Roman Emperors (Vespasian and his son Titus). He was ordered to write a history of Jewish nation because of all the strife that had been going on in that area.1
But the history I want to discuss is not Josephus’s life, but something he wrote about. In his book about Jewish history, The Antiquity of the Jews (specifically chapter 6, which is reprinted in the appendix of this article), Josephus gave Christians a brilliant “stepping-stone” to the genealogies in Genesis 10.
Josephus connected many of the nations that formed after the confusion at the Tower of Babel with the nations around him. He often listed the common Greek name for these nations, which provided a solid translation of ancient history into his era. From his work, Christians can connect those nations to the nations we have today. Hence, we have a stepping-stone between nations and people groups soon after the Flood and those today.
For example, Josephus mentions that Gomer, one of Noah’s grandsons, had descendants that the Greeks called Galatians! If you recall, Paul wrote an epistle to the Galatians who were living in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey).
Another intriguing connection is that of Magog—also one of Noah’s grandsons. Josephus’s research reveals that the Scythians were descendants of Magog. The Scythians are now a variety of people groups living north of the Black Sea.
Japheth
Now they were the grandchildren of Noah, in honour of whom names were imposed on the nations by those who first settled them. Japheth, the son of Noah, had seven sons; they inhabited so, that, beginning at the mountains Taurus and Amanus, they proceeded along Asia, as far as the river Tanais, and along Europe to Cadiz; and settling themselves on the lands which they came upon, which none had inhabited before, they called the nations by their own names; for
1. Gomer founded those whom the Greeks now call Galatians, [Galls,] but were then called Gomerites.
2. Magog founded those who from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians.
3. Now as to Javan and Madai, the sons of Japheth; from Madai came the Madeans, who are called Medes, by the Greeks;
4. but from Javan, Ionia, and all the Greeks, are derived.
5. Thobel [Tubal] founded the Thobelites, who are now called Iberes;
6. and the Mosocheni were founded by Mosoch [Mechech]; now they are Cappadocians. There is also a mark of their ancient name still to be shown; for there is even now among them a city called Mazaca, which may inform those who are able to understand, that so was the entire nation once called.
7. Thiras [Tiras, Tyras] also called those whom he ruled over, Thirasians; but the Greeks changed the name into Thracians. And so many were the countries that had the children of Japheth for their inhabitants.
1A. Of the three sons of Gomer, Ashkenaz founded the Ashkenazians [Germany], who are now called by the Greeks Rheginians.
1B/ So did Riphas found the Riphasians, now called Paphlagonians; and
1C. Togarmah the Togarmans, who, as the Greeks resolved, were named Phrygians.
4A. Of the three sons of Javan also, the son of Japheth, Elishah gave name to the Eliseans, who were his subjects; they are now the Aeolians.
4B. Tarshish to the Tarshians; for so was Cilicia of old called; the sign of which is this, that the noblest city they have, and a metropolis also, is Tarsus, the tau being by change put for the theta.
4C. Cethimus [Kittim] possessed the island Cethima; it is now called Cyprus; and from that it is that all islands, and the greatest part of the sea coasts, are named Cethim by the Hebrews; and one city there is in Cyprus that has been able to preserve its name; it has been called Citius by those who use the language of the Greeks, and has not, by the use of that dialect, escaped the name of Cethim. And so many nations have the children and grandchildren of Japheth possessed.
Now when I have premised somewhat, which perhaps the Greeks do not know, I will return and explain what I have omitted; for such names are pronounced here after the manner of the Greeks, to please my readers; for our own country language does not so pronounce them; but the names in all cases are of one and the same ending; for the name we here pronounce Noeas, is there Noah, and in every case retains the same termination.
Ham
The children of Ham possessed the land from Syria and Amanus, and the mountains of Libanus; settling all that was on its sea coasts, and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own. Some indeed of its names are utterly vanished away; others of them, being changed, and another sound given them, are hardly to be discovered; yet a few there are which have kept their names entire.
1. For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Cush; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites.
2. The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name, for all we who inhabit this country [of Judea] called Egypt Mestre [Mizraim], and the Egyptians Mestreans.
3. Phut also was the founder of Libya, and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself; there is also a river in the country of Moors which bears that name; where it is that we may see the greatest part of the Greek historiographers mention that river and the adjoining country by the appellation of Phut;
2A. but the name it has now, has been by change given it from one of the sons of Mizraim, who was called Lybyos [Ludites]. We will inform you presently what has been the occasion why it has been called Africa also.
4. Canaan, the fourth son of Ham, inhabited the country now called Judea, and called it from his own name Canaan.
The children of these [four] were these:
1A. Sabas [Seba], who founded the Sabeans;
1B. Evilas [Havilah], who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli;
1C. Sabathes [Sabtah], founded the Sabathens—they are now called by the Greeks, Astaborans; (135)
1D. Sabactas settled the Sabactens; and
1E. Ragmus [Raamah] the Ragmeans; and he had two sons, the one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans [Sheba?], a nation of the Western Ethiopians, and left them his name; as did Sabas to the Sabeans.
1F. But Nimrod, the son of Cush, stayed and tyrannized at Babylon, as we have already informed you.
Now all the children of Mizraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt, though it retained the name of one only,
2A. the Philistim [Casluhites; for the Greeks call part of that country Palestine. 2B. As for the rest, Ludicim [Ludites], and
2C. Enemim [Anamites], and
2D. Labim [Lehabites/Lybybos], who alone inhabited in Libya, and called the country from himself,
2E. Nedim [Naphtuhites] and
2F. Phethrosim, and
2G. Chesloim [8th son that that came after the biblical table of nations?], and
2H. Caphthorim; we know nothing of them besides their names; for the Ethiopic war, which we shall describe hereafter, was the cause that those cities were overthrown.
4A. The sons of Canaan were these: Sidonius, who also built a city of the same name—it is called by the Greeks, Sidon;
4B. Amathus [Hamathites] inhabited in Amathine, which is even now called Amathe by the inhabitants, although the Macedonians named it Epiphania, from one of his posterity;
4C. Arudeus [Arvadites] possessed the island Aradus;
4D. Arucas [Arkites] possessed Arce, which is in Libanus; but for the seven others, [Eueus,]
4E. Chetteus, [Hittites?]
4F. Jebuseus [Jebusites founded Jerusalem],
4G. Amorreus [Amorites],
4H. Gergesus [Girgashites],
4I. Eudeus [Hivites?],
4J. Sineus [Sinites, Sinai is named for this tribe, and perhaps those that left and settled in the Orient],
4K. Samareus [Zemarites] we have nothing in the sacred books but their names, for the Hebrews overthrew their cities; and their calamities came upon them on the occasion following.
Shem
Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean.
1. For Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians.
2. Ashur lived at the city of Nineveh; and named his subjects Assyrians, who became the most fortunate nation beyond others.
3. Arphaxad named the Arphaxadites, who are now called Chaldeans.
Aram had the Aramites, which the Greeks called Syrians;
4. as Laud founded the Laudites, which are now called Lydians.
5. Of the four sons of Aram,
5A. Uz founded Trachonitis and Damascus; this country lies between Palestine and Coelosyria.
5B. Ul [Hul] founded Armenia; and
5C. Gather the Bactrians; and
5D. Mesa [Mechech] the Mesaneans; it is now called Charax Spasini.
3A. Sala was the son of Arphaxad;
3A1. and his son was Heber [Eber], from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews.
3A1A. Heber begat Joktan and Peleg: he was called Peleg, because he was born at the dispersion of the nations to their various countries; for Peleg among the Hebrews signifies Division. Now Joktan, one of the sons of Heber, had these sons: Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. These inhabited from Cophen, an Indian river, and in part of Asia adjoining to it. And this shall suffice concerning the sons of Shem.
Oct 15, 2019 02:14:04 #
British Israelism - Belief in the "Israelitish Origin of the British Race"
British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a pseudoarchaeological belief that the people of the British Isles are "genetically, racially, and linguistically the direct descendants" of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel.
With roots in the 16th century, British Israelism was inspired by several 19th-century English writings such as John Wilson's 1840 Our Israelitish Origin. Various British Israelite organisations were set up throughout the British Empire as well as in America from the 1870s; a number of these organisations are active independently as of the early 21st century. In America, the idea gave rise to the Christian Identity movement.
The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern archaeological, ethnological, genetic, and linguistic research.
According to Brackney (2012) and Fine (2015), the French Hugenot magistrate M. le Loyer's The Ten Lost Tribes, published in 1590, provided the first expression that "Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, and associated cultures" were direct descendants of the ancient Israelites. Anglo-Israelism has also been attributed to Francis Drake and James VI and I, who believed he was the King of Israel. Adriaan van Schrieck (1560-1621), who influenced Henry Spelman (1562-1641) and John Sadler (1615-1674), wrote in the early 17th century about his ideas on the origins of the Celtic and Saxon peoples. In 1649, Sadler published The Rights of the Kingdom, "which argues for an 'Israelite genealogy for the British people'".
Aspects of British Israelism and its influences have also been traced to Richard Brothers' A Revealed Knowledge of the Prophecies and Times in 1794, John Wilson's Our Israelitish Origin (1840s), and John Pym Yeatman's The Shemetic Origin of the Nations of Western Europe (1879).
British Israelism arose in England, then spread to the United States. British-Israelists cite various medieval manuscripts to claim an older origin, but British Israelism as a distinct movement appeared in the early 1880s:
Although scattered British Israel societies are known to have existed as early as 1872, there was at first no real move to develop an organization beyond the small groups of believers which had arisen spontaneously. The beginnings of the movement as an identifiable religious force can, therefore, be more accurately placed in the 1880's when the circumstances of the time were particularly propitious for the appearance of a movement so imperialistically-orientated.
Peak adherence, end of the 19th and early 20th centuries
William Pascoe Goard
The extent to which the clergy in Britain became aware of the movement may be gauged from the comment made by Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801–1890) when asked why he had left the Church of England in 1845 to join the Roman Catholic Church. He said that there was a very real danger that the movement "would take over the Church of England."
In the later 19th century, Edward Hine, Edward Wheeler Bird, and Herbert Aldersmith developed the British Israelite movement. Hine and Bird would achieve a degree of "doctrinal coherence" by seeing off competing forms of the ideology: in 1878 the Anglo-Ephraim Association of London, which followed Wilson in embraced the broader community of western European Germanic peoples among those they believed were favored by God, would be absorbed into Bird's Metropolitan Anglo-Israel Association, espousing the Anglo-exclusive view promoted by Hine.
By the 1890s, the "Anglo-Israel Association" had 300 members; it was based in Britain and founded in 1879 by physician George Moore. Hine later departed for the United States where he promoted the idea.
The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia stated that British Israelism's adherents "are said to number 2,000,000 in England and the United States", an unreliable figure if association membership and journal subscription numbers are any guide, though there would have been a broader, unmeasurable sympathy towards the views of the movement among Protestants globally.
Between 1899 and 1902, adherents of British Israelism dug up parts of the Hill of Tara in the belief that the Ark of the Covenant was buried there, doing much damage to one of Ireland's most ancient royal and archaeological sites. At the same time, British Israelism became associated with various pseudo-archaeological pyramidology theories, such as the notion that the Pyramid of Khufu contained a prophetic numerology of the British peoples.
In 1914, the thirty-fourth year of its publication, the Anglo-Israel Almanac listed details of a large number of Kingdom Identity Groups operating independently throughout the British Isles and in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, and the United States of America.
In 1919, the British-Israel-World Federation (BIWF) was founded in London, and Covenant Publishing was founded in 1922. William Pascoe Goard was the first director of the publishing house. During this time, several prominent figures patronized the BIWF organization and its publisher; Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone was Patron-in-chief in pre-World War II days. One of the highest profile members was William Massey, then Prime Minister of New Zealand. Due to the expansive nature of the British Empire, believers in British Israelism spread worldwide and the BIWF expanded its organization to the commonwealth. Howard Rand promoted the teaching and became National Commissioner of the Anglo-Saxon Federation of America in 1928. He published The Bulletin, later renamed The Messenger of the Covenant. More recently, it has been renamed Destiny.
During its peak in the early 20th century, British Israelism was also supported by John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher. A prolific author on British Israelism during the later 1930s and 40s was Alexander James Ferris.
The BIWF continues to exist, with its main headquarters located in Bishop Auckland in County Durham. It also has chapters in Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, New Zealand and South Africa.
In 1968, one source estimated that there were between 3,000 and 5,000 British Israelites in Britain. There, the theology of British Israelism has been taught by a few small Pentecostal churches. The espousal of British Israelism by George Jeffreys, founder of the Elim Pentecostal Church, led to a schism, precipitating his 1939 resignation and the formation of the Bible-Pattern Church Fellowship, which continues to teach the doctrine.
A commonly found British-Israel doctrine is that the Tribe of Ephraim and the Tribe of Manasseh can be identified as modern day Britain and the United States of America. British-Israel adherents cite numerous theological, semiotics, archaeological, and ethnological resources as proofs.
Part of the foundation of the British-Israel doctrine is the theological claim that particular blessings were bestowed upon three of the tribes of Israel, in that the tribe of Judah was to be the 'chief ruler' e.g. King David, and that Ephraim was to receive the birthright (See Jacob and Esau). Adherents believe that these blessings have continued down through the ages to modern times, with the British Monarchy identified as the continued blessing upon Judah, and both Britain (Ephraim) and the USA (Manasseh) as recipients of the national birthright blessing. They cite passages such as 1 Chron 5:1-2 and Gen 48:19-20 as supporting this.
British Israelism has been criticized for poor research and scholarship. The Encyclopedia Britannica summarises in 1910 that: "The theory [of British-Israelism] rests on premises which are deemed by scholars - both theological and anthropological - to be utterly unsound". Current scholarship is not consistent with the claims of British Israelism, with scholars drawing attention to its "historical and linguistic inaccuracies" in addition to its links to antisemitism. Hale (2015) refers to "the overwhelming cultural, historical and genetic evidence against it."
Critics of British Israelism note that the arguments presented by promoters of the teaching are based on unsubstantiated and highly speculative amateur research. Tudor Parfitt, author of The Lost Tribes: The History of a Myth, states that the proof cited by adherents of British Israelism is "of a feeble composition even by the low standards of the genre."
Parfitt suggests that the idea of British Israelism was inspired by numerous ideological factors, such as the desire for ordinary people to have a glorious ancestral past, pride in the British Empire, and the belief in the "racial superiority of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants", and Aikau characterized the movement as "fundamentally about providing a rationale for Anglo-Saxon superiority." To Kidd, its theology represents a "quasi-heresy", serving to "blunt the universalist message apparent in the New Testament". Its role in fostering anti-semitism in conservative Protestant Christianity has been highlighted, as has a "racial chauvinism" that is "not always covert".
Separately, the mythology of British Israelism has been cited as fostering "nationalistic bellicosity". To some adherents, British Israelism served as a justification for British colonialism and imperialism, and perhaps even genocide, while also feeding American Manifest Destiny.
British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a pseudoarchaeological belief that the people of the British Isles are "genetically, racially, and linguistically the direct descendants" of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel.
With roots in the 16th century, British Israelism was inspired by several 19th-century English writings such as John Wilson's 1840 Our Israelitish Origin. Various British Israelite organisations were set up throughout the British Empire as well as in America from the 1870s; a number of these organisations are active independently as of the early 21st century. In America, the idea gave rise to the Christian Identity movement.
The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by evidence from modern archaeological, ethnological, genetic, and linguistic research.
According to Brackney (2012) and Fine (2015), the French Hugenot magistrate M. le Loyer's The Ten Lost Tribes, published in 1590, provided the first expression that "Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, and associated cultures" were direct descendants of the ancient Israelites. Anglo-Israelism has also been attributed to Francis Drake and James VI and I, who believed he was the King of Israel. Adriaan van Schrieck (1560-1621), who influenced Henry Spelman (1562-1641) and John Sadler (1615-1674), wrote in the early 17th century about his ideas on the origins of the Celtic and Saxon peoples. In 1649, Sadler published The Rights of the Kingdom, "which argues for an 'Israelite genealogy for the British people'".
Aspects of British Israelism and its influences have also been traced to Richard Brothers' A Revealed Knowledge of the Prophecies and Times in 1794, John Wilson's Our Israelitish Origin (1840s), and John Pym Yeatman's The Shemetic Origin of the Nations of Western Europe (1879).
British Israelism arose in England, then spread to the United States. British-Israelists cite various medieval manuscripts to claim an older origin, but British Israelism as a distinct movement appeared in the early 1880s:
Although scattered British Israel societies are known to have existed as early as 1872, there was at first no real move to develop an organization beyond the small groups of believers which had arisen spontaneously. The beginnings of the movement as an identifiable religious force can, therefore, be more accurately placed in the 1880's when the circumstances of the time were particularly propitious for the appearance of a movement so imperialistically-orientated.
Peak adherence, end of the 19th and early 20th centuries
William Pascoe Goard
The extent to which the clergy in Britain became aware of the movement may be gauged from the comment made by Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801–1890) when asked why he had left the Church of England in 1845 to join the Roman Catholic Church. He said that there was a very real danger that the movement "would take over the Church of England."
In the later 19th century, Edward Hine, Edward Wheeler Bird, and Herbert Aldersmith developed the British Israelite movement. Hine and Bird would achieve a degree of "doctrinal coherence" by seeing off competing forms of the ideology: in 1878 the Anglo-Ephraim Association of London, which followed Wilson in embraced the broader community of western European Germanic peoples among those they believed were favored by God, would be absorbed into Bird's Metropolitan Anglo-Israel Association, espousing the Anglo-exclusive view promoted by Hine.
By the 1890s, the "Anglo-Israel Association" had 300 members; it was based in Britain and founded in 1879 by physician George Moore. Hine later departed for the United States where he promoted the idea.
The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia stated that British Israelism's adherents "are said to number 2,000,000 in England and the United States", an unreliable figure if association membership and journal subscription numbers are any guide, though there would have been a broader, unmeasurable sympathy towards the views of the movement among Protestants globally.
Between 1899 and 1902, adherents of British Israelism dug up parts of the Hill of Tara in the belief that the Ark of the Covenant was buried there, doing much damage to one of Ireland's most ancient royal and archaeological sites. At the same time, British Israelism became associated with various pseudo-archaeological pyramidology theories, such as the notion that the Pyramid of Khufu contained a prophetic numerology of the British peoples.
In 1914, the thirty-fourth year of its publication, the Anglo-Israel Almanac listed details of a large number of Kingdom Identity Groups operating independently throughout the British Isles and in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, and the United States of America.
In 1919, the British-Israel-World Federation (BIWF) was founded in London, and Covenant Publishing was founded in 1922. William Pascoe Goard was the first director of the publishing house. During this time, several prominent figures patronized the BIWF organization and its publisher; Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone was Patron-in-chief in pre-World War II days. One of the highest profile members was William Massey, then Prime Minister of New Zealand. Due to the expansive nature of the British Empire, believers in British Israelism spread worldwide and the BIWF expanded its organization to the commonwealth. Howard Rand promoted the teaching and became National Commissioner of the Anglo-Saxon Federation of America in 1928. He published The Bulletin, later renamed The Messenger of the Covenant. More recently, it has been renamed Destiny.
During its peak in the early 20th century, British Israelism was also supported by John Fisher, 1st Baron Fisher. A prolific author on British Israelism during the later 1930s and 40s was Alexander James Ferris.
The BIWF continues to exist, with its main headquarters located in Bishop Auckland in County Durham. It also has chapters in Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, New Zealand and South Africa.
In 1968, one source estimated that there were between 3,000 and 5,000 British Israelites in Britain. There, the theology of British Israelism has been taught by a few small Pentecostal churches. The espousal of British Israelism by George Jeffreys, founder of the Elim Pentecostal Church, led to a schism, precipitating his 1939 resignation and the formation of the Bible-Pattern Church Fellowship, which continues to teach the doctrine.
A commonly found British-Israel doctrine is that the Tribe of Ephraim and the Tribe of Manasseh can be identified as modern day Britain and the United States of America. British-Israel adherents cite numerous theological, semiotics, archaeological, and ethnological resources as proofs.
Part of the foundation of the British-Israel doctrine is the theological claim that particular blessings were bestowed upon three of the tribes of Israel, in that the tribe of Judah was to be the 'chief ruler' e.g. King David, and that Ephraim was to receive the birthright (See Jacob and Esau). Adherents believe that these blessings have continued down through the ages to modern times, with the British Monarchy identified as the continued blessing upon Judah, and both Britain (Ephraim) and the USA (Manasseh) as recipients of the national birthright blessing. They cite passages such as 1 Chron 5:1-2 and Gen 48:19-20 as supporting this.
British Israelism has been criticized for poor research and scholarship. The Encyclopedia Britannica summarises in 1910 that: "The theory [of British-Israelism] rests on premises which are deemed by scholars - both theological and anthropological - to be utterly unsound". Current scholarship is not consistent with the claims of British Israelism, with scholars drawing attention to its "historical and linguistic inaccuracies" in addition to its links to antisemitism. Hale (2015) refers to "the overwhelming cultural, historical and genetic evidence against it."
Critics of British Israelism note that the arguments presented by promoters of the teaching are based on unsubstantiated and highly speculative amateur research. Tudor Parfitt, author of The Lost Tribes: The History of a Myth, states that the proof cited by adherents of British Israelism is "of a feeble composition even by the low standards of the genre."
Parfitt suggests that the idea of British Israelism was inspired by numerous ideological factors, such as the desire for ordinary people to have a glorious ancestral past, pride in the British Empire, and the belief in the "racial superiority of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants", and Aikau characterized the movement as "fundamentally about providing a rationale for Anglo-Saxon superiority." To Kidd, its theology represents a "quasi-heresy", serving to "blunt the universalist message apparent in the New Testament". Its role in fostering anti-semitism in conservative Protestant Christianity has been highlighted, as has a "racial chauvinism" that is "not always covert".
Separately, the mythology of British Israelism has been cited as fostering "nationalistic bellicosity". To some adherents, British Israelism served as a justification for British colonialism and imperialism, and perhaps even genocide, while also feeding American Manifest Destiny.
Oct 15, 2019 07:56:31 #
Bible Study, Bloodlines, etc:
May others do some more Bible study:
"Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness (truths) sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven (within you). Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my names (truths) sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad; for great is your reward in heaven (truth is like a well spring of life within you); for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Mathew 5:10-12
Luke reports this part of Christ's sermon on the mount thus:--
"Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in like manner did their fathers unto the prophets." -Luke 6:22-23
The root of evil is Satan. The father of all lies. The antithesis of Christ. All these dots connect to Political Zionism. It is they that have promoted homosexuality and massive integration every where but Israel.
Follow the Money.
I hope more people will be able to figure this out. Mohammed was not the "polar opposite" of Christ. The anti-Christ is the Polar opposite of Christ. That is his purpose and mission. Many will be deceived, because they have not figured who the great deceiver is, and who he uses. Atheist Luciferians / Illuminati plan on winning the war against God. They do not believe they will be answerable to God. They believe that their wickedness will go unpunished.
Adam - It is the doctrines that muddy the water. It comes down to Creationism with God or gods, Atheism ( a Big Bang, and then pollywogs to Human kind), and Agnosticism (who knows). Then there are those who choose their God; Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, and Satan/Lucifer. IMO - A big problem with Christians is they act like air heads. Largely because they belong to churches with indoctrinated and ignorant "pastors". ( the seminaries were infiltrated many years ago, but that is a long story.) IMO - Good scholarly pastors are few and far between. Every one has to make a choice to search for the truth, and what course to take. It takes a lot less faith when one actually does some study under someone that uses the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. A whole lot of prophecy has been fulfilled, and is in the process of being fulfilled. To me it is quite apparent how wicked and miserable this planet has become.
Ephesians Ch 6:10 to 6:18 > especially 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of the world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Sackcloth&Ashes HOLOCAUST & THE SEAT OF SATAN ON THORS DAY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj2uBs82X4A&feature=player_detailpage
ISRAELI NATION (Lesson) with Rav Michael Laitman http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4Od3LF_opvE
Genesis 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
( I thought this was already done, but perhaps Jacob didn't believe what the Lord told him back in Genesis 32:28 "And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed". Perhaps Jacob must have still been going by Jacob.. Now the Lord confirms this, for by two are witness and this was the second time.. Yes by two or more people and also when God repeats Himself, and even perhaps through another person God the Father Confirms all things...)
11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
(" a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins", so many nations of which all western English speaking nations are from the loins of Jacob/Israel..Does anyone think that we got all He gave us on our own?? DO, all we get and have is from God the Father of all times!! He is the one that gave this land to whom He gave it to.. ) (some will believe this, others will refuse to, why perhaps will they refuse this? Perhaps because it is what God says and it is the easiest explanation...)(" multitude of nations shall spring of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins.")
12 And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.
13 And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him.
(As God is said to descend when he showeth some sign of his presence: so he is said to ascend when vision is ended.)
14 And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he talked with him, even a pillar of stone: and he poured a drink offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon.
15 And Jacob called the name of the place where God spake with him, Bethel.
( So God visited Jacob again at the same place and called the place again Bethel... confirmation?? I believe so...)
16 And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour.
("And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: "The Hebrew word signifieth as much ground as one may go from baite to baite, which is taken for half a day’s journey.)
17 And it came to pass
May others do some more Bible study:
"Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness (truths) sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven (within you). Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my names (truths) sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad; for great is your reward in heaven (truth is like a well spring of life within you); for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you." Mathew 5:10-12
Luke reports this part of Christ's sermon on the mount thus:--
"Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in like manner did their fathers unto the prophets." -Luke 6:22-23
The root of evil is Satan. The father of all lies. The antithesis of Christ. All these dots connect to Political Zionism. It is they that have promoted homosexuality and massive integration every where but Israel.
Follow the Money.
I hope more people will be able to figure this out. Mohammed was not the "polar opposite" of Christ. The anti-Christ is the Polar opposite of Christ. That is his purpose and mission. Many will be deceived, because they have not figured who the great deceiver is, and who he uses. Atheist Luciferians / Illuminati plan on winning the war against God. They do not believe they will be answerable to God. They believe that their wickedness will go unpunished.
Adam - It is the doctrines that muddy the water. It comes down to Creationism with God or gods, Atheism ( a Big Bang, and then pollywogs to Human kind), and Agnosticism (who knows). Then there are those who choose their God; Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, and Satan/Lucifer. IMO - A big problem with Christians is they act like air heads. Largely because they belong to churches with indoctrinated and ignorant "pastors". ( the seminaries were infiltrated many years ago, but that is a long story.) IMO - Good scholarly pastors are few and far between. Every one has to make a choice to search for the truth, and what course to take. It takes a lot less faith when one actually does some study under someone that uses the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. A whole lot of prophecy has been fulfilled, and is in the process of being fulfilled. To me it is quite apparent how wicked and miserable this planet has become.
Ephesians Ch 6:10 to 6:18 > especially 6:12 - For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of the world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Sackcloth&Ashes HOLOCAUST & THE SEAT OF SATAN ON THORS DAY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj2uBs82X4A&feature=player_detailpage
ISRAELI NATION (Lesson) with Rav Michael Laitman http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4Od3LF_opvE
Genesis 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel.
( I thought this was already done, but perhaps Jacob didn't believe what the Lord told him back in Genesis 32:28 "And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed". Perhaps Jacob must have still been going by Jacob.. Now the Lord confirms this, for by two are witness and this was the second time.. Yes by two or more people and also when God repeats Himself, and even perhaps through another person God the Father Confirms all things...)
11 And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
(" a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins", so many nations of which all western English speaking nations are from the loins of Jacob/Israel..Does anyone think that we got all He gave us on our own?? DO, all we get and have is from God the Father of all times!! He is the one that gave this land to whom He gave it to.. ) (some will believe this, others will refuse to, why perhaps will they refuse this? Perhaps because it is what God says and it is the easiest explanation...)(" multitude of nations shall spring of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins.")
12 And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.
13 And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him.
(As God is said to descend when he showeth some sign of his presence: so he is said to ascend when vision is ended.)
14 And Jacob set up a pillar in the place where he talked with him, even a pillar of stone: and he poured a drink offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon.
15 And Jacob called the name of the place where God spake with him, Bethel.
( So God visited Jacob again at the same place and called the place again Bethel... confirmation?? I believe so...)
16 And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour.
("And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was but a little way to come to Ephrath: "The Hebrew word signifieth as much ground as one may go from baite to baite, which is taken for half a day’s journey.)
17 And it came to pass
Zemirah wrote:
British Israelism - Belief in the "Israelitis... (show quote)
Oct 15, 2019 08:00:26 #
My only hope is that others study this subject.
I am curious where your perespective is coming from, Zemirah? Babalonian Talmudic, Torah or?
"However, since you asked and provoked my curiosity,
http://come-and-hear.com/editor/br_3.html , apparently it is true."
Great find JW; Be careful to differentiate the Babylonian Talmudists from the Torah Israelites.
Thank you for clarifying that, JW!!!!
The Babylonian Talmudists were sacrificing to Moloch, Not Israelite Hebrews.
http://come-and-hear.com/editor/br_3.html
No one today seriously suggests present-day Jews sacrifice children to Moloch. Moloch (sometimes spelled "Molech") was an Old Testament god whom the Hebrews worshipped from time to time, and to whom they sacrificed their children. The Babylonian Talmud, however, still permits Jews to sacrifice children to Moloch — under certain conditions.
Babylonian Esau/Edomites/Canaanites!!
Not Hebrew Israelites.
The Moloch Prohibition
With these precedents in mind, let us now look at two passages from the Old Testament concerning child sacrifice to the idol Moloch (or "Molech"). In the following passages, the words "seed" and "children" are synonymous. First, from Leviticus 18:
King James Version
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
— Leviticus 18:21 (KJV)
English Standard Version
You shall not give any of your children to offer them (1) to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
— Leviticus 18:21 (ESV)
An ESV footnote gives a literal translation of the original Hebrew phrase: "1. Hebrew to make them pass through [the fire]." Now let's look at Second Kings 23:
King James Version
And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
— 2 Kings 23:10 (KJV)
English Standard Version
And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech. (1)
— 2 Kings 23:10 (ESV)
>>>>>
Now let's look at the relevant cite from the Babylonian Talmud.
(When excerpting the Talmud, we sometimes omit footnotes and non-germane text. The omission of text is indicated by an ellipsis […]. The full text and footnotes may be found by following the hot link at the end of the excerpt. It is our pleasure to make available the text of the complete tractates cited in this article, so you may read the Talmud in full context.)
MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437
Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:
GEMARA. R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son's son or daughter's son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439
Rabbi Dr. Freedman, one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin, clarifies the passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages use "seed" to denote living children, in the same sense as the Biblical translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes. In this footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:
Is 'thou shalt not cause to pass' applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman
I am curious where your perespective is coming from, Zemirah? Babalonian Talmudic, Torah or?
"However, since you asked and provoked my curiosity,
http://come-and-hear.com/editor/br_3.html , apparently it is true."
Great find JW; Be careful to differentiate the Babylonian Talmudists from the Torah Israelites.
Thank you for clarifying that, JW!!!!
The Babylonian Talmudists were sacrificing to Moloch, Not Israelite Hebrews.
http://come-and-hear.com/editor/br_3.html
No one today seriously suggests present-day Jews sacrifice children to Moloch. Moloch (sometimes spelled "Molech") was an Old Testament god whom the Hebrews worshipped from time to time, and to whom they sacrificed their children. The Babylonian Talmud, however, still permits Jews to sacrifice children to Moloch — under certain conditions.
Babylonian Esau/Edomites/Canaanites!!
Not Hebrew Israelites.
The Moloch Prohibition
With these precedents in mind, let us now look at two passages from the Old Testament concerning child sacrifice to the idol Moloch (or "Molech"). In the following passages, the words "seed" and "children" are synonymous. First, from Leviticus 18:
King James Version
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
— Leviticus 18:21 (KJV)
English Standard Version
You shall not give any of your children to offer them (1) to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
— Leviticus 18:21 (ESV)
An ESV footnote gives a literal translation of the original Hebrew phrase: "1. Hebrew to make them pass through [the fire]." Now let's look at Second Kings 23:
King James Version
And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.
— 2 Kings 23:10 (KJV)
English Standard Version
And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech. (1)
— 2 Kings 23:10 (ESV)
>>>>>
Now let's look at the relevant cite from the Babylonian Talmud.
(When excerpting the Talmud, we sometimes omit footnotes and non-germane text. The omission of text is indicated by an ellipsis […]. The full text and footnotes may be found by following the hot link at the end of the excerpt. It is our pleasure to make available the text of the complete tractates cited in this article, so you may read the Talmud in full context.)
MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437
Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:
GEMARA. R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son's son or daughter's son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]
— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439
Rabbi Dr. Freedman, one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin, clarifies the passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages use "seed" to denote living children, in the same sense as the Biblical translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes. In this footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:
Is 'thou shalt not cause to pass' applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?
— Rabbi Dr. Freedman
Zemirah wrote:
British Israelism - Belief in the "Israelitis... (show quote)
Oct 15, 2019 08:08:09 #
Oct 16, 2019 04:18:27 #
I've isolated these four paragraphs you've penned as they seem especially egregious.
1. In your mind, you can draw dots to anything and believe it is connected.
Zionism is the promotion of and support for the Land of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. That's a period.
That's God's plan. No one can stop it.
The Jewish people have the ability to make money because God gave them that gift. It's not from a conspiracy, although jealous people choose to believe it is so.
2. Muhammad, by the end of his life, was completely evil. He stood at the market place in Medina all day long, and personally cut the throats of all the males over puberty from a Jewish tribe that had refused to accept his religion, from 700 to 900 men, and he gloried in it.
Evil is evil. Look it up in the Qur'an.
3. You've attacked the Jewish people, now you're attacking Christians as though they are some alien species with which you are completely unassociated, as though they're inferior beings.
That is the attitude of a Pharisee.
You are attacking God's people. It's like attacking a family member. They can criticize each other, but woe to the outsider who does so.
God will administer any dressing down or correction His people require, but everyone else had better keep hands off.
3. As for ministers, they are to be judged by the word of God, and their congregations are to check everything they teach against God's word.
If you allow a minister who is misrepresenting the Bible, regardless of the number of languages of which he claims to be an expert, to teach you, it is your error. It is time to shake the dust off your feet as you exit.
4. My perspective is that of a Christian, saved by grace from the Lord, my God, applied through the conduit of my faith in the risen Christ, and His completed work on the cross.
The Torah is the first five books of the Bible, those written by Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, beginning with Genesis.
The Babylonian Talmud is longer than the Jerusalem Talmud, and in parts at least, not as old. It was written while in exile in Babylon, before returning to Jerusalem.
I don't use either Talmud. They are simply commentaries on different portions of the Jewish Bible, which is the Christian's Old Testament.
The Talmuds are written by respected Rabbis, but they are just the opinions of men. They are not inspired Scripture.
The comeandhear.com website looks like pure antisemitism. I wouldn't bother with it.
My only interest in Anglo-Israelism, i.e., Armstrongism, is that it is from Satan. It is a cultish teaching that should not be taken seriously by any Christian. It is a lie.
Descendants from all twelve tribes are in Israel, and when God has finished returning the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Israel, not one will be left behind.
The U.K. and the U.S. were not founded by the children of Ephraim and Manasses.
Caucasians from the U.K. and Europe who settled in the United States are principally descended from Noah's son, Japheth.
It was Shem, another son of Noah, who fathered the Jews and the Arabs.
It is Satan who has promoted Homosexuality, and fallen man who has delighted in it.
It is not a Jewish conspiracy. That is ridiculous.
Romans One tells us it's cause:
God's Wrath against Sin
Romans 1:27- "Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips,…
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful. They invent new forms of evil; they disobey their parents."
1. In your mind, you can draw dots to anything and believe it is connected.
Zionism is the promotion of and support for the Land of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. That's a period.
That's God's plan. No one can stop it.
The Jewish people have the ability to make money because God gave them that gift. It's not from a conspiracy, although jealous people choose to believe it is so.
2. Muhammad, by the end of his life, was completely evil. He stood at the market place in Medina all day long, and personally cut the throats of all the males over puberty from a Jewish tribe that had refused to accept his religion, from 700 to 900 men, and he gloried in it.
Evil is evil. Look it up in the Qur'an.
3. You've attacked the Jewish people, now you're attacking Christians as though they are some alien species with which you are completely unassociated, as though they're inferior beings.
That is the attitude of a Pharisee.
You are attacking God's people. It's like attacking a family member. They can criticize each other, but woe to the outsider who does so.
God will administer any dressing down or correction His people require, but everyone else had better keep hands off.
3. As for ministers, they are to be judged by the word of God, and their congregations are to check everything they teach against God's word.
If you allow a minister who is misrepresenting the Bible, regardless of the number of languages of which he claims to be an expert, to teach you, it is your error. It is time to shake the dust off your feet as you exit.
4. My perspective is that of a Christian, saved by grace from the Lord, my God, applied through the conduit of my faith in the risen Christ, and His completed work on the cross.
The Torah is the first five books of the Bible, those written by Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, beginning with Genesis.
The Babylonian Talmud is longer than the Jerusalem Talmud, and in parts at least, not as old. It was written while in exile in Babylon, before returning to Jerusalem.
I don't use either Talmud. They are simply commentaries on different portions of the Jewish Bible, which is the Christian's Old Testament.
The Talmuds are written by respected Rabbis, but they are just the opinions of men. They are not inspired Scripture.
The comeandhear.com website looks like pure antisemitism. I wouldn't bother with it.
My only interest in Anglo-Israelism, i.e., Armstrongism, is that it is from Satan. It is a cultish teaching that should not be taken seriously by any Christian. It is a lie.
Descendants from all twelve tribes are in Israel, and when God has finished returning the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to Israel, not one will be left behind.
The U.K. and the U.S. were not founded by the children of Ephraim and Manasses.
Caucasians from the U.K. and Europe who settled in the United States are principally descended from Noah's son, Japheth.
It was Shem, another son of Noah, who fathered the Jews and the Arabs.
It is Satan who has promoted Homosexuality, and fallen man who has delighted in it.
It is not a Jewish conspiracy. That is ridiculous.
Romans One tells us it's cause:
God's Wrath against Sin
Romans 1:27- "Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips,…
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful. They invent new forms of evil; they disobey their parents."
eagleye13 wrote:
br The root of evil is Satan. The father of all l... (show quote)
Oct 16, 2019 04:36:23 #
Zemirah wrote:
I've isolated these four paragraphs you've penned ... (show quote)
Apologies for interrupting..I am enjoying your discussion with Eagleye... And learning lots
But where in the Koran does it mention that Mohammed personally killed 7-900 Jews?
I have been unable to find it...Thanks
Oct 16, 2019 05:51:48 #
Muhammad approved an order to massacre the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe of people who had surrendered unconditionally.
Muhammad and his band of immigrants arrived in Medina in 622 completely dependent on the hospitality of the three Jewish tribes that lived there alongside the Arabs. In less than two years, two of the tribes that had welcomed him, the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir would be evicted and banished, losing their land and their wealth to the Muslims as soon as their guests gained the power to conquer and confiscate. Muhammad accomplished this by deftly exploiting divisions.
The prophet of Islam chose the order of the doomed tribes carefully. He knew that the other two tribes would not come to the assistance of the first, for example, since they had been aligned against one another in a recent conflict. He also knew that the third would not assist the second - due to a dispute over "blood money."
The last tribe remaining was the Banu Qurayza. Like the others, the Qurayza were a peaceful community of farmers and tradesmen who eventually surrendered to Muhammad without a fight. Although the prophet of Islam had been wise enough not to order the wholesale slaughter of the first two tribes following their defeat (which certainly would have stiffened the resistance of the Qurayza), there was no practical reason for Muhammad to repress his genocidal urges once the last tribe had surrendered their wealth and power.
Some 800 surrendered men and boys (and at least one woman) from the Qurayza tribe were beheaded by the prophet of Islam in a bloodbath that is of acute embarrassment to today’s Muslim apologists (according to Ibn Kathir, the number ranges from 400-900 v.3 p.170). It is an episode that is not only completely at odds with the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, but also refutes the claim that it is the heir to Christianity, since even that religion’s most dedicated critics could hardly imagine Jesus and his disciples doing such a thing.
It is only in modern times (as Islam finds itself having to compete with morally mature religions in open debate) that the story of the massacre has become controversial. Some Muslims deny the episode, largely on the basis of mere inconvenience. Others are unaware of it altogether. But, the incident is well documented in the Sira (biography of Muhammad).
Since Islam makes no apologies, particularly for anything that Muhammad personally did, contemporary Muslims generally try to convince themselves that the victims of Qurayza deserved their fate. They must have turned on the Muslims in battle and inflicted many deaths, forcing Muhammad to yield to the wishes of his people and respond in kind.
Unfortunately, the accounts of what happened, as related to early Muslim historians by eyewitnesses, do not support this myth. In fact, it was the Qurayza who were caught in an impossible situation at the time, between the Muslims and their Meccan adversaries.
Shortly after arriving in Medina in 622, Muhammad began raiding merchant caravans traveling to and from his former home of Mecca. He would steal property and kill anyone who defended it (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424-425). The Jews of Qurayza had nothing to do with this. Much like the Meccans, the Jews were also traders, and they appreciated the value of doing business securely in a crime-free environment. They neither encouraged Muhammad’s raids nor shared in his ill-gotten gain.
After a few years of this, the Meccans eventually realized that they would have to try and capture Medina, since it was being used as a base of piracy operations by Muhammad's gang. In 627, they sent an army to the outskirts of the city and appeared poised to take it in what has been called the Battle of the Trench (the Muslims dug a trench around the exposed northern and western parts of the city to stop the Meccan military advance).
The Qurayza, who lived to the east of Medina, away from the battle, were caught in a bad situation. Not responsible for Muhammad’s war, they were nonetheless drawn into it, particularly when they were approached by an emissary (a previously evicted Jewish leader) and asked not to assist Muhammad in his defense against the siege (to that point, the Qurayza had contributed digging tools to the Muslims, but not fighters).
The chief of the Qurayza did not wish even to entertain the envoy, but he was tricked into allowing him into his home (Ishaq/Hisham 674). Once there, the envoy began making the case that the battle was going against Muhammad and that his fall was imminent. The anguish of the Qurayza chief over the trying circumstances of the position that he felt forced into is noted even by Muslim historians:
When Ka'b heard of Huyayy's coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen... Then Huyayy accused him of [being inhospitable]... This so enraged Ka'b that he threw open his door. [Huyayy] said to him, "Good heavens, Ka'b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army... They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men. "Ka'b said, "By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud while it thunders and lightenings with nothing in it. Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am." (Ishaq/Hisham 674)
After much “wheedling” by the Meccans, however, the Qurayza leader finally gave in and agreed to remain neutral in the conflict. He would neither contribute fighters to the city’s defense nor assist its impending capture at the hands of an army with superior numbers. The Muslims would be left on their own to deal with the conflict they had provoked with the Quraish of Mecca.
The first twenty days of the conflict passed "without fighting" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 676) other than a few exchanges of arrows across the trench. A half-hearted effort on that day to breach the defenses proved fatal to the Meccan tribe, thus convincing their leader that they could not win unless the Qurayza joined the battle from the other side. However, the Jewish tribe refused, thus sealing their own fate (ironically) by prompting the Meccans to abandon the siege (Ibn Kathir v.3 p.154).
A grand total of just six Muslims had been killed at the Battle of the Trench. Each of their names were carefully recorded (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 699) - none were killed by the Qurayza or by anything done by the Qurayza.
With the battle over, however, Muhammad surprised his army by turning them against the Qurayza fortress, claiming that the neutrality of the leader was a breach of the original covenant of Medina which the prophet of Islam had personally drawn up for the tribes five years earlier. The original language of this 'treaty' is not known definitively. Later renderings as to what it may have said seem suspiciously tailored.
It is unlikely, for example, that the tribes of Medina would have given Muslims the right to slaughter them for merely speaking out against him, yet several prominent Jewish leaders and poets had been assassinated on Muhammad’s order prior to the Qurayza affair. At least one innocent merchant was slain by his Muslim business partner following Muhammad’s order in 624 for his men to “kill any Jew who falls into your power” (al-Tabari 7:97). Muhammad had also attacked the two other Jewish tribes – parties to the same agreement – looting their property and then evicting them from their land.
It is likely that the troubles Muhammad brought on Medina, through his mistreatment of the Jews and his relentless pursuit of hostilities against the Meccans, were part of the sales pitch made by the Meccans to the Qurayza leader to win his neutrality - along with the implicit threat of slaughter if the city were taken by the Meccans. From Kab's perspective, it would only be a matter of time before Muhammad found an excuse to attack and plunder his tribe as well.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, however, the Qurayza had not attacked the Muslims. In fact, had they attacked, then it surely would have been the end of Muhammad and his band of pirates since the southern end of the city was completely exposed to the Qurayza. In a terrible irony, it was the decision not to engage in violence that later sealed the fate of the Jews, who were only the first in a very long line of victims to horribly overestimate the value that Islam places on the lives of unbelievers.
The lack of participation in battle plainly refutes the apologist argument that the Qurayza had done something to merit their fate. Obviously they did not know this, otherwise they would have fought for their lives.
According to Muhammad, it was the angel Gabriel (seen only by himself, of course) who ordered the siege on the Qurayza. After twenty-five days of blockade, the Jews gave in and surrendered to the prophet of Islam. As Ibn Ishaq/Hisham puts it, they “submitted themselves to the Apostle’s judgment” (Ishaq/Hisham 688).
Another misconception popularized by apologists is that Muhammad did not render the death sentence against the Qurayza and was therefore not responsible for it. There is a partial truth in this, in that Muhammad attempted to offload responsibility onto another party. However, from the narrative, it is clear that Muhammad approved of the subsequent slaughter - a fact further verified both by his choice of "arbitrator" and his reaction to the 'verdict'.
First, the prophet of Islam tricked the Qurayza by getting them to agree to put their fate in the hands of "one of their own." In fact, this was a convert to Islam, a Muslim who had fought in the Battle of the Trench. Unbeknownst to the Qurayza, Sa’d bin Muadh had also been one of the few Muslims fatally injured in the battle (Ishaq/Hisham 689), which one can reasonably assume to have influenced his judgment. According to the Hadith, he was quite eager to continue slaying "unbelievers" even as he lay dying in his tent (Bukhari 59:448).
Secondly, when Sa’d did render his decree that the men of Qurayza should be killed and their women and children pressed into slavery, Muhammad did not express the slightest bit of disapproval. In fact, the prophet of Islam confirmed this barbaric sentence to be Allah’s judgment as well (Bukhari 58:148).
Consider the contrast between the historical Muhammad and the man of “peace and forgiveness” that today’s Muslims try to assure us he was. In light of the fact that the Qurayza had not killed anyone, wouldn’t a true man of peace have simply sought dialogue with them to try and determine their grievance, find common ground and then resolve the matter with dignity to both parties?
Instead, the prophet of Islam had the men bound with rope. He dug trenches and then began beheading the captives in batches. In a scene that must have resembled footage of Hitler’s death squads, small groups of helpless Jews, who had done no harm to anyone, were brought out and forced to kneel, staring down at the bodies of others before their own heads were lopped off and their bodies pushed down into the ditch.
There is evidence that Muhammad personally engaged in the slaughter. Not only does the earliest narrative bluntly say that the apostle “sent for them” and “made an end of them,” but there is also support for this in the Quran. Verse 33:26 says of the Qurayza, “some you slew, some you took captive.” The Arabic "you: is in the plural, but the Quran is supposed to be Allah’s conversation with Muhammad, so it makes no sense that he would be excluded.
In any event, there is no denying that Muhammad found pleasure in the massacre, particularly after acquiring a pretty young Jewish girl (freshly "widowed" and thus available to him for sexual servitude) (Ishaq/Hisham 693).
Other women were not quite as compliant. The historians record the reaction of one woman who literally lost her mind as her family was being killed. The executioners apparently found her maniacal laughter annoying and beheaded her as well. As Aisha later recounted:
“I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed" (Abu Dawud 2665)
(One can forgive Aisha's obtuseness. At the time that she and her husband sat observing the carnage together, Muhammad's wife was only 12-years-old).
Boys as young as 13 or 14 were executed as well, provided that they had reached puberty. The Muslims ordered the boys to drop their clothes. Those with pubic hair then had their throats cut (Abu Dawud 4390). There was no point in trying to determine whether or not they were actual combatants because there were none. There had been no combat!
Muhammad parceled some of the widows and surviving children as slaves to his men for sexual servitude and labor. The wealth accumulated by the Qurayza was also divided. Since the tribe had been a peaceful farming and trading community, there were not enough weapons and horses taken to suit Muhammad’s tastes, so he obtained more of these by trading off some of the Qurayza women "for horses and weapons" in a distant slave market (Ishaq 693, Ibn Kathir v.3 p.172).
In addition to the main question as to why people who had not killed anyone were put to death and enslaved, others are raised as well. For example, the Quran says that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another" (Quran 53:38) yet every member of the tribe was punished for a decision pressed on one reluctant member.
And what of the places in the Quran where violent passages are sometimes mitigated by the occasional admonishment to cease killing those who stop fighting? The surrendered Qurayza had never even fought in the first place.
While Muslim apologists usually engage in deception in dealing with the challenges posed by this episode, the fate of the Qurayza is only the first of many such massacres that the Religion of Peace has provided the world. Whether it be the 4,000 Jews at Granada in 1066, the 100,000 Hindus on a single day in 1399, or the millions of Christian Armenians in the early 1900's, untold tens of millions of innocents have perished in mass executions at the hands of Islam's dedicated disciples...
Yet, there has never been, nor will there ever be an apology from those who follow Muhammad, since the massacre of infidels was the example personally set by their prophet at Qurayza.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Muhammad-approve-an-order-to-massacre-the-Banu-Qurayza-a-tribe-of-people-who-had-surrendered-unconditionally
Muhammad and his band of immigrants arrived in Medina in 622 completely dependent on the hospitality of the three Jewish tribes that lived there alongside the Arabs. In less than two years, two of the tribes that had welcomed him, the Banu Qaynuqa and the Banu Nadir would be evicted and banished, losing their land and their wealth to the Muslims as soon as their guests gained the power to conquer and confiscate. Muhammad accomplished this by deftly exploiting divisions.
The prophet of Islam chose the order of the doomed tribes carefully. He knew that the other two tribes would not come to the assistance of the first, for example, since they had been aligned against one another in a recent conflict. He also knew that the third would not assist the second - due to a dispute over "blood money."
The last tribe remaining was the Banu Qurayza. Like the others, the Qurayza were a peaceful community of farmers and tradesmen who eventually surrendered to Muhammad without a fight. Although the prophet of Islam had been wise enough not to order the wholesale slaughter of the first two tribes following their defeat (which certainly would have stiffened the resistance of the Qurayza), there was no practical reason for Muhammad to repress his genocidal urges once the last tribe had surrendered their wealth and power.
Some 800 surrendered men and boys (and at least one woman) from the Qurayza tribe were beheaded by the prophet of Islam in a bloodbath that is of acute embarrassment to today’s Muslim apologists (according to Ibn Kathir, the number ranges from 400-900 v.3 p.170). It is an episode that is not only completely at odds with the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, but also refutes the claim that it is the heir to Christianity, since even that religion’s most dedicated critics could hardly imagine Jesus and his disciples doing such a thing.
It is only in modern times (as Islam finds itself having to compete with morally mature religions in open debate) that the story of the massacre has become controversial. Some Muslims deny the episode, largely on the basis of mere inconvenience. Others are unaware of it altogether. But, the incident is well documented in the Sira (biography of Muhammad).
Since Islam makes no apologies, particularly for anything that Muhammad personally did, contemporary Muslims generally try to convince themselves that the victims of Qurayza deserved their fate. They must have turned on the Muslims in battle and inflicted many deaths, forcing Muhammad to yield to the wishes of his people and respond in kind.
Unfortunately, the accounts of what happened, as related to early Muslim historians by eyewitnesses, do not support this myth. In fact, it was the Qurayza who were caught in an impossible situation at the time, between the Muslims and their Meccan adversaries.
Shortly after arriving in Medina in 622, Muhammad began raiding merchant caravans traveling to and from his former home of Mecca. He would steal property and kill anyone who defended it (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 424-425). The Jews of Qurayza had nothing to do with this. Much like the Meccans, the Jews were also traders, and they appreciated the value of doing business securely in a crime-free environment. They neither encouraged Muhammad’s raids nor shared in his ill-gotten gain.
After a few years of this, the Meccans eventually realized that they would have to try and capture Medina, since it was being used as a base of piracy operations by Muhammad's gang. In 627, they sent an army to the outskirts of the city and appeared poised to take it in what has been called the Battle of the Trench (the Muslims dug a trench around the exposed northern and western parts of the city to stop the Meccan military advance).
The Qurayza, who lived to the east of Medina, away from the battle, were caught in a bad situation. Not responsible for Muhammad’s war, they were nonetheless drawn into it, particularly when they were approached by an emissary (a previously evicted Jewish leader) and asked not to assist Muhammad in his defense against the siege (to that point, the Qurayza had contributed digging tools to the Muslims, but not fighters).
The chief of the Qurayza did not wish even to entertain the envoy, but he was tricked into allowing him into his home (Ishaq/Hisham 674). Once there, the envoy began making the case that the battle was going against Muhammad and that his fall was imminent. The anguish of the Qurayza chief over the trying circumstances of the position that he felt forced into is noted even by Muslim historians:
When Ka'b heard of Huyayy's coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen... Then Huyayy accused him of [being inhospitable]... This so enraged Ka'b that he threw open his door. [Huyayy] said to him, "Good heavens, Ka'b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army... They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men. "Ka'b said, "By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud while it thunders and lightenings with nothing in it. Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am." (Ishaq/Hisham 674)
After much “wheedling” by the Meccans, however, the Qurayza leader finally gave in and agreed to remain neutral in the conflict. He would neither contribute fighters to the city’s defense nor assist its impending capture at the hands of an army with superior numbers. The Muslims would be left on their own to deal with the conflict they had provoked with the Quraish of Mecca.
The first twenty days of the conflict passed "without fighting" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 676) other than a few exchanges of arrows across the trench. A half-hearted effort on that day to breach the defenses proved fatal to the Meccan tribe, thus convincing their leader that they could not win unless the Qurayza joined the battle from the other side. However, the Jewish tribe refused, thus sealing their own fate (ironically) by prompting the Meccans to abandon the siege (Ibn Kathir v.3 p.154).
A grand total of just six Muslims had been killed at the Battle of the Trench. Each of their names were carefully recorded (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 699) - none were killed by the Qurayza or by anything done by the Qurayza.
With the battle over, however, Muhammad surprised his army by turning them against the Qurayza fortress, claiming that the neutrality of the leader was a breach of the original covenant of Medina which the prophet of Islam had personally drawn up for the tribes five years earlier. The original language of this 'treaty' is not known definitively. Later renderings as to what it may have said seem suspiciously tailored.
It is unlikely, for example, that the tribes of Medina would have given Muslims the right to slaughter them for merely speaking out against him, yet several prominent Jewish leaders and poets had been assassinated on Muhammad’s order prior to the Qurayza affair. At least one innocent merchant was slain by his Muslim business partner following Muhammad’s order in 624 for his men to “kill any Jew who falls into your power” (al-Tabari 7:97). Muhammad had also attacked the two other Jewish tribes – parties to the same agreement – looting their property and then evicting them from their land.
It is likely that the troubles Muhammad brought on Medina, through his mistreatment of the Jews and his relentless pursuit of hostilities against the Meccans, were part of the sales pitch made by the Meccans to the Qurayza leader to win his neutrality - along with the implicit threat of slaughter if the city were taken by the Meccans. From Kab's perspective, it would only be a matter of time before Muhammad found an excuse to attack and plunder his tribe as well.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, however, the Qurayza had not attacked the Muslims. In fact, had they attacked, then it surely would have been the end of Muhammad and his band of pirates since the southern end of the city was completely exposed to the Qurayza. In a terrible irony, it was the decision not to engage in violence that later sealed the fate of the Jews, who were only the first in a very long line of victims to horribly overestimate the value that Islam places on the lives of unbelievers.
The lack of participation in battle plainly refutes the apologist argument that the Qurayza had done something to merit their fate. Obviously they did not know this, otherwise they would have fought for their lives.
According to Muhammad, it was the angel Gabriel (seen only by himself, of course) who ordered the siege on the Qurayza. After twenty-five days of blockade, the Jews gave in and surrendered to the prophet of Islam. As Ibn Ishaq/Hisham puts it, they “submitted themselves to the Apostle’s judgment” (Ishaq/Hisham 688).
Another misconception popularized by apologists is that Muhammad did not render the death sentence against the Qurayza and was therefore not responsible for it. There is a partial truth in this, in that Muhammad attempted to offload responsibility onto another party. However, from the narrative, it is clear that Muhammad approved of the subsequent slaughter - a fact further verified both by his choice of "arbitrator" and his reaction to the 'verdict'.
First, the prophet of Islam tricked the Qurayza by getting them to agree to put their fate in the hands of "one of their own." In fact, this was a convert to Islam, a Muslim who had fought in the Battle of the Trench. Unbeknownst to the Qurayza, Sa’d bin Muadh had also been one of the few Muslims fatally injured in the battle (Ishaq/Hisham 689), which one can reasonably assume to have influenced his judgment. According to the Hadith, he was quite eager to continue slaying "unbelievers" even as he lay dying in his tent (Bukhari 59:448).
Secondly, when Sa’d did render his decree that the men of Qurayza should be killed and their women and children pressed into slavery, Muhammad did not express the slightest bit of disapproval. In fact, the prophet of Islam confirmed this barbaric sentence to be Allah’s judgment as well (Bukhari 58:148).
Consider the contrast between the historical Muhammad and the man of “peace and forgiveness” that today’s Muslims try to assure us he was. In light of the fact that the Qurayza had not killed anyone, wouldn’t a true man of peace have simply sought dialogue with them to try and determine their grievance, find common ground and then resolve the matter with dignity to both parties?
Instead, the prophet of Islam had the men bound with rope. He dug trenches and then began beheading the captives in batches. In a scene that must have resembled footage of Hitler’s death squads, small groups of helpless Jews, who had done no harm to anyone, were brought out and forced to kneel, staring down at the bodies of others before their own heads were lopped off and their bodies pushed down into the ditch.
There is evidence that Muhammad personally engaged in the slaughter. Not only does the earliest narrative bluntly say that the apostle “sent for them” and “made an end of them,” but there is also support for this in the Quran. Verse 33:26 says of the Qurayza, “some you slew, some you took captive.” The Arabic "you: is in the plural, but the Quran is supposed to be Allah’s conversation with Muhammad, so it makes no sense that he would be excluded.
In any event, there is no denying that Muhammad found pleasure in the massacre, particularly after acquiring a pretty young Jewish girl (freshly "widowed" and thus available to him for sexual servitude) (Ishaq/Hisham 693).
Other women were not quite as compliant. The historians record the reaction of one woman who literally lost her mind as her family was being killed. The executioners apparently found her maniacal laughter annoying and beheaded her as well. As Aisha later recounted:
“I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed" (Abu Dawud 2665)
(One can forgive Aisha's obtuseness. At the time that she and her husband sat observing the carnage together, Muhammad's wife was only 12-years-old).
Boys as young as 13 or 14 were executed as well, provided that they had reached puberty. The Muslims ordered the boys to drop their clothes. Those with pubic hair then had their throats cut (Abu Dawud 4390). There was no point in trying to determine whether or not they were actual combatants because there were none. There had been no combat!
Muhammad parceled some of the widows and surviving children as slaves to his men for sexual servitude and labor. The wealth accumulated by the Qurayza was also divided. Since the tribe had been a peaceful farming and trading community, there were not enough weapons and horses taken to suit Muhammad’s tastes, so he obtained more of these by trading off some of the Qurayza women "for horses and weapons" in a distant slave market (Ishaq 693, Ibn Kathir v.3 p.172).
In addition to the main question as to why people who had not killed anyone were put to death and enslaved, others are raised as well. For example, the Quran says that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another" (Quran 53:38) yet every member of the tribe was punished for a decision pressed on one reluctant member.
And what of the places in the Quran where violent passages are sometimes mitigated by the occasional admonishment to cease killing those who stop fighting? The surrendered Qurayza had never even fought in the first place.
While Muslim apologists usually engage in deception in dealing with the challenges posed by this episode, the fate of the Qurayza is only the first of many such massacres that the Religion of Peace has provided the world. Whether it be the 4,000 Jews at Granada in 1066, the 100,000 Hindus on a single day in 1399, or the millions of Christian Armenians in the early 1900's, untold tens of millions of innocents have perished in mass executions at the hands of Islam's dedicated disciples...
Yet, there has never been, nor will there ever be an apology from those who follow Muhammad, since the massacre of infidels was the example personally set by their prophet at Qurayza.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Muhammad-approve-an-order-to-massacre-the-Banu-Qurayza-a-tribe-of-people-who-had-surrendered-unconditionally
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
But where in the Koran does it mention that Mohammed personally killed 7-900
But where in the Koran does it mention that Mohammed personally killed 7-900
Oct 16, 2019 06:22:08 #
I appreciate the information...It was most thorough...
And I have no doubt as to its accuracy...
But it is inaccurate to state that its is found in the Koran...
And I have no doubt as to its accuracy...
But it is inaccurate to state that its is found in the Koran...
Oct 16, 2019 09:33:14 #
Zemirah wrote:
I've isolated these four paragraphs you've penned ... (show quote)
"The Jewish people have the ability to make money because God gave them that gift. It's not from a conspiracy, although jealous people choose to believe it is so." - Zemirah
So you think the Banking Cabal families (Rothschild, Warburgs, Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers etc.) are Jewish by ancestry?
Jesus called them out; He knew the Esau/Canaanite blood connections.
BTW; there is a reason these fraudulent Jews have been kicked out of countries throughout the centuries. The were always parasites on the host nations.
Usury is an abomination. A trap.
We are in that trap, by not following the constitution, Article 1; Section 8.
Only Congress shall have the power to issue our country's "money".
Oct 16, 2019 12:50:59 #
Canuckus,
The use of assassination to achieve political/religious goals has been important throughout the history of Arabia and Islamic expansion, and the very word "assassin" has Arabic roots (حشّاشين).
This online list contains the results and reasons for the targeted killings and assassinations ordered or supported by Prophet Muhammad, as well as the primary sources which mention these incidents.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
The Qur'an is written without context. As with most everything Islamic, the bare bones outline of the incident is there.
Without the Hadiths, the Qur'an makes no sense at all. That's why there are thousands of them. They tell you who, what, why, when, where. They are treated as Scripture within Islam because of their importance. Most were not written until centuries after Muhammad's death.
Following is their official explanation:
There are differences between Hadith and Quran. The Quran is:
The Words of God
Revealed in Arabic
In Rhythmical form
To Prophet (PBUH) {May Allah's Blessings and peace be upon him)
It's recitation is used in forms of worship such as salat
It's smallest chapter is a miracle in it of itself
Now there are two kinds of Ahadith,
Hadith Qudsi
Hadith Nabawi
Hadith Qudsi is:
The words of God in the words of the Prophet (May Allah's Blessings and Peace be upon Him)
In Arabic
It is not used in forms of worship
Here is a collection of Hadith Qudsi by Imam Annawawi:
40 Hadith Qudsi
Hadith Nabawi is:
The words of the Prophet (May Allah's blessings and peace be upon Him)
In Arabic
Gives us extra details about the forms of worship we are to do that is not in the Quran.
There are six major collections or books of Hadith:
Sahih Bukhari - صحيح بخاري, collected by Imam Bukhari (d. 870), includes 7275 ahadith
Sahih Muslim صحيح مسلم, collected by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875), includes 9200 ahadith
Sunan An-Nasa'i سنن النسائي, collected by An-Nasa'i (d. 915)
Sunan Abu Dawood سنن أبي داود, collected by Abu Dawood (d. 888)
Jami al-Tirmidhi جامع الترمذي, collected by al-Tirmidhi (d. 892)
Sunan ibn Majah سنن إبن ماجه, collected by Ibn Majah (d. 887)
So these are the main differences between the Quran, Hadith Qudsi, and Hadith Nabawi.
Source: The foundations of Islamic studies by Dr.Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Module 2 Tafseer
The use of assassination to achieve political/religious goals has been important throughout the history of Arabia and Islamic expansion, and the very word "assassin" has Arabic roots (حشّاشين).
This online list contains the results and reasons for the targeted killings and assassinations ordered or supported by Prophet Muhammad, as well as the primary sources which mention these incidents.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
The Qur'an is written without context. As with most everything Islamic, the bare bones outline of the incident is there.
Without the Hadiths, the Qur'an makes no sense at all. That's why there are thousands of them. They tell you who, what, why, when, where. They are treated as Scripture within Islam because of their importance. Most were not written until centuries after Muhammad's death.
Following is their official explanation:
There are differences between Hadith and Quran. The Quran is:
The Words of God
Revealed in Arabic
In Rhythmical form
To Prophet (PBUH) {May Allah's Blessings and peace be upon him)
It's recitation is used in forms of worship such as salat
It's smallest chapter is a miracle in it of itself
Now there are two kinds of Ahadith,
Hadith Qudsi
Hadith Nabawi
Hadith Qudsi is:
The words of God in the words of the Prophet (May Allah's Blessings and Peace be upon Him)
In Arabic
It is not used in forms of worship
Here is a collection of Hadith Qudsi by Imam Annawawi:
40 Hadith Qudsi
Hadith Nabawi is:
The words of the Prophet (May Allah's blessings and peace be upon Him)
In Arabic
Gives us extra details about the forms of worship we are to do that is not in the Quran.
There are six major collections or books of Hadith:
Sahih Bukhari - صحيح بخاري, collected by Imam Bukhari (d. 870), includes 7275 ahadith
Sahih Muslim صحيح مسلم, collected by Muslim b. al-Hajjaj (d. 875), includes 9200 ahadith
Sunan An-Nasa'i سنن النسائي, collected by An-Nasa'i (d. 915)
Sunan Abu Dawood سنن أبي داود, collected by Abu Dawood (d. 888)
Jami al-Tirmidhi جامع الترمذي, collected by al-Tirmidhi (d. 892)
Sunan ibn Majah سنن إبن ماجه, collected by Ibn Majah (d. 887)
So these are the main differences between the Quran, Hadith Qudsi, and Hadith Nabawi.
Source: The foundations of Islamic studies by Dr.Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Module 2 Tafseer
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I appreciate the information...It was most thorough...
And I have no doubt as to its accuracy...
But it is inaccurate to state that its is found in the Koran...
And I have no doubt as to its accuracy...
But it is inaccurate to state that its is found in the Koran...
Oct 16, 2019 13:33:00 #
Zemirah wrote:
Canuckus, br br The use of assassination to achi... (show quote)
The bottom line is; Beware of those that claim they are "Jews", but are not Jews.
Jesus gave that warning .
Oct 16, 2019 21:41:42 #
Zemirah wrote:
Canuckus, br br The use of assassination to achi... (show quote)
Once again, good information...
My reference was to your post...
Zemirah:
"2. Muhammad, by the end of his life, was completely evil. He stood at the market place in Medina all day long, and personally cut the throats of all the males over puberty from a Jewish tribe that had refused to accept his religion, from 700 to 900 men, and he gloried in it.
Evil is evil. Look it up in the Qur'an."
Yet the incident is not found in the Koran...
That was all that I was pointing out...
Unless you were referencing "evil is evil" being found in the Koran...
One should be careful not to dissimulate false information...
Oct 17, 2019 01:35:19 #
To the contrary, if this incident under discussion were not in the Qur'an, I would not know of it.
There is evidence that Muhammad personally engaged in the slaughter. Not only does the earliest narrative bluntly say that the apostle “sent for them” and “made an end of them,” but there is also support for this in the Quran. Verse 33:26 says of the Qurayza, “some you slew, some you took captive.” The Arabic "you: is in the plural, but the Quran is supposed to be Allah’s conversation with Muhammad, so it makes no sense that he would be excluded.
The incident is well documented in the Sira (biography of Muhammad), the earliest extant biography of the Prophet Muhammad, the "Sirat Rasul Allah," or The Life of the Prophet of God, by Ibn Ishaq (d. 767 CE.)
This is common. The Qur'an, the Sira and the Hadith(s) are usually all required to flesh out any "incident" referenced in the Qur'an.
As I said before, the Qur'an is a bare bones outline.
There is evidence that Muhammad personally engaged in the slaughter. Not only does the earliest narrative bluntly say that the apostle “sent for them” and “made an end of them,” but there is also support for this in the Quran. Verse 33:26 says of the Qurayza, “some you slew, some you took captive.” The Arabic "you: is in the plural, but the Quran is supposed to be Allah’s conversation with Muhammad, so it makes no sense that he would be excluded.
The incident is well documented in the Sira (biography of Muhammad), the earliest extant biography of the Prophet Muhammad, the "Sirat Rasul Allah," or The Life of the Prophet of God, by Ibn Ishaq (d. 767 CE.)
This is common. The Qur'an, the Sira and the Hadith(s) are usually all required to flesh out any "incident" referenced in the Qur'an.
As I said before, the Qur'an is a bare bones outline.
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Once again, good information... br br My referenc... (show quote)
Oct 17, 2019 01:46:48 #
John D. Rockefeller, Sr. was Baptist, as his mother had been.
I wasn't speaking of the "banking cabal," as I believe the terminology is twisted and ugly.
In concentrating on Christianity, and following Jude 3, to defend the gospel against false teachings, I've found none taught by the prominent banking families you mentioned.
I can see nowhere God said to chase after prominent banking families, and accuse them of nefarious motives.
I wasn't speaking of the "banking cabal," as I believe the terminology is twisted and ugly.
In concentrating on Christianity, and following Jude 3, to defend the gospel against false teachings, I've found none taught by the prominent banking families you mentioned.
I can see nowhere God said to chase after prominent banking families, and accuse them of nefarious motives.
eagleye13 wrote:
"The Jewish people have the ability to make m... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.