/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>So I think it goes without saying

THEN Y MAKE THREAD >:( ??

>>763870

Read it again, there are no doubts regarding the faith of modern day Jews and it's relation to the faith of the Biblical Jews.

The question is in the second part, I'm curious whether or not most modern day Jews can even claim ethnic relation to Biblical Jews or not.

>>763876

I actually don't think they really care anymore.

It's more about some vague relation to things like the holocoaster and being cut up in infancy.

Rare few Jews actually care about their religion anymore and I think their numbers will start dropping radically in the near future.

>>763867

There is some ethnic relation, which has been determined by comparisons of modern Jews’ DNA to that of 1st century Jews. However, modern Jews regard their Jewishness as matrilineal, whereas in the Bible it was always patrilineal, making most (if not all) modern “Jews” not really Jews.

>>763891

Fascinating with the matrilineal and patrilineal comment there.

>>763867

Partially.

They are def mixed with the locals from where they settled after the diaspora, but to claim absolutely no relation is stupid, and makes no sense theologically for our prophecies(returning to Israel, or converting to Christianity before the End Times)

>>763896

Yeah, the switch was made sometime from 10 to 70 AD, apparently. No real explanation given.

>>763915

Big think.

http://faithandheritage.com/2017/03/ehud-woulds-first-podcast-the-white-christ/

>Suffice it to say, without plunging into any abstruse detail of Greek and Hebrew etymology, that the translators of our English Bibles have enjoyed an historical consensus in describing king David as “white and ruddy” (1 Sam. 16:12 and 17:42).

>Likewise is his son Solomon described as “white and ruddy” (Song 5:10), and the context compels this translation aggressively, further describing Solomon’s belly to have been “as bright ivory” (Song 5:14). And speaking of groups of Israelites as “purer than snow, whiter than milk, ruddy in body” (Lam. 4:7).

>Isaiah spoke redundantly about the Israelites being made to blush (Isa. 1:29 and 54:4).

>God caused Israel to blush (Ps. 44:9).

>And I hate to break it to all those who imagine Boaz and Ruth to have been an interracial union, but Boaz, come of a blushing people, spoke of Ruth as blushing too (Ruth 2:15).

They are related but they are mixed between Edomites, Canaanites, Khazars, and other groups from Eastern Europe and the Caucasus

>>764000

Oh, look, the white version of those "random, disjointed verses says wooly hair, brozen skin, and other stuff, so Moses looked like Jamal".

Cringe.

>>764016

oh look, someone who doesn't bother to read before criticizing

>>764000

>https://www.livescience.com/49147-egyptian-cemetery-million-mummies.html

>Blond and redheaded mummies

>Muhlestein said he and the other researchers can use the database to "show us all of the blond burials, and [it shows] they are clustered in one area, or all of the red-headed burials, and [it shows] they're clustered in another area."

>https://www.nature.com/news/farming-invented-twice-in-middle-east-genomes-study-reveals-1.20119

>Dozens of studies have examined the genetics of the first European farmers, who emigrated from the Middle East beginning some 8,000 years ago

Science supports the belief that 'white and ruddy' people existed in the near east and along the Nile during Biblical times.

>>764016

Except there's secular evidence to back up his interpretation of the verses.

Science says that no white people lived in Europe before the first European Farmers. The earlier people were 'Western Hunter Gatherers,' and had brown skin and dark hair.

If white people didn't live in Europe, and we find millions of blond and redheaded mummies in Egypt - where were they? The only explaination is that whites lived in the near east.

Archaeologically, the boundries between Hebrew, Egyptian and Phoenician civilization become blurred together sometime before 1000BC. The Ahiram sarcophagus is an Egyptian burial practice, covered in Phoenician characters - which are the basis of the Hebrew alphabet;

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahiram_sarcophagus

>For some scholars it represents the terminus post quem of the transmission of the alphabet to Europe

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_alphabet

>A distinct Hebrew variant of the Phoenician script, called by scholars the paleo-Hebrew alphabet, emerged around 800 BCE

Phoenicians were genetically European;

>https://phys.org/news/2016-05-ancient-dna-phoenician-carthage-european.html

This is essentially what's called, 'British Israelism.'

>ethnic

>>764035

Ah yes.

>But this pic of a straight, fair heared/curly dark haired mummy proves we wuz kangs;

>Study X shows some euro/SSA admixture, so everyone was an alabaster skinned nazi wet dream/dark as charcoal.

Every time.

Add some naratives about how the arab invasion melanized everyone in the complete opposite way, and the raciocentrist bingo is complete.

No.

The Bible describes the group that fled Egypt as a mixed crowd(not in the racial sense), and some later incidents of gaining some foreign converts.

Yes, there were lighter skinned jews, but in short, the whole group was like the copts and maronites today, or what >>764062 is saying.

Good old meds.

British Israelism is just 19th century we wuz kangsery that gets resurrected among racialists from time to time..

This is so stupid. Why do people always assume native middle easterners can’t be pale? Jews are obviously related to ancient levantines but some are heavily mixed with Europeans. But that doesn’t mean all ‘pure’ levantines are dark brown bedouins.

I’m Levantine, I have pale olive skin and dark eyes and curly hair. If I shave my beard, I get mistaken as Jewish or Greek often. There are a lot of levantines ahd even North Africans that are pale. So yes some biblical people were pale, but that doesn’t make them magically a completely different race of mysterious aryans that got replaced by the “invading Arabs” of today.

It’s an insult to levantines that we’re all invasive foreigners and that the “true” Hebrews are extinct. It’s also not giving any credit to jews who, despite their disgraceful religion, are ethnically very similar to ancient Near Easterners.

Don't call it "Biblical Judaism". Call it "Old Testament Christianity".

Don't call them "Biblical Jews". Call them either "Hebrews" or "Israelites".

>>764665

>we Lebanese are mixed with Arabs and Meds

>Arabs

No habibi. We aren't mixed with Arabs. The Muslims are closer genetically to the Arabs, but that's for obvious reasons. The Christians on the other hand, especially the Maronites, have remained ethnically homogeneous ever since they set foot in Lebanon.

>>763867

no, the genealogies were destroyed. no jew today can claim descent from any of the 12 tribes

>>763897

>muh prophecies

You probably don’t understand who the modern descendants of certain tribes in the Bible are and you certainly don’t see all references in Revelation to the other parts of the Bible.

>>763867

The jews have a little Judahite admixture but they’re mostly edomite.