Oh, yes, your apology:
Posted on 04/07/2002 7:35:39 PM PDT by traditionalist
Thank You.
Regrettably, David was not Jewish, and neither were any of his ancestors. Being a descendent of Judah does not define Jewishness. Being a member of the Southern Kingdom does that, and includes Benjamites and Levites, who obviously were not descendents of Judah.
Oh, yes, your apology:
The fact of slavery by islam in Africa (Sudan) is rarely mentioned in the leftist news media today. Islam the peaceful religion (TM)!
LOL..undoubtedly. Speaking as someone who often has his nose in older sources, my observation is that the quality of scholarship in general peaked around 1850-1900 and tanked after WWII. I much prefer reading primary source histories, or a good 19th century one rather than any modern version for example.
Oh hey, and if you find any other good CE articles freepmail me.
What did the Church decide to do with the CE? That edition on the net is it? No updates?
Thanks for posting.
Whose definition? This sounds like a definition imposed on Israelites by Gentiles. there is confusion because the Hebrew word for "Judean" "Jew" and "of the tribe of Judah" is the same Yehudim/Yehudot.
Besides, I know Danites and Ephraimites who are called Jews. For all intensive purposes, Jew=Israelite in the post Roman world.
When LostTribe said that David et all where not Jews it is hard to tell what he means. This is a crackpot who claims that the Celts are decended from the Northern Kingdom.
He has a lot of company in the serious scholarly community. This idea is not new at all, in fact it's at least several hundred years old. Go to any major University in Europe and you can find out all sorts of confirming information.
It sounds like you have led too sheltered a life and can only spout what someone (in the temple) told you about history. Maybe when you grow up...
Say, aren't you that snotty nosed kid who was always whining and running off to scream ABUSE every time someone disagreed with you?
500 years ago scholars thought the American Indians were the Lost Tribes. That doesn't make it logical.
The lack of linguistic or genetic evidence makes both theories laughable but for the vicious anti-semites who claim that Europeans are the real Jews.
It sounds like you have led too sheltered a life and can only spout what someone (in the temple) told you about history. Maybe when you grow up...
WE were too busy playing Hebrew baseball.
Unlike some people I read and look at facts.
Say, aren't you that snotty nosed kid who was always whining and running off to scream ABUSE every time someone disagreed with you?
Nope. Actually I've had people go to the moderator about me.
Have you seen this article, its by a (Catholic) female Professor at Harvard. It explains how the Church did, compared to every other religion/entity, champion the rights of women.
As for slavery, the Catholic Church was already excommunicating anybody involved in the slave trade by the 17th century(whether people obeyed is a different story). Long before Protestants took a hold of the idea and fought against slavery here in the states.
Ok, that's someone else with a bio very similar to yours, but maybe he was a little younger. Had the same MO. Narrow minded, loud mouthed, offensive, a bullying know it all, busy making enemies instead of friends. A real narrow-gauge guy who doesn't understand that actions have consequences, long term if not sooner. I get you guys mixed up.
Show me any respected historian/scientist who thinks the Celts were the so-called "lost tribes." 19th Century fantasy!!!
Tin foil time!!!
They took the Cross, and acted no better than pirates. They betrayed not only the innocent people they attacked and dislocated, but the Church (and Pope) itself, and their own supposed (moral, ethical and religious) principles.
What is this "universally accepted" stuff? That smells of pure bluff, backed up only by a big mouth.
I think the key word there was seriously. They may fervently argue it but even they aren't brainwashed enough to actually believe it.
"Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. Gal 2:3-5"
The freedom and slavery talked about in that verse relate to the freedom from and slavery to the law (of Moses : the ten commandments and the multitude added by the jews) not being a slave or freeman as related to being owned by another human.
Christ fulfilled the law and therfore freed us from having to obey the letter of the law. What God wants is not for us to obey the law (since no man can possibly obey all the law, that was the point) but to have a relationship with god the father and god the son and then the holy spirit will abide within us and make us want to do what god wants, instead of us trying to fight our sin nature that we are unable to resist.
Ah...., but that was before the revolution. It was the revolution that caused the great destruction of France. To my understanding it was the only revolution that demanded not only the slaughter of the royal family, not only the slaughter of all people with power/authority, but also all people with any education. What are you then left with? A nation of Idiots!! (ok, I know, knowledge does not equate to intelligence, but that's my claim anyway!!!)
I think the point I was making was that the Bible treats freedom as a good thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.