Posted on 07/25/2002 6:50:55 AM PDT by SJackson
Not so, unfortunately. Some may have this opinion, but other evangelical groups pour tens of millions of dollars into efforts to convert Jews (see "Jews for Jesus" and the proliferation of "messianic Jewish" groups).
And they tend to vote. New Yorks 9% or so Jewish population translates to nearly 14% of the vote. My only point was that in a political context, at least on FR, it may get too much of attention as a race determinate (outside of New York, New Jersey maybe Florida) other than in a very, very close race. And I know how close Florida was.
Look at Hillary, she got around 53% of the Jewish vote vs 80% in NY for Gore. A major failure for her, and I'd suggest a major defection of democratic Jewish voters. But it was an easy election for Senator Hillary. I wouldn't want to base my hopes for California on a shift in Jewish votes, which isn't to say I don't want to see it.
Need to get your own private BB if you want to wallow in erroneous self-indulgence without public critique.
Can you offer an alternate explanation of what happened to millions of the House of Israel and the origin of the celts with some hard evidence? When a length of red string passing in front of the eyes changes to blue, one has to conclude it is still the same string based on prima facie evidence. Hard evidence is necessary when one wants to claim that the string were switched.
Do you have any alternate interpretation that would change the meaning of the plain words of Hosea 1:10, 11? One that makes sense? If you do, it's time to offer it. Much more delay will tend to change, "I just don't believe it." into "I just don't want to believe it." And from there the position deteriorates quickly.
You might be very surprised how many of us are watching, but not saying very much. I think Lost Tribe is right on target and I've been following his posts for a long time. If that offends your superior sensibilities, well ;;;;;
Ha! Do you really think historic accuracy is in any way dependent on some kind of a vote? IMHO your time would be better spent examining why you are so fearful of confronting historic truths. Do you have something to lose?
This is prima facie evidence for the accuracy for his information. Each time someone posts a comment other than alternative information or evidence, it just reinforces the prima facie aspect.
"I just don't believe it." don't get it, friend. That actually impresses folks the other way. Now, I'd recommend that you get on with something of substance other than merely bitching that I support losttribe.
You are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Sure. Sorry, but just because people are tired of hearing you repeat your eccentric theories and spamming threads with the same nonsense, does not mean that you have proven your case. Maybe, just maybe, you are so far out there that no one takes you seriously.
What sets people off more than anything else is the hijacking of this and other threads from whatever topic is being discussed to LT's peculiar agenda. You could start a thread over on the "Religion" forum and post up a storm about the "British Israelites" and nobody would would say boo. But it is barging into threads where people are discussing current events and changing the topic. It is not from having inadequate data to be able to refute your hypotheses (it's quite easily done) but THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC BEING DISCUSSED HERE.
This is my absolute, penultimate post on the topic of "LostTribe's" agenda which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with this thread or any other thread in the News/Activism forum.
British Israelism debunked here and here and here and here and here.
What "rest of the world"? Show me the rest of the world.
Nobody can "change the topic". FReepers talk about what they want to talk about.
A review of my posts over the years will show that my comments on the subject of The Lost Tribes of Israel and related topics have always come in response to something someone said on that thread which was in conflict with historic truth. That activity simply does not meet the definition of "barging into a thread ... and changing the topic".
>It is not from having inadequate data to be able to refute your hypotheses (it's quite easily done)
Talk is cheap. Put your money where your mouth is. And say it in YOUR OWN WORDS, not something you have hacked from some other site.
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.