Is eating Pork wrong?

[InSpiritInTruth]

Gentiles? Non-Jews?
How could someone be a non-Jew by birth?

Ephesians 2:11:Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)—

- New International Version

In Webster's 1828 ''Gentile'' carries many meanings and one stands out...

In civil affairs, the denomination was given to all nations who were not Romans.

That would make Jesus and the Apostles gentiles as they were not Romans but Paul would not be a gentile as he was a Roman.(Acts 22:27-29)

So does that make Jesus and the Apostles, non-Jews and Paul a Jew?



The Mosaic law was not given to a Jew either...

Leviticus 24:22
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.

The Lord covered them all.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Romans 11:1:I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Paul was not of the Tribe of Judah.

And still a Jew who said genealogies are vain and not to give heed to them, the endless torturous conversations they become

Thou shalt know them by their DNA

 

[sleepingdog]

Because we are the "uncircumcised"?

Are you required to be circumcised?



All of the Apostles were Jew by birth.



Heiferdust. Again, the fact remains that the Mosaic law was not given to the Christian.

Your claiming Gentiles are non-Jews,and that someone can be a non-Jew by birth even though Jew simply means a geographic address or Tribe,how do you figure that?

Your confusing Jew with Israel.The Apostles were Israelites,not Jews,Jew is a geographic address.
How can someone be a geographic address or a Tribe by birth?

"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." 1980 Jewish Almanac, P.3


Neither was the Mosaic law given to the Jews...

 

[Fireinfolding]

Because we are the "uncircumcised"?

Are you required to be circumcised?

Poor Tim

Acts 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.

They had a fit over uncircumcised men, but the circumcision of the flesh, Greeks were welcomed once they were circumcised

 

[sleepingdog]

And still a Jew who said genealogies are vain and not to give heed to them, the endless torturous conversations they become

Thou shalt know them by their DNA

How could he be a Jew?(when I have given the Strong's definition of Jew many times in this thread)


.....Christians want something simple,enough said.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Your claiming Gentiles are non-Jews,and that someone can be a non-Jew by birth even though Jew simply means a geographic address or Tribe,how do you figure that?

Your confusing Jew with Israel.The Apostles were Israelites,not Jews,Jew is a geographic address.
How can someone be a geographic address or a Tribe by birth?

"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." 1980 Jewish Almanac, P.3


Neither was the Mosaic law given to the Jews...

Paul was a JEW and Israelite see?

2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.

Acts 21:39 Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city

 

[Fireinfolding]

How could he be a Jew?(when I have given the Strong's definition of Jew many times in this thread)


.....Christians want something simple,enough said.

Are you a muslim?

 

[sleepingdog]

Are you a muslim?

I am a Christian.

Why?

 

[Fireinfolding]

I am a Christian.

Why?

You said christians as if you werent one.

You seem uptight aut christians and Jews and well... your questions I got curious.

 

[sleepingdog]

You said christians as if you werent one.

You seem uptight aut christians and Jews and well... your questions I got curious.

I'm a non-denominational Christian,I feel mainstream Christians only like to hear what they want to hear.
I feel they are simple,you can have a conversation with them on a forum,but they will lead you around in circles,again and again.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I'm a non-denominational Christian,I feel mainstream Christians only like to hear what they want to hear.
I feel they are simple,you can have a conversation with them on a forum,but they will lead you around in circles,again and again.

Are you sure you arent what you feel they might be?

Busting your chops lol

 

[sleepingdog]

Paul was a JEW and Israelite see?

2Cr 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.

Acts 21:39 Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city

Jew in Acts 21:39 is a geographic address...

2453. Ioudaios ee-oo-dah'-yos from 2448 (in the sense of 2455 as a country); Judaean, i.e. belonging to Jehudah:--Jew(-ess), of Judaea.

How could Paul be of the Tribe of Judah?

Example of a Geographic address.

Matthew 4:25:And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.



Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon - STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE

The Thirteenth Tribe - Page 172
The Thirteenth Tribe - Page 173
The Thirteenth Tribe - Page 174

Arthur koestler,a Jew gives the origin of the Jewish language through his study in his book the Thriteenth Tribe,it is Yiddish.

YIDDISH ARTHUR KOESTLER

Further evidence against the supposedly Franco-Rhenish origin of Eastern Jewry is provided by the structure of Yiddish, the popular language of the Jewish masses, spoken by millions before the holocaust, and still surviving among traditionalist minorities in the Soviet Union and the United States. .Yiddish is a curious amalgam of Hebrew, mediaeval German, Slavonic and other elements, written in Hebrew characters. Now that it is dying out, it has become a subject of much academic research in the United States and Israel, but until well into the twentieth century it was considered by Western linguists as merely an odd jargon, hardly worth serious study. As H. Smith remarked: "Little attention has been paid to Yiddish by scholars. Apart from a few articles in periodicals, the first really scientific study of the language was Mieses's Historical Grammar published in 1924. It is significant that the latest edition of the standard historical grammar of German, which treats German from the point of view of its dialects, dismisses Yiddish in twelve lines."6 .At first glance the prevalence of German loanwords in Yiddish seems to contradict our main thesis on the origins of Eastern Jewry; we shall see presently that the opposite is true, but the argument involves several steps. The first is to inquire what particular kind of regional German dialect went into the Yiddish vocabulary. Nobody before Mieses seems to have paid serious attention to this question; it is to his lasting merit to have done so, and to have come up with a conclusive answer. Based on the study of the vocabulary, phonetics and syntax of Yiddish as compared with the main German dialects in the Middle Ages, he concludes:
No linguistic components derived from the parts of Germany bordering on France are found in the Yiddish language. Not a single word from the entire list of specifically Moselle-Franconian origin compiled by J. A. Ballas (Beitrge zur Kunntnis der Trierischen Volkssprache, 1903, 28ff.) has found its way into the Yiddish vocabulary. Even the more central regions of Western Germany, around Frankfurt, have not contributed to the Yiddish language....7 Insofar as the origins of Yiddish are concerned, Western Germany can be written off....8 Could it be that the generally accepted view, according to which the German Jews once upon a time immigrated from France across the Rhine, is misconceived? The history of the German Jews, of Ashkenazi*[For "Ashkenazi" see below, VIII, I] Jewry, must be revised. The errors of history are often rectified by linguistic research. The conventional view of the erstwhile immigration of Ashkenazi Jews from France belongs to the category of historic errors which are awaiting correction.9
He then quotes, among other examples of historic fallacies, the case of the Gypsies, who were regarded as an offshoot from Egypt, "until linguistics showed that they come from India".10 .Having disposed of the alleged Western origin of the Germanic element in Yiddish, Mieses went on to show that the dominant influence in it are the so-called "East-Middle German" dialects which were spoken in the Alpine regions of Austria and Bavaria roughly up to the fifteenth century. In other words, the German component which went into the hybrid Jewish language originated in the eastern regions of Germany, adjacent to the Slavonic belt of Eastern Europe. .Thus the evidence from linguistics supports the historical record in refuting the misconception of the Franco-Rhenish origins of Eastern Jewry. But this negative evidence does not answer the question how an East-Middle German dialect combined with Hebrew and Slavonic elements became the common language of that Eastern Jewry, the majority of which we assume to have been of Khazar origin. .In attempting to answer this question, several factors have to be taken into consideration. First, the evolution of Yiddish was a long and complex process, which presumably started in the fifteenth century or even earlier; yet it remained for a long time a spoken language, a kind of lingua franca, and appears in print only in the nineteenth century. Before that, it had no established grammar, and "it was left to the individual to introduce foreign words as he desires. There is no established form of pronunciation or spelling.... The chaos in spelling may be illustrated by the rules laid down by the Jüdische Volks- Bibliothek: (1) Write as you speak, (2) write so that both Polish and Lithuanian Jews may understand you, and (3) spell differently words of the same sound which have a different signification."11 .Thus Yiddish grew, through the centuries, by a kind of untrammelled proliferation, avidly absorbing from its social environments such words, phrases, idiomatic expressions as best servedits purpose as a lingua franca. But the culturally and socially dominant element in the environment of mediaeval Poland were the Germans. They alone, among the immigrant populations, were economically and intellectually more influential than the Jews. We have seen that from the early days of the Piast dynasty, and particularly under Casimir the Great, everything was done to attract immigrants to colonize the land and build "modern" cities. Casimir was said to have "found a country of wood and left a country of stone". But these new cities of stone, such as Krakau (Cracow) or Lemberg (Lwow) were built and ruled by German immigrants, living under the so-called Magdeburg law, i.e., enjoying a high degree of municipal self-government. Altogether not less than four million Germans are said to have immigrated into Poland,12 providing it with an urban middleclass that it had not possessed before. As Poliak has put it, comparing the German to the Khazar immigration into Poland: "the rulers of the country imported these masses of much-needed enterprising foreigners, and facilitated their settling down according to the way of life they had been used to in their countries of origin: the German town and the Jewish shtetl". (However, this tidy separation became blurred when later Jewish arrivals from the West also settled in the towns and formed urban ghettoes.) .Not only the educated bourgeoisie, but the clergy too, was predominantly German - a natural consequence of Poland opting for Roman Catholicism and turning toward Western civilization, just as the Russian clergy after Vladimir's conversion to Greek orthodoxy was predominantly Byzantine. Secular culture followed along the same lines, in the footsteps of the older Western neighbour. The first Polish university was founded in 1364 in Cracow, then a predominantly German city.*[One of its students in the next century was Nicolaus Copernicus or Mikolaj Koppernigk whom both Polish and German patriots later claimed as their national.] As Kutschera, the Austrian, has put it,rather smugly:
The German colonists were at first regarded by the people with suspicion and distrust; yet they succeeded in gaining an increasingly firm foothold, and even in introducing the German educational system. The Poles learnt to appreciate the advantages of the higher culture introduced by the Germans and to imitate their foreign ways. The Polish aristocracy, too, grew fond of German customs and found beauty and pleasure in whatever came from Germany.13
Not exactly modest, but essentially true. One remembers the high esteem for German Kultur among nineteenth-century Russian intellectuals. .It is easy to see why Khazar immigrants pouring into mediaeval Poland had to learn German if they wanted to get on. Those who had close dealings with the native populace no doubt also had to learn some pidgin Polish (or Lithuanian, or Ukrainian or Slovene); German, however, was a prime necessity in any contact with the towns. But there was also the synagogue and the study of the Hebrew thorah. One can visualize a shtetl craftsman, a cobbler perhaps, or a timber merchant, speaking broken German to his clients, broken Polish to the serfs on the estate next door; and at home mixing the most expressive bits of both with Hebrew into a kind of intimate private language. How this hotchpotch became communalized and standardized to the extent to which it did, is any linguist's guess; but at least one can discern some further factors which facilitated the process. .Among the later immigrants to Poland there were also, as we have seen, a certain number of "real" Jews from the Alpine countries, Bohemia and eastern Germany. Even if their number was relatively small, these German-speaking Jews were superior in culture and learning to the Khazars, just as the German Gentiles were culturally superior to the Poles. And just as the Catholic clergy was German, so the Jewish rabbis from the West were a powerful factor in the Germanization of the Khazars, whose Judaism was fervent but primitive. To quote Poliak again:
Those German Jews who reached the kingdom of Poland-Lithuania had an enormous influence on their brethren from the east. The reason why the [Khazar] Jews were so strongly attracted to them was that they admired their religious learning and their efficiency in doing business with the predominantly German cities.... The language spoken at the Heder, the school for religious teaching, and at the house of the Ghevir [notable, rich man] would influence the language of the whole community.14
A rabbinical tract from seventeenth-century Poland contains the pious wish: "May God will that the country be filled with wisdom and that all Jews speak German."15.Characteristically, the only sector among the Khazarian Jews in Poland which resisted both the spiritual and worldly temptations offered by the German language were the Karaites, who rejected both rabbinical learning and material enrichment. Thus they never took to Yiddish. According to the first all-Russian census in 1897, there were 12894 Karaite Jews living in the Tsarist Empire (which, of course, included Poland). Of these 9666 gave Turkish as their mother tongue (i.e., presumably their original Khazar dialect), 2632 spoke Russian, and only 383 spoke Yiddish. .The Karaite sect, however, represents the exception rather than the rule. In general, immigrant populations settling in a new country tend to shed their original language within two or three generations and adopt the language of their new country.*[This does not, of course, apply to conquerors and colonizers, who impose their own language on the natives.] The American grandchildren of immigrants from Eastern Europe never learn to speak Polish or Ukrainian, and find the jabber-wocky of their grandparents rather comic. It is difficult to see how historians could ignore the evidence for the Khazar migration into Poland on the grounds that more than half a millennium later they speak a different language. .Incidentally, the descendants of the biblical Tribes are the classic example of linguistic adaptability. First they spoke Hebrew; in the Babylonian exile, Chaldean; at the time of Jesus, Aramaic; in Alexandria, Greek; in Spain, Arabic, but later Ladino - a Spanish-Hebrew mixture, written in Hebrew characters, the Sephardi equivalent of Yiddish; and so it goes on. They preserved their religious identity, but changed languages at their convenience. The Khazars were not descended from the Tribes, but, as we have seen, they shared a certain cosmopolitanism and other social characteristics with their co-religionists.



Poliak has proposed an additional hypothesis concerning the early origins of Yiddish, which deserves to be mentioned, though it is rather problematical. He thinks that the "shape of early Yiddish emerged in the Gothic regions of the Khazar Crimea. In those regions the conditions of life were bound to bring about a combination of Germanic and Hebrew elements hundreds of years before the foundation of the settlements in the Kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania."16 .Poliak quotes as indirect evidence a certain Joseph Barbaro of Venice, who lived in Tana (an Italian merchant colony on the Don estuary) from 1436 to 1452, and who wrote that his German servant could converse with a Goth from the Crimea just as a Florentine could understand the language of an Italian from Genoa. As a matter of fact, the Gothic language survived in the Crimea (and apparently nowhere else) at least to the middle of the sixteenth century. At that time the Habsburg ambassador in Constantinople, Ghiselin de Busbeck, met people from the Crimea, and made a list of words from the Gothic that they spoke. (This Busbeck must have been a remarkable man, for it was he who first introduced the lilac and tulip from the Levant to Europe.)



Poliak considers this vocabulary to be close to the Middle High German elements found in Yiddish. He thinks the Crimean Goths kept contact with other Germanic tribes and that their language was influenced by them. Whatever one may think of it, it is a hypothesis worth the linguist's attention.

 

[Hentenza]

Your claiming Gentiles are non-Jews,and that someone can be a non-Jew by birth even though Jew simply means a geographic address or Tribe,how do you figure that?

Your confusing Jew with Israel.The Apostles were Israelites,not Jews,Jew is a geographic address.
How can someone be a geographic address or a Tribe by birth?

"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." 1980 Jewish Almanac, P.3


Neither was the Mosaic law given to the Jews...

The bible calls the apostles and Jesus Ἰουδαίων (Jews) and calls those that Moses took out of Egypt הָעִבְרִ֑י (Hebrews) so I will go with the bible and not with your interpretation.

The fact still remains that the Mosaic law was not given to the Christian.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Sleepingdog I really dont follow the flesh lineages, or read outside the scriptures outside of fellowshipping on these forums. I think we might just be seeking different things at the moment, I know this is of great interest to you, I dont share this same interest or way of reasoning with things is all.

I hope you understand, I dont say that to put you down, but I know I wont be too helpful to you.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I had already been down that Ashkenazi road many years back, let that go over time is all

 

[sleepingdog]

The bible calls the apostles and Jesus Ἰουδαίων (Jews) and calls those that Moses took out of Egypt הָעִבְרִ֑י (Hebrews) so I will go with the bible and not with your interpretation.

The fact still remains that the Mosaic law was not given to the Christian.

And how are Jesus and the Apostles Jews?What makes them Jews?
Jesus and the Apostles were not Romans,that would make them Gentiles.

the denomination was given to all nations who were not Romans. 1828 Webster's

The Jew Arthur Koestler in his study claims the Jewish language is Yiddish not Hebrew.
Are you going to claim that a Jew is wrong because you do not like what his study shows?



"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." 1980 Jewish Almanac, P.3

Are you going to do what the Jews say is INCORRECT?

 

[sleepingdog]

Sleepingdog I really dont follow the flesh lineages, or read outside the scriptures outside of fellowshipping on these forums. I think we might just be seeking different things at the moment, I know this is of great interest to you, I dont share this same interest or way of reasoning with things is all.

I hope you understand, I dont say that to put you down, but I know I wont be too helpful to you.

OK

 

[Hentenza]

And how are Jesus and the Apostles Jews?What makes them Jews?
Jesus and the Apostles were not Romans,that would make them Gentiles.

the denomination was given to all nations who were not Romans. 1828 Webster's

The Jew Arthur Koestler in his study claims the Jewish language is Yiddish not Hebrew.
Are you going to claim that a Jew is wrong because you do not like what his study shows?



"Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an Israelite or a Hebrew." 1980 Jewish Almanac, P.3

Are you going to do what the Jews say is INCORRECT?

I am going to follow the original language of scripture which was written by Hebrews and Jews. I am not going to follow your interpretation or the 1980 Jewish (lol) Almanac.

 

[sleepingdog]

I am going to follow the original language of scripture which was written by Hebrews and Jews. I am not going to follow your interpretation or the 1980 Jewish (lol) Almanac.

So you insist that Jews speak Hebrew even though they don't?
It is not my interpretation,it is a Jewish almanac!

So you are going to do what they say is incorrect?

Are you saying that Arthur Koestler's study on the origin of the Jews was pointless?



You didn't answer this...

And how are Jesus and the Apostles Jews?What makes them Jews?
Jesus and the Apostles were not Romans,that would make them Gentiles.

the denomination was given to all nations who were not Romans. 1828 Webster's

 

[Hentenza]

So you insist that Jews speak Hebrew even though they don't?

I don't insist that they speak anything, although, Hebrew was what they spoke in biblical times.

It is not my interpretation,it is a Jewish almanac!

Shouldn't it be called the Israeli Almanac then?

So you are going to do what they say is incorrect?

I am saying that I am going to use the original language used in scripture as my guide and I am going to discard anyone else's opinion. I think that is simple to understand.

Are you saying that Arthur Koestler's study on the origin of the Jews was pointless?

I ahve never read Arthur Keostler so I really do not have an opinion.

You didn't answer this...

And how are Jesus and the Apostles Jews?What makes them Jews?

They were born in Israel and they followed the Judaism religion. Jesus recruited the apostles and then died for us to usher in the New Covenant. At that time the apostles no longer followed Judaism and became Christian. The original authors of scripture called them Ἰουδαίων and so will I.

Jesus and the Apostles were not Romans,that would make them Gentiles.

Gentiles were all that did not follow Judaism. During Jesus time there were many Romans and Greeks within Jerusalem so the term was interchangeable with them. However, in the OT many people that did not follow Judaism were called gentiles.

the denomination was given to all nations who were not Romans. 1828 Webster's

Use scripture instead of Webster's dictionary. It will serve you much better.