www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Persecution of Christians in Islam

There are DNA markers that have been found, especially for the priestly tribes (the Cohens, etc.) where miticondrial DNA shows a higher percentage of such families have a particular set of "genes(?)" than other Jews. Non-Jews, apparently, show little or no correlation with these markers.

A team went to Zimbabwe where there are some African peoples who claim to be Jewish (and that they were converted by Jewish merchants during the OT period). Sure enough, they found the "priestly family" markers. The blood collection was done in Zimbabwe, but the DNA analysis was done in a blind analysis in Europe.

So the Jews have maintained a great deal of ethnic homogeneity to judge by the DNA!

Borislav:

I suspect Joe is thinking of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which in Chapter 10, states,

1: For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near.
2: Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin.
3: But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year.
4: For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.
5: Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me;
6: in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure.
7: Then I said, `Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,' as it is written of me in the roll of the book."
8: When he said above, "Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law),
9: then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.

Ryan

I do not think that this is an abolishment of the OT.

The Christ said numerous times that He did not come to destroy or abolish the old, but rather to add to it.

Pakistan

Borislav:

It seems to me that the claim that Joe is making has to do with the mediation of the covenant. Prior to Christ, the covenant was mediated by the Aaronic priesthood, using the blood of "goats and bulls." Since the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Christ, the covenant is mediated by Christ, using his own blood. The mediation of the covenant by the Aaronic priesthood was limited in that it was only for the benefit of Israel. Christ has replaced the offering of the blood of "goats and bulls" for the sins of the people of Israel with the offering of his own blood, which is for the benefit of all who believe, be they of Israel or not. It seems to me that this is pretty basic stuff for anyone who takes seriously the Epistle to the Hebrews and other NT texts that demonstrate that is no longer by physical descent from Abraham that one is deemed a member of the people of God, but by faith in Christ. Do you deny this?

Ryan

Absolutely not. I do not deny this, but I don't see how this means that Israel should not exist.

I am not saying that the Holy Scriptures guarantee the Jews a country, but neither do the scriptures speak of America, France, England, Russia, Poland etc... Yet all these countries exist with predominantly ethnic populations.

It doesn't mean that Israel should not exist, but who here is saying that it means Israel should not exist? Also, Israel maintains that it has a right to exist perpetually as a majority Jewish population. The Jews in Israel have very low birth rates as compared to Arabs, be they Muslim or Christian. Furthermore, Judaism does very little to seek converts, while seeking to convert other peoples is a strong part of both the Christian and Islamic traditions. What if the modern nation of Israel, which I do not identify with the Israel of Holy Scripture, through a combination of Christian and Muslim proseletyzing and higher birth rates, ceases to be majority Jewish? Do they then have the right to persecute, expel, or kill Christians and Muslims to maintain their Jewish majority? I certainly hope not. It is decreasingly the case that the USA is a majority of one ethnic group, and depending on how you define ethnicity, it no longer is a majority of any one ethnic group. While there are a few lunatics who proclaim that white Americans need either to destroy or disenfranchise those who are not white so that the USA will retain forever its white identity, they are rightly exposed exactly as lunatics. Modern Jews, whether they live in Israel or elsewhere, should have the right to practice their faith and keep their customs, and do so without fear. However, I reject the notion that they are entitled to maintain the modern state of Israel perpetually as a majority Jewish nation. Such an ideology ultimately tramples on the freedoms of others, in my opinion.

Ryan

I really don't think there is any indication of Jews threatening to kill Muslims and Christians to maintain a Jewish majority.

I don't really know how you came up with this, but its ridiculous.

Where in any post do I say that Jews should kill Arabs?

The PLO terrorist state wants to destroy Israel, wipe it of the map. Kill every Jew in the country.


Do you not understand this?

Why do you think Arafat rejected a proposal that would put half of Jerusalem in the hands of the Muslims. It is simple. The Islamists do not want to co-exists. They want to destroy Israel.


Yes Israel does trample on the freedoms of Palestinians, their freedom to kill Jews.

Borislav:

I'm really sick of the way you selectively take out a few words of the posts of those who dare to disagree with you, and then distort them. I did not specifically say that Jews in Israel are threatening to kill Muslims and Christians. This is what I wrote:

"Israel maintains that it has a right to exist perpetually as a majority Jewish population. The Jews in Israel have very low birth rates as compared to Arabs, be they Muslim or Christian. Furthermore, Judaism does very little to seek converts, while seeking to convert other peoples is a strong part of both the Christian and Islamic traditions. What if the modern nation of Israel, which I do not identify with the Israel of Holy Scripture, through a combination of Christian and Muslim proseletyzing and higher birth rates, ceases to be majority Jewish? Do they then have the right to persecute, expel, or kill Christians and Muslims to maintain their Jewish majority?"

The fact is, there are many Jews who insist that Israel has the right to remain perpetually majority Jewish. I know that there are Jews who insist on this, because I have had some of them tell me this to my face. Due to the very low rate of birth of Jews in Israel compared to the Arabs in Israel, Jews cannot perpetually remain the majority except through either persecuting, expelling, or killing those who are not Jews. I wrote this to point out the logical outcome of the position that Israel must remain majority Jewish: they must either deny citizenship to non-Jews, which is religious persecution, expel them, or kill them.

Also, nowhere did I accuse you of saying that Jews should kill Arabs. Your methods of arguing are dishonest and dishonorable. You continually twist the words of those who disagree with you. If you cannot make your case without bridling your passions, continually resorting to attacking the character of those who are so bold as to disagree with you, and making absurd accusations, then perhaps you should refrain from posting.

Sincerely,

Ryan

Aren't there a few Greek Orthodox martyrs who were killed by fanatical Zionists?

Ryan,

First of all, you DID suggest that Jews may be inclined to kill Christians and Muslims to maintain a majority. If not, why did you say it in your post?

Secondly, since your post was in reply to mine, and you made your statement in the form of a question I presumed you were addressing me in your post. Since I did not make any statement about Jews planning to kill Christians and Muslims, i replied that the point you are making is ridiculous. I firmly stand by that statement. I think the point you made is not well thought out, has nothing to do with this discussion, is completely out of place and can be considered offensive.

You said that I "continually twist the words of those who disagree with you."

Please show me one instance where I have done this. Otherwise, refrain from making such accusations.

You also said that I post "without bridling your passions", while your whole post is filled with anger. You started your post with <I am really sick of> A bit hypocritical don't you think?

You went on to say that I "resorting to attacking the character of those who are so bold as to disagree with you", which is also untrue. I have never attacked the character of anybody on this forum, while you implied that I was dishonest and DISHONORABLE.

Than you went on to order me to "refrain from posting."


Ryan, if you are "really sick" of the way I post, you should stop reading my posts. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you read. There is also an invaluable tool on this forum that is called <IGNORE USER>. I suggest you take full advantage of this tool.

From now on I will not be replying to you. I think you have a personal dislike for me, which is why you stalk every thread that I write constantly making disparaging comments that have nothing to do with the given discussion or argument.

If you continue to stalk my threads and make such posts I will place you on the ignored users list.

Borislav:

I suggest that you reread some of your posts in reply to me, to those of Joe, as well as to those of other posters who have disagreed with your judgments, particularly on threads of a political nature. If you cannot see how you have twisted the words of others to suit your own arguments, as well as resorted to attacking the character of other posters, then I think you and I are living in totally different worlds with respect to perception of the truth and reality. You are correct, nobody is holding a gun to my head and making me read your posts. On the other hand, nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to spew the hatred and contempt that you so often direct towards those who are so bold as to disagree with you. Do you deny me and others the right to have an opinion different than your own? Or did we miss your elevation to Supreme Arbiter of Truth and Goodness? If you wish to refrain from further replies to my posts, that is fine. However, I will not cease to oppose the contempt and hatredyou continually show towards me and others who are so bold as to disagree with you.

Ryan

Please stop, you are making yourself look worse and worse with every post.

While I have certainly disagreed with Joe, I don't have any animosity towards Him. We all get passionate about our political and religious beliefs.

Borislav:

Again, I ask you, are you the only one who is allowed to have an opinion? You convict yourself with your own words. This post is just another example of the contempt you show towards those who disagree with you. I have no problem with the fact that you disagree with me about Israel, about who should be the President, etc., etc. After all, whenever you and I take positions that contradict each other, we cannot possibly both be right, so it may be the case that for any given instance in which I disagree with you, that I am the one who is wrong. Do you ever consider that you might be the one who is wrong? Your replies to me and others who disagree with me suggest to me that you do not. Hence, the question about Supreme Arbiter of Truth and Goodness.

Ryan

Ahem actually, I pretty much stuck with your words in my last post, thus I have convicted myself with your own words.

Now to answer your question. Of course I consider that I may be wrong sometimes, however I strongly believe that I am right, which is why I make statements on an internet forum.
Obviously you think you are right to, which is why you make your statements.

You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe its a meter of miscommunication. So here goes.

If, with my posts that are as you say and I will agree are VERY passionate, I offended you in any way. I would like to apologize.

I feel rather strongly about some issues, and I let it be known. This does not mean that I do not respect other peoples point of view. An argument to me is a process by which I use evidence to try and prove my point to the best of my ability. Please don't get offended at my posts. I do not mean personal disrespect to you, or anyone else on the forum.

Again, sorry if i offended you.

I am more than certain that had we been talking face to face we would have had a perfectly civil discussion.