Doco Implies there was no Jewish Diaspora

[+and-then]

Tolerance for others has nothing to do with judgment. While we can be tolerant we are never in a position to judge the eternal fate of others.

Accepting or not accepting the behavior of others has nothing to do with their spiritual path. The latter is simply not something which we are in the position to accept or not, another's spiritual path is between them and their maker.

Just as we ask of this we should do the same for others.

It is clear you take responsibility for what you believe and are comfortable in your worldview but no one can encourage you to take responsibility for condemning another on this very thread or for being comfortable with that.

I reject your depiction of me. I condemned no one. Here's a novel concept for you to ponder - I voiced an OPINION of another person's spiritual condition based on their own words. The two are NOT equal. In your quest to find peace, harmony, love and universal acceptance you leave out those who simply aren't willing to accept EVERYTHING as valid and profitable for God's use. LBA you are easily as intolerant as the worst of the bible thumpers.

[Clarakore]

Recognizing intolerance in others is not being intolerant. Everyone is accepted, it is up to them to change their intolerant views, but others do take notice.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[buckskin scout]

Check out this thread I just posted in the Science forum: Gene study settles debate over origin of European Jews

[Clarakore]

Check out this thread I just posted in the Science forum: Gene study settles debate over origin of European Jews

Thanks for the link.

I was to the understanding myself that Jewish males married the women of other populations.

The following claim in bold below also does not seem to be accurate.

Actually their religion exists almost unchanged from 2,000 years ago. The culture of course is evolving but it too is very much intact considering they were dispersed to the four corners of the earth. Part of the reason they have always been so hated is that they did not assimilate well.

Simply put Judaism was not uniform in the past or now and itself has gone through change within the last two millennia.

Also if Judaism has remain unchanged then there would be no variation between Ashkenazi, Sephardim, and Mizrahim forms of Judaism.

The other fact of the matter is that Ashkenazi are very heavily European unlike the Mizrahim who are closer in apperance to Arabs, their cousins, and whom they lived with for years in relative peace before the European Jews arrived and caused all this conflict.

How anyone supports conflict as a long term strategy and goal (in hopes their Savior comes to destroy others even more; as in case of extremist Christians and their hopes) instead of peace is beyond humanity and in opposition to a civilized discourse.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Glorfindel]

It is well documented that the claim to be a Jewish diaspora is about as strong as those claiming to be the true descendents of the Celts. The Celts as a concept was a victorian invention of the Romantics based around a pan European culture of the late Roman period.

How do you explain Celtic languages like Gaelic, Welsh and Brettonic being related then? The Celts were certainly a real culture, not a victorian invention, but you are right in the respect that they absorbed many different people into their cultures and the existing "Celts" are probably not too similar to each other outside lingusitics. But even many of the ancient Celts languages are attested to, so this idea that Celts are a myth is unfounded. However, most genetic studies show Jewish people, even those that have been in Europe for centuries to be fairly similar to the native Levantine population. Likewise, the Palestinians also show this genetic affinity (meaning their Arabization was mostly cultural), so regardless, the studies cannot be used to justify zionism, as one could argue that both populations are native to the region. The difference is one group left and returned thousands of years later, while one group never really left.

[Clarakore]

There is no doubt they share DNA since males marrying others would create populations that retain some of that DNA from the males.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Glorfindel]

Hmmm.. I wonder why Jewish rules for interrmarriage always follow the mother's line? Would that mean Ashkenazi arent really Jewish according to Jewish law? You would think it would be the other way around lol, but the mitochondrial DNA does not lie I guess. The Khazarian link, while controversial, might make sense. I think I remember reading before that Ashkenazic Jews share a significant amount of DNA with Turkic and other central Asian populations.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Glorfindel

[+and-then]

Thanks for the link.

I was to the understanding myself that Jewish males married the women of other populations.

The following claim in bold below also does not seem to be accurate.

Simply put Judaism was not uniform in the past or now and itself has gone through change within the last two millennia.

Also if Judaism has remain unchanged then there would be no variation between Ashkenazi, Sephardim, and Mizrahim forms of Judaism.

The other fact of the matter is that Ashkenazi are very heavily European unlike the Mizrahim who are closer in apperance to Arabs, their cousins, and whom they lived with for years in relative peace before the European Jews arrived and caused all this conflict.

How anyone supports conflict as a long term strategy and goal (in hopes their Savior comes to destroy others even more; as in case of extremist Christians and their hopes) instead of peace is beyond humanity and in opposition to a civilized discourse.

You miss-characterize Christians who support Zionism. It is patently untrue that Christian Zionists wish or work for the death of ANYONE. Spread your lies and propaganda to fools who want to believe it but don't expect it to remain unchallenged. My savior will destroy many - not least of which will be the unbelieving who willfully reject His truth whether they be Jews or Gentiles. And in that day no opinion of Him will matter except HIS.

[buckskin scout]

How do you explain Celtic languages like Gaelic, Welsh and Brettonic being related then? The Celts were certainly a real culture, not a victorian invention, but you are right in the respect that they absorbed many different people into their cultures and the existing "Celts" are probably not too similar to each other outside lingusitics. But even many of the ancient Celts languages are attested to, so this idea that Celts are a myth is unfounded. However, most genetic studies show Jewish people, even those that have been in Europe for centuries to be fairly similar to the native Levantine population. Likewise, the Palestinians also show this genetic affinity (meaning their Arabization was mostly cultural), so regardless, the studies cannot be used to justify zionism, as one could argue that both populations are native to the region. The difference is one group left and returned thousands of years later, while one group never really left.

Absolutely, in earlier studies, there is little difference between the Jews and Palestinians. That's what upsets me about Zionism and Christian Zionism (which almost an entirely American phenomenon):

A keynote research paper showing that Middle Eastern Jews and Palestinians are genetically almost identical has been pulled from a leading journal.

Academics who have already received copies of Human Immunology have been urged to rip out the offending pages and throw them away.

Such a drastic act of self-censorship is unprecedented in research publishing and has created widespread disquiet, generating fears that it may involve the suppression of scientific work that questions Biblical dogma.

'I have authored several hundred scientific papers, some for Nature and Science, and this has never happened to me before,' said the article's lead author, Spanish geneticist Professor Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, of Complutense University in Madrid. 'I am stunned.'

British geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer added: 'If the journal didn't like the paper, they shouldn't have published it in the first place. Why wait until it has appeared before acting like this?'

The paper, 'The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean Populations', involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the Middle East.

In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team's research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.

Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East share a very similar gene pool and must be considered closely related and not genetically separate, the authors state. Rivalry between the two races is therefore based 'in cultural and religious, but not in genetic differences', they conclude.

But the journal, having accepted the paper earlier this year, now claims the article was politically biased and was written using 'inappropriate' remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its editor told the journal Nature last week that she was threatened by mass resignations from members if she did not retract the article.

Arnaiz-Villena says he has not seen a single one of the accusations made against him, despite being promised the opportunity to look at the letters sent to the journal.

He accepts he used terms in the article that laid him open to criticism. There is one reference to Jewish 'colonists' living in the Gaza strip, and another that refers to Palestinian people living in 'concentration' camps.

'Perhaps I should have used the words settlers instead of colonists, but really, what is the difference?' he said.

'And clearly, I should have said refugee, not concentration, camps, but given that I was referring to settlements outside of Israel - in Syria and Lebanon - that scarcely makes me anti-Jewish. References to the history of the region, the ones that are supposed to be politically offensive, were taken from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other text books.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

But now the latest studies on Ashkenazi / European Jews has given the Khazarian Hypothesis quite a bit more academic push however.

.

[Erikl]

Ooh I can't believe I've missed this thread.

The notion of diaspora as was portrayed in both Jewish and Christian religions is known to not be completely accurate, and is quite known in Israel, so there is no big conspiracy here to uncover. How else could there be a Jerusalem Talmud written in the Land of Israel after the supposed diaspora? Even in later times, Jews and Samaritans continue to play important part of the demography of the people in the area, evident by their rebellions against the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) all the way till the 630s (during the 7th century). That's right, some 600 years after they were all supposedly gone. In the 600s there are documented 150 villages with Jewish majority in the Roman province in the area, most of them residing in the Galilee and amounting to some 200,000 Jews. In the 500s Samaritans numbered about 1.2 million people. So all in all, it could be said that up until the Arab conquests there were hundreds of thousands of Israelites (Samaritans and Jews) following the Mosaic religion in the area, rebelling against the Romans (the Eastern ones, not the traditional Latin speaking Western ones).

It is not only after the area was occupied by Muslims, that the land began to fall into series of bloody conflicts, sectarian warfare, Crusades and invasion by Bedouin road robbers. The land fell into complete disarray, agriculture was largely neglected, and the successive empires that took over the land favored the big cities than the small villages. This is why, by the 19th century, there were only about 150-200,000 people living here, about fifth of the population that lived here in the beginning of the Muslim occupation.

Many of the early leaders of Zionism believed that the Arabs living in the area are actually descendants of Jews that were forcibly converted. However, if you check the recent studies, you find that Jews and Samaritans are more closely related to north Middle Eastern populations (Turks, Kurds and Armenians), probably due to large admixture of the original people of the Middle East with Arabs from the Arabian peninsula after their en mass invasion in the medieval ages (with Islam). Actually, it has been been found that virtually all modern Muslim Arabs in the middle east have some sub-saharan admixture, due probably to the huge slave trade of Africans under Islam (usually sex slavery of sub-saharan african women), but also due to many Arabs which immigrated from Arabia where the population historically had a long lasting cultural and trade relationship with the Horn of Africa (Somalia/Ethiopia). Yemenites have on average as much as 35% ancient sub-saharan genetic origins, while the rest of the Muslim Arabs have around 10%. As north as you get, and especially in north Syria and northern Iraq, where Islam was last to arrive and where traditionally many non-Arabs and non-Muslims remained.

By the way, the Khazarian theory was largely disproved as modern genetic research have found that most of the Jews originate from Middle Eastern populations (both on the maternal line and paternal line). While they did find that about 12% of the Ashkenazic Jews might originate from European people, further analysis have come up that the main European contribution to Jews come from Italy and Greece - that is, probably from ancient converts.

Also, the Khazarians spoke Turkish language, and were nomadic agricultural society. None of their cultural aspects have remained in European Jewish culture, which you would expect would happen should most of them originate from a grand Jewish empire of Khazaria. Another important thing many people forget, is that the historical reason for why Khazarian nobility chose Judaism - there were already many Israelite Jews living in North Caucasus and the Crimean Peninsula, which had economical power in the region. Even after the nobility converted, many Israelite Jews immigrated from the nearby Byzantine Empire and Islamic Caliphate, so eventually most of the Khazaria Jews were either Israelite in origin or admixture of Israelite and converts.

Many probably wonder the, how come there are so many "white" looking Jews, which could easily pass as Northern or Central Europeans, and do not look anything like Middle Easterners.

Well, first, as I've explained, it seems that most of the modern Middle Easterners that we see today, especially Muslim Arabs, have Sub-Saharan genes in them, as a result of the Islamic occupation by Arabs and the African sex slavery that went on in the last 1300 years in the region. However, many Non-Muslim people in the region can easily pass as Europeans, because non-Muslims generally did not marry with muslims and they couldn't hold Muslim slaves (and most African slaves were muslims), and so probably look much more like what the original people of the Middle East looked like, before the Arabic invasion.

Here are some pictures of non-Muslim Middle Easterners - and none of them is Christian, so there is no chance that they intermarried with European Christians. They could easily pass as your average European, don't you think?

Above - Samaritans, Mizrahi Jews, Druze and Syrian Alawis.

So it's pretty simple to assume that ancient Israelites looked pretty much the same way, and so today Ashkenazi Jews have many among them that mistakenly assumed to be "Nordish" looking, while actually have a very common Middle Eastern look.

However, even that assumption isn't correct, as many Ashkenazi Jews do look a little bit Middle Eastern. Here are examples of Hungarian, Polish, German and Latvian Jews. As you can see, they don't really look like Scarlet Johanssen or anything .

[Frank Merton]

I'm aware that Jews accept converts, and hence much have had a steady genetic inflow. That Jews were to be found all over the ancient world is well attributed, and many of them were converts.

[+and-then]

Ooh I can't believe I've missed this thread.

The notion of diaspora as was portrayed in both Jewish and Christian religions is known to not be completely accurate, and is quite known in Israel, so there is no big conspiracy here to uncover. How else could there be a Jerusalem Talmud written in the Land of Israel after the supposed diaspora? Even in later times, Jews and Samaritans continue to play important part of the demography of the people in the area, evident by their rebellions against the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine) all the way till the 630s (during the 7th century). That's right, some 600 years after they were all supposedly gone. In the 600s there are documented 150 villages with Jewish majority in the Roman province in the area, most of them residing in the Galilee and amounting to some 200,000 Jews. In the 500s Samaritans numbered about 1.2 million people. So all in all, it could be said that up until the Arab conquests there were hundreds of thousands of Israelites (Samaritans and Jews) following the Mosaic religion in the area, rebelling against the Romans (the Eastern ones, not the traditional Latin speaking Western ones).

It is not only after the area was occupied by Muslims, that the land began to fall into series of bloody conflicts, sectarian warfare, Crusades and invasion by Bedouin road robbers. The land fell into complete disarray, agriculture was largely neglected, and the successive empires that took over the land favored the big cities than the small villages. This is why, by the 19th century, there were only about 150-200,000 people living here, about fifth of the population that lived here in the beginning of the Muslim occupation.

Many of the early leaders of Zionism believed that the Arabs living in the area are actually descendants of Jews that were forcibly converted. However, if you check the recent studies, you find that Jews and Samaritans are more closely related to north Middle Eastern populations (Turks, Kurds and Armenians), probably due to large admixture of the original people of the Middle East with Arabs from the Arabian peninsula after their en mass invasion in the medieval ages (with Islam). Actually, it has been been found that virtually all modern Muslim Arabs in the middle east have some sub-saharan admixture, due probably to the huge slave trade of Africans under Islam (usually sex slavery of sub-saharan african women), but also due to many Arabs which immigrated from Arabia where the population historically had a long lasting cultural and trade relationship with the Horn of Africa (Somalia/Ethiopia). Yemenites have on average as much as 35% ancient sub-saharan genetic origins, while the rest of the Muslim Arabs have around 10%. As north as you get, and especially in north Syria and northern Iraq, where Islam was last to arrive and where traditionally many non-Arabs and non-Muslims remained.

By the way, the Khazarian theory was largely disproved as modern genetic research have found that most of the Jews originate from Middle Eastern populations (both on the maternal line and paternal line). While they did find that about 12% of the Ashkenazic Jews might originate from European people, further analysis have come up that the main European contribution to Jews come from Italy and Greece - that is, probably from ancient converts.

Also, the Khazarians spoke Turkish language, and were nomadic agricultural society. None of their cultural aspects have remained in European Jewish culture, which you would expect would happen should most of them originate from a grand Jewish empire of Khazaria. Another important thing many people forget, is that the historical reason for why Khazarian nobility chose Judaism - there were already many Israelite Jews living in North Caucasus and the Crimean Peninsula, which had economical power in the region. Even after the nobility converted, many Israelite Jews immigrated from the nearby Byzantine Empire and Islamic Caliphate, so eventually most of the Khazaria Jews were either Israelite in origin or admixture of Israelite and converts.

Many probably wonder the, how come there are so many "white" looking Jews, which could easily pass as Northern or Central Europeans, and do not look anything like Middle Easterners.

Well, first, as I've explained, it seems that most of the modern Middle Easterners that we see today, especially Muslim Arabs, have Sub-Saharan genes in them, as a result of the Islamic occupation by Arabs and the African sex slavery that went on in the last 1300 years in the region. However, many Non-Muslim people in the region can easily pass as Europeans, because non-Muslims generally did not marry with muslims and they couldn't hold Muslim slaves (and most African slaves were muslims), and so probably look much more like what the original people of the Middle East looked like, before the Arabic invasion.

Here are some pictures of non-Muslim Middle Easterners - and none of them is Christian, so there is no chance that they intermarried with European Christians. They could easily pass as your average European, don't you think?

Above - Samaritans, Mizrahi Jews, Druze and Syrian Alawis.

So it's pretty simple to assume that ancient Israelites looked pretty much the same way, and so today Ashkenazi Jews have many among them that mistakenly assumed to be "Nordish" looking, while actually have a very common Middle Eastern look.

However, even that assumption isn't correct, as many Ashkenazi Jews do look a little bit Middle Eastern. Here are examples of Hungarian, Polish, German and Latvian Jews. As you can see, they don't really look like Scarlet Johanssen or anything .

next time you should post a picture of Dawn Rosensweig And I really don't care WHERE her parents came from....