Who is a Jew?

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Who is a Jew? Current mood: amorous Category: Religion and Philosophy The Israelites split four times that I know of in history. The more business oriented are those that generally call themselves Jews today, while those that rose to the heights of nobility never called themselves Jews, as this word was not invented at the time of these splits. These Jews are those who produced the best scholars and faced the greatest persecutions. In investigation, there was at least one split that ended up becoming the royal house of Troy. This likely happened a very long time ago, before 1,000 BC. Then, there was another split during King Solomon’s reign and his marriage to the Queen of Sheba that occurred about the time of 1,000 BC. These Jews are Ethiopian Jews. Other split of the house of David that left even earlier and settled in England and Ireland sometime around 500 BC during Jewish Hellenism, and even rose to significant heights in the Roman Senate. This explains the common red hair of many English folks with modern descendents of the house of David that are among those thought of as Jews. There are many reasons for suggesting these things, and it is probably only a matter of time before they become accepted. It is highly unappealing idea that Genesis describes that rulers are to come from the tribe of Judah, but that the Israelites have not produced a king in a great deal of time. Rather, I suggest that Homer’s Iliad contains true genealogies, such that Zeus is in fact Zerah Genesis, and that his son Darda is the Persian ruler Darius of the Illiad and that this is the Darda mentioned in Genesis and Chronicles from the tribe of Judah. This was the part of the tribe that later produced others such as Thor and Magi, and engaged in Zoroastrian thinking. Snorri Storlson, a Christian whom translated mythological Icelandic Edda, is perhaps the greatest reason why modern Jews have not accepted the Icelandic ancestry that connects the royal house of Troy to the Kings of Europe. This is such that among the tribes of Israel, paternal descent should be most important among those of Judah for the purpose of political office. 2,000 years ago, there is record of great Jewish Hellenism, which is the marrying of Greek and Jewish culture. The point being that the tribe of Judah would be more likely to leave Israel in favor of political domination, especially given the nomadic tendencies spoken of Jews in the Tanach. This was sufficient to create a Sanhedrin like Senate among Rome. It is a similarity, and likewise Plato, the author of The Republic, purportedly had a great deal of contact with Jews. Where are the origins of matrilineal inheritance? The many marriages of Solomon likely produced oodles among the Israelites whom were of questionable origin, such that one prophet, Ezra, mandated that maternal discernment is necessary to confer a Jewish soul. These intermarriages produced peoples who did not fit well into the ideas of Genesis where the tribes of Israel had specific roles. Thus, matrilineal descent is found nowhere in Torah itself. C.S. Lewis once said that a man left to his own devices might populate an entire village. The only reason for keeping this as Jewish Law is that unless if one understands DNA, ancestry is still only certain by one’s mother. Interestingly, about 30% of children do not have the same DNA as their father. It is possible to establish by Torah that for the tribe of Judah itself that anything less than a political role of political office would be an incorrect one for the tribe of Judah. Thus, I consider those that call themselves Jews by the pattern of matrilineal descent to be Israelites, but that Israel has become a large nation as Genesis mandates that it should be by the God’s promise to Abraham, “I will make you as numerous as the stars of the sky.” This imagery of stars of the sky also seems to imply the commandment of immersion in the culture, as I imagine that there are many stars in the sky, and that the Israel among the descendents of Abraham are many not few, such that there is room for many to have political offices. However, of those that passed down the Torah, and preserved it very well, I would suggest that these were those that were business owners were producing such a manuscript was worth considerable money, such that protecting it for the purpose of profit was very important. Additionally, Judaica has also proved to be quite lucrative. This idea of the nation of Abraham, where he is the first Jew is huge. The appeal of Christians to the character of Jesus has been largely to the illiterate, but this faith is might better be called Abrahamism than Christianity. There are two primary reasons for this, and the first is the stressing of kindness and brotherly love among Christians. Those that call themselves Jewish would probably be very critical of this statement, but the vast majority of those that call themselves Christian espouse words such as love, faith, and kindness, but that they fall very short. Conversely, the ridged rules of Moses with additional rabbinical commandments provide little breathing room for common people without big brains, such that there are few that call themselves Jewish that rise in the political ranks. Kindness in understanding is very lacking among those that would deny someone to the religion without proper conversion or birthright, even if it may be true that genetically we have predispositions to certain behaviors, according to the nations of Torah. However, as in the case of Joseph these predispositions are not as a law that needs to be enforced. My thought is that it is likely that modern Jews would have equal political skills, as any person with a history of noble descent, and there are many of these in the Senate, but these offices already established in hereditary form excluded Rabbinical Jews from participation by the time of their exile from Israel. Similarly, just as the Roman Senate favored secular humanism, so does the modern Senate of the USA, which I believe consists primarily of the tribe of Judah by birthright. What might all this Christianity then in European and American history mean? For one it means that there were great evangelists, such as Paul, Constantine, and Charlemagne. Again, rulers came from the tribe of Judah, and this required a great deal of political savvy, such that one might not care about the religion altogether, but might use it as a vehicle to get a message across or even worse hide behind in case of a moral controversy. However, given a climate of Christianity, politicians would favor some degree of inaccuracy, directly opposed to business ideals that favor accuracy and a bottom line. One might ask, why all these four groups have a history of intermarriage with each of other for political reasons? Is it just a fluke that those who became the merchants of Europe did not ascend to the throne, or is it that there are many similarities that these groups have in observance of the Torah. It is nice to say that there were only jobs, such as money lending available, but that is not true. Affirmative action never helped any of over 20 USA Presidents arise to political power, and claim direct descent from kings. The pervasiveness of similarities in lifestyle and affinity toward Mosaic commands is impossible to deny. There were priests, an idea of Leviticus, be it priests of Zeus or Jesus. In my idea, a priest is most definitely someone that has an affinity for verbally expounding upon a document, and is willing to talk of any document currently popular. There is the idea of ancestry and ancestral charts that is common to Judaism, and this was even before the event of the King James Bible or Guttenberg’s printing press. Granted, Paul says to have nothing to do with these ancestries, but the fact is that people do not care what the New Testament says. Ancestries are ever popular. There is the idea of marriage itself. There are also issues of neglect, such that ritual purity will never be a topic of heated discussion in any Senate. An interesting facet of the crusades was that Christians were interested in the homeland of Israel at all. Why might this be so, unless Christianity is a cult of Israelites that broke off, but nonetheless attains a Torah identity? Judeo-Christian ethics are the foundation of the USA, but not only that but they are also the ethics that citizens receive. This is such that people, even strict Jews have often felt perfectly comfortable appointing rulers that are not matrilineal Jewish by anything known to office. Why do we appoint a ruler? Why do those that call themselves Jews, not always right in an own candidate. There are real and reasonable reasons why people do not do such things. Certainly, this knowledge of Mosaic ideas does not come through Jesus and the New Testament fraud, but rather illiteracy is as common as it ever was, and traditions according to Moses pass down from generation to generation with or without the ability to understand the fraud of the New Testament, which few people have.