This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Triggerhippie4 (talk | contribs) at 03:56, 28 January 2013 (→¿Part of a series on the History of the Palestinian territories?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:56, 28 January 2013 by Triggerhippie4 (talk | contribs) (→¿Part of a series on the History of the Palestinian territories?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Judaism B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Messiah will/was
Regarding the comment "The Messiah *will* come out of the tribe of Judah". It should be "The Messiah *came out of* the tribe of Judah." His name is Jesus Christ/Yeshua!
— Unsigned comment by 24.251.1.200; 5 May 2006
- Asserting religious beliefs is not appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia. I've emended the sentence to reflect that The Messiah is a figure of Judeo-Christianity.
- — Unsigned comment by 69.237.181.238; 13 May 2006
- The phrase Judeo-Christianity asserts it's own belief. The blanket term is inherently contradictory and is cleverly biased toward Jewish thought and worldview. Can Judaism and Christianity be any more opposite at their core? You may as well invent the term Judeo-Islamic, but that wouldn't appeal to the current state of affairs. Propaganda, whether intentional or not, is not appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia either.
- — Unsigned comment by 69.144.84.133; 29 August 2006
Notable Members???
Why are the "slaves brought to the U.S." notable members of the Tribe of Judah. This is a misleading unsourced extreme minority viewpoint thrown in probably to push some point of view. If anything, the "slaves brought to the U.S." should be listed under "modern descendants" not "notable members" (which should list individuals). If it were up to me, I think "slaves brought to the U.S." should be removed entirely from this article.
Also, with all due respect to Yechezkel Landau, whom I'm sure is well known in some circles, he is much less "notable" than Biblical figures such as Judah, Caleb, Boaz, Jesse, Absalom, Solomon, Hezekiah, Josiah, and Isaiah, none of whom apparently merited mention of this list of "notable members". So I added the above mentioned individuals. Personally I think its a bit silly to have a list of "notable members" of the main tribe of the Old Testimate. While I understand that not everyone who reads wikipedia has read the Bible, from reading the article people should get the idea that pretty much a lot of important characters from the Old Testimate are going to be notable members of the Tribe of Judah. Michael.passman 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to know how and when "judeans" were black people. While I don't doubt that there were and are sephardic jews in spain and portugal, I'm still a little confused as to how they are also black. That's like the ludicrous claim that just because mary, joseph and jesus fled to egypt to escape the
Roman death sentence on children, they are black.Saucybetty 07:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
What's "ludicrous" is your attempt to make "jesus" a historical figure. There were no "j"s in hebrew or greek so there's no way someone named jesus did anything. Secondly human sacrifice is an abomination to the Hebrew Diety to whom the Torah and tanaach refer to. Thirdly, The slaves brought to America are most certainly from this judaic stock. There are records to prove it. Even you, who insist on deleting this lost information should see it to be strange that these slaves were told they didn't have a history or a home land at all.This same stock was made slaves in Egypt and Babylon. It is the same lineage.Look at deuteronomy 28 and see who it describes. Look at it with an open heart, not sneering or negative, just look at who it describes. Slavery was justified to the American public by saying they would make the slaves christians.The Inquisition said the same thing. Those slaves were deported from portuguese prisons, sent to Sao Thome and from there made slaves in America. Even the Haplotype of the American Negro shows an middle Eastern origin.Please stop deleting this info, even if you do not agree with it, that does not make it untrue.
I don't think Jesus was what he was called in Hebrew or Aramaic, it would have been Yeshua. Jesus is the anglicised version of the original name.In Greek it is pronounced as Yesu.
Jesus was called most probably addressed as Yeshua in those times.
--Davidmichell 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Jesus was called Yeshua. Just because his name is anglicized doesn't mean he didn't exist. The person we call Joshua was called Yoshua at that time. We anglicize his name, but that doesn't mean he isn't a historical figure. Sir Akroy 14:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Jesus Christ
Being a descendant of David, wasn't Jesus of the tribe of Judah?
I think he should be in that list. He certainly was a notable person then, and people still discuss him even now.
--Davidmichell 12:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
African slaves
This looks like original research. Please bring reliable verifiable sources. ←Humus sapiens 12:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
No this isn't original research"The African Origin of Modern Judaism", by Jose V. Malcioln, " Judea Trembles Under Rome", "The Valley of Dry Bones" and "From Babylon To Timbuktu", written by Rudolph Windsor. "This Black Jesus", by Ettiese Abisika, The Works of Josephus speak of Judeans being "black", President of Egypt Gamal Nasser(who isn't black) said,"There will never be peace in Israel because the jews left Black, but returned white." There are other sources if you are truly interested, but I hope this will suffice.(I know it won't, there has been an agenda of hiding the true origin of the people that were made slaves in America since the shameful deed began. Also Deuteronomy 28 states what would happen if the "people of the book" did not remember their covenant.63.215.29.23 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Proof please. See WP:CITE. A quote if possible would be nice. Nasser is not an authority on Jewish history. ←Humus sapiens 21:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Modern Members
It is certainly true and it was certainly prophesied. What is also true is Genesis 10 clearly states Ashkenaz descended from Japheth and not from Shem. The word Ashkenazi Jew is an oxymoron. They descended from the converted Khazars. See The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler.
And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety (promise) that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them 400 years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. -Genesis 15: 13-14
Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. Exodus 12:40
The children of Israel were not afflicted in Egypt for 400 years according to the geneology of Levi. (see Exodus 6:13-26). It was 430 years from the time Abraham first began his sojourn in Canaan until the exodus. But the promise was that Abraham's seed would be afflicted 400 years.
For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I commanded you; and 'evil will befall you in the latter days; because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the works of your hands. -Deuteronomy 31:29
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ (a descendant of Judah). And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after (the promise to Abraham), cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Galatians 3:16-18
No other people in the history of the world have been strangers in a land that is not theirs and afflicted for 400 years except the "Negro" in America. They are certainly descendants of the tribe of Judah and the true heirs of the promise.
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people (a stranger in a land not theirs), that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities (that nation whom they shall serve will I judge). -Revelation 18: 4-5
It is not BS, it is a promise - Selah
The ashkenazi are indeed descended from ancient Hebrews
But the great majority are not of the tribe of Judah. When the Romans burned the second temple, it was those who could afford the trip out of Israel who made it, the poor stayed behind. They didn't have a choice. Because only people from the tribe of Levi could be priests, naturally they were the richest in ancient Israel. That whole story of the diaspora, simply doesn't make any sense; Rome was going to spent the ancient equivalent of billions of dollars to displace an entire group of people? The Babylonian captivity makes sense; because its easier to march "local" people to your own country than it is to ship them. Rome needed those ships to fight pirates, not to mention trade. To spend all those resources simply to remove Jews, to spend all those seafaring vessels, simply doesn't make any logical sense. Like the Greeks, although brutal, the Romans were a practical bunch.
The majority of ashkenazi can't be descended from the tribe of Judah, reason being, the pressence of the Coahim gene. In a significant percentage of Jewish males across the world, it is very common. It is also common in many "nonjewish" groups such as Italians and southern Spaniards. It is true that the tribe of Judah was the most numerous, but, most were killed fighting the Romans, and whatever remained of them was finished off by the Muslims in later centuries. Besides, other genetic evidence points to the fact that the overpowering majority of ashkenazi Jews descend only from four women; please check any genetic literature on the Jews. I don't need to source it, you can find it practically anywhere that deals with the subject. The high incidence of the Coahim gene in Italy, which only occurs in the tribe of Levi, the fact that the Levites were the richest Jews in Roman times (and arguably the most corrupt), and that Rome would not spend billions in ships and shipping to remove the majority of the Jews from that land, leads me to question the notion that the majority of Jews come from the tribe of Judah. The majority being of course, the ashkenazi. At least, for the time being.
At the risk of sounding unscientific, correct me if I'm wrong but, did not Jacob curse Levi by saying he would scatter his descendants? The descendants of Judah stayed in the middle east, the vast majority in Iraq. Iraq, is not that far away from Israel. It was the ashkenazi who were scattered all across the globe, confirming Jacob's curse. If true, then, boy, those curses by Jewish patriarchs are something to fear, all things considered. Please revise that assumption; I checked sources 9 through 12 and none of them say the majority of Jews descend from the tribe of Judah. What the sources said, at least the clearly written ones, that the entire Jewish people were NAMED after the tribe of Judah, but, the sources didn't say they DESCEND from them. Again; please take into consideration the fact that the majority of ashkenazi descend from only four women, and the sephardic populations in Spain, which were relatively small compared to those of other parts of Europe put together (like for example Russia). Take into consideration the high incidence of the coahim gene, which occurs only among the descendants of Aaron, the descendants of Aaron being, what else? Levites. Coincidence? I don't think so; the fact of the matter is, the wealthy Levites turned tail and ran, while the tribe of Judah stayed and fought, getting slaughtered by the Roman army in the process. Again; the high incidence of the coahim gene in Italy and Spain points to the fact that majority of today's ashkenazi Jews are Levites, not Judeans.
The Babylonians took the entire royal family of David hostage and, pardon my slang here but it was a big ass family. With polygamy being, not at all uncommon for much of the semitic world's history, it is quite possible that a very large bulk of Iraqi Jews descend from David himself. Again; that family of his was a big ass family, and the man is very well known for being a womanizer. Not all of them, but arguably a significant portion.
I typed too much; all I ask is that you please revise that and look at your sources again.
thanks.
206.63.78.78 (talk)stardingo747 —Preceding comment was added at 13:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Maternal Lineage
In Judaism maternal lineage is more important regarding ethnicity, but the religion says the Messiah is supposed to be a male descendant of David, descended from David himself. If every Jew had strictly only maternal descent, the Messiah would never even be born. Frankly I don't see how Messiah prophecy, and lineage issues make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.78.78 (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Be careful; in pointing that out, you are violating a sacred cow of ashkenazi Jewry. Remember that currently the ruling elite of Israel are ashkenazi Jews; if the Messiah does appear I highly doubt they will welcome him with open arms. Provided you believe in that stuff; I'm not 100%, given the enormity of the universe. So, after the Messiah is done redeeming the world will he redeem planet Vulcan too? I'm just saying; its a big universe. I have never been comfortable with the idea of geocentrism; also, if alien civilizations do exist do THEY believe in God and do THEY believe in the Jewish Messiah? Tough questions, that most religions don't address. Of course, the sheer size of the universe is no reason to be an atheist; if anything its sheer enormity, means that by physical law, it could not have had a natural origin. The Big Bang theory more or less makes logical sense, if it is viewed as an antimater explosion. Anti matter, does not obey the laws of time, an "explosion" of a super concentrated atom, could create an enormous universe in "seconds." The problem with that argument though is, that even with the "instantaneous" nature of anti matter, it still does not take into account that to assume that is how the universe was made, is to assume human perception can take in its enormity. Even with mathematics involved, numbers operate within equation parameters, the result, may be a number that goes on forever, but the logic to acquire said number, operates within strict limits, which alone ensure an improper perception of the universe. Thus by all logic it would APPEAR, it would appear I'm not saying that's how it is, that Einstein's unified field theory, can not be solved. There are too many limits with the way math is structured; you have parameters and logic, within parameters and logic, trying to encompas the enormity of the cosmos down to the tiniest quark. How just working the numbers alone did not kill Einstein, THAT, is a mystery right there. All the same I like people like you, who ask tough questions; in ancient times, the tyrants, were people like the Levite priests, or the Aryan peoples of Iran who corrupted Hinduism, and used religion to tyranize and control. In the middle ages, the Catholic Church in Europe, the Pagan Priests of the Americas, and the Buddhist priests of China, all used religious dogma to control people, and destroy all who opposed them. In modern times, there is a different kind of dogma, not by those who hold religious power, but by the public. What the 21st century suffers from is "democratic dogma." That is, dogma, by majority concensus; no one forces anyone to believe anything anymore, even in the world of Islam the attitudes of young people are changing. People believe what they agree to believe, and they force others to believe what they believe by the strength of their numbers thus, it could be argued that the modern danger, is bovine masses dogma. Everyone believes but no one questions, and those who question are ostracized or ignored. But you're different; sometimes its good to BE different. 67.148.120.90 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)stardingo747
Coat of Arms Image
What is the notability and connection for the coat of arms image (currently labeled with "Portuguese sketch. The English name is Judah.")? This appears to be a self-created image out of the imagination of some author. It does not seem to have any biblical basis, nor any historical significance, it is in Portuguese rather than any language that could understandably be connected with this WP article, and I am not sure what information this contributes/adds to this article.
It would seem reasonable to remove this image. — al-Shimoni (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Three weeks have passed and so far no response to the above. I went ahead and removed it. If you disagree, please respond to the above to discuss this before reädding it. Many thanks. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
¿Part of a series on the History of the Palestinian territories?
Are we insane? Will be better "part of a series on the History of Israel" or are we idiots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.196.54 (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 | An editor has requested assistance at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute about this page. The discussion is located at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Triggerhippie4 This template is only a talk page banner - the dispute must be listed at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard for editors to respond. |