Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc The Jayhawks Tile Wearable Technology Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Gifts for Mom to look and feel great Mother's Day Gifts Shop now Amazon Gift Card Offer seeso seeso seeso  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite UniOrlando ReadyRide Bikes from Diamondback SnS

Another self-hating Jew...this one denies DNA evidence...so what else is new?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 30 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 4, 2010 8:54:59 AM PST
N. Rosen says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 5, 2010 9:03:20 PM PST
Right, so any Jew not down with your Semitic silliness must hate themselves. You are happy to show off a disgusting contempt for Free Speech, but more and more Americans see these overplayed tactics as just that. Yours is a pathetic and futile attempt to stifle a debate that in fact you've already lost. Koestler already told you years ago: you're a Khazar. Is that so bad? If so, does this make you a self-hating Khazar?

Posted on Jan 8, 2010 11:29:16 AM PST
J. A Magill says:
Given the absolute lack of evidence for the Khazar hypothesis, you might as well say that Jews are Martians.

Posted on Feb 23, 2010 3:18:17 PM PST
reader says:
DNA evidence? That is yet another myth. Sure, sure there have been a few papers published about a DNA strain. But this is about as scientifically strong as other ideas of race and soil -- i.e the Arian race ideas. That was thought to be science back then, too.

Mixing science with racial politics is something especially ugly. We've been there before

Posted on Mar 25, 2010 12:09:06 PM PDT
Yo says:
News Junky says: "Mixing science with racial politics is something especially ugly. We've been there before"

Agreed. Check out: The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2010 7:53:06 PM PDT
J. A Magill says:
The rejection of DNA data -- and Sand's attempt to to dismiss it -- is more than a little strange. When historians use DNA to establish the possible origin of Etruscan in Asia minor no one screams "racism!" Likewise, when its used to examine the migration patterns of the northern Europeans or the movements of early humans across south Asia. One can hardly imagine Sand standing up at a conference on French history -- a topic with which he is actually familiar -- and castigating a scholars use of genetic data as a tool for looking the various communities that made up the modern French nation. As with much of Sand's work this sounds like a weak attempt to discredit another part of the mounds of evidence which serves to disprove his weak thesis.

Posted on Apr 19, 2010 11:50:16 AM PDT
I think that if Sand had had a little more respect for the Bible, pivotally Nm 23:9, he would have titled his book "The Invention of the Jewish Nation", for Israel is indeed a people ('am), but a church (qahal), not a nation(goy). When the Bible calls Israel a nation, e.g. Ml 3:9, it is because God is angry with us.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 11, 2010 8:18:39 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 11, 2010 8:19:29 AM PDT
Jeffrey says:
What an idiotic statement. No one is talking here about superiority or racial theory or racial science. These are common scientific methods of tracing the spread of the human species to various areas of the world. They are used by real scientists to map migrations of all kinds of populations over periods of hundreds of thousands of years. The only political use it has is to make the claim that, yes, the Jews are related to each and have a common ancestry in the region of Israel. The same science is used to irrefutably demonstrate that all humans are of the same species and that "racial" differences are more or less immaterial.

Posted on Jun 22, 2010 12:51:26 PM PDT
J. Rella says:
I'm buying it. Anything that gets the Zionists and Israel apologists up in arms about "self-hating Jews" has got to be good... and is probably accurate, hence the angry denunciations by those who don't want it to be.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 22, 2010 2:13:39 PM PDT
The Bible says (Nm 23:9) that Israel, the people of God is not a nation. It is a church (qahal). It would be very surprising if a church made no converts in thousands of years. And the evidence is there that Jews were a missionary church both before and after the time of Jesus. So the DNA evidence is curious. And Sand tells us that some DNA experts read the same evidence differently.

Posted on Aug 9, 2010 8:03:43 AM PDT
John Reading says:
A common political game played by Jews is to confuse culture and race so as to be able to scream "rascist" at anyone who criticizes their culture. In fact, race is a nonsense concept, the best current evidence being that we are all out of Africa - we are all brothers and sisters. The Jewish culture stinks of racism, elitism, and authoritarianism and it has spread around the globe because it is a handy pile of nonsense by which to subjugate and rule over others. The Jewish invention of Christianity with its nailed-up human body and message of body-shame, guilt, and sacrifice is a poison by which parasites fool and rule their political prey. Whether the brand is Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, it is all the same sadistic, sexually-repressed superstition. Conclusion: Jews are like everyone else: superstitious savages suffering from parasitic power-lust. Treating them as a special, persecuted set of victims is like pretending that Democrats and Republicans differ - it is to fall for the myth of difference when what is needed is to see the similarity of evils.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2010 1:28:44 AM PDT
cbk says:
JR: A common political game played by Jews is to confuse culture and race so as to be able to scream "rascist" at anyone who criticizes their culture.

Actually it was never Jews that called themselves a race. I don't even know who started using that term. However it is clear from Jewish history in all of Jewish religious literature that Jews are not a race at all but rather a nation, which means, descendants of a common ancestor including people who convert into this lineage. If people disagree with that premise then it is not the problem of the Jews. We are secure in who we are and do not need the agreement of others to know who we are and pass it to the next generation, as has been the tradition since the days of our forefathers. That bothers people. I'm sorry for your distress.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2010 1:33:41 AM PDT
cbk says:
John Willis: Come on John, you can't just pick one verse out of context.
<< Exodus 19:6 >> You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

>>And the evidence is there that Jews were a missionary church both before and after the time of Jesus.

Please know the subject matter before making such statements. Judaism has always been against seeking converts and makes it very difficult for those who do want to convert. This is as it should be according to Torah/Jewish law for thousands of years.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2010 8:02:51 PM PDT
I admit that I don't understand Ex 19:6. However, the general rule in the Bible is that after Sinai Israel is not a nation but a church. We went down into Egypt and there became a great nation, but on passing Sinai ceased somehow to be a nation. Where do you think the term "gentile", meaning non-Israelite comes from?

As for the mission remark, I stand by it. At the time of Jesus there were Jews from Barbary to Babylon and beyond. And Shlomo Sand, in the book we are discussing, gives examples of Christian-Era conversions on a large scale.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 13, 2010 8:06:27 PM PDT
Rabbinical Jews refer (often contemptuously) to those outside Israel as "goyim", i.e. "nations". Israel is not a nation but a church, the Jews are a branch of Israel, and Rabbinical Jews are a branch of the Jews.

John Reading is being nasty. I am not.

Posted on Aug 14, 2010 1:02:26 PM PDT
John Reading says:
Capricorn_rising informs us that "Actually it was never Jews that called themselves a race."

This is nonsense. It is common for Jews to refer to the "Jewish race." It is also common for them to concern themselves with genetic links as in the posts above about DNA, etc.

The point is that morality and logic are products of free will while "race", genetics, etc are irrelevant (except to bigots) because such attributes are unchosen. The jewish culture is as bigotted and primitive a culture as any other. Refering to themselves as "God's chosen people" is bigotry on stilts. If there were such a thing as a just god, he would choose good people, with no regard to tribe or ancestry or DNA links. The mythical invisible god of the jewish bible is an angry, jealous bigot, quite jewish, no doubt, but not very god-like.

John A. Willls says I am being nasty while he is not. It is generally considered nasty to point out the sadistic, superstitious nastyness of the major religions and cultures. John A. Wills is being foolish, while I am not.

Posted on Aug 14, 2010 3:07:47 PM PDT
J. A Magill says:
Several recent points could stand correcting. In the first place, the modern notion of race is a recent western construct (though one often grafted retroactively). To the degree Jews are described as a "race" it is for the most part an effort by Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment westerners to exclude Jews from membership in their "race" (as with French racialists seeking to exclude French Jews from the Gallic race, Slavic racialists trying to exclude their local Jews, etc). Historically, Jews have described themselves as a nation, a tribe, or a People. Use of the term race is recent, a-historic, and plainly absurd (which is fitting, since the whole notion of race is a retrograde absurdity to begin with), if for nothing else because Jews run the morphological gamut of humanity.

At no point, as far as I know, have Jews referred to themselves as a "church" (with the exception perhaps of early Jewish Christians); church is a word of Greek origin without a parallel in classical Hebrew. Jews, dating back to Israelite time, seem to have gravitated to the word "People" which in the Hebrew is interchangeable with nation, as in the case of the divine promise to Abraham, that "I will make of a great nation" ("Goyim Gadol" in the original).

Lastly, according to our best sources, Jews engaged in considerable proselytizing before the conversion of Rome to Christianity. However, conversion tended to be far more common among women, as men didn't wish to undergo circumcision. Many communities became what were called "friends," people with engaged in certain Jewish practices, but didn't undergo circumcision or maintain the dietary laws. Such communities were particularly large in Egypt and Asia minor. Not surprisingly, it was these two "impediments" which Paul removed when he declared his theology, and equally unsurprising, it was in these regions that Christianity appears to have grown the fastest. As the Church came to prohibit conversion from Judaism (with death, which goes to show you how seriously they took the competition) Judaism increasingly became reticent to convert anyone, partially out of fear of being set up.

I hope that this helps.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 14, 2010 4:44:39 PM PDT
The classical Hebrew word for church is qahal. The Greek ekklesia is a claque, and has its modern meaning because of the NT's roots in the OT. My concordance (Wigram) gives about 130 instances of qahal in the Protestant OT, i.e. in the Tanakh.

Posted on Aug 15, 2010 4:29:18 AM PDT
cbk says:
John Wills: The classical Hebrew word for church is qahal.

Kahal (qahal) means a community or the public, or an audience. Nonetheless, as I quoted before, Israel is called a "Holy NATION and a KINGDOM of priests". Israel is a nation, which by definition is a people of common ancestry.

>>Protestant OT, i.e. in the Tanakh.

Not exactly the same. But what point are you trying to make?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 15, 2010 3:21:54 PM PDT
Throughout this tract we translate `am and laos as "people", goy and ethnos as "nation", qahal and ekklesia as "church".

Israel is a people which does not count itself among the nations (Nm 23:9). Israel is a church (Nm 20:10-12). The word gentile, "non-Israelite", comes from Latin gens, "nation". Israel did indeed go down into Egypt and there become a great nation (Dt 26:5), but the Sinai experience turned that nation and its hangers-on (Ex 12:38) into a church. At the beginning of Joshua (5:8) we read that the nation was circumcised, but after that the Bible does not approvingly call Israel a nation.
In general, Israel gets contrasted with the nations (e.g. Ez 6:21), notably in that Israel has been given the Law and no nation has (Ps 147:20). When Israel does get called a nation, it is generally because God is annoyed with it (e.g. Ml 3:9).
How then can we briefly and usefully portray this church? First we note that it was founded at Sinai and absorbed many tribes and nations in Canaan, eventually fixing its central shrine in Jerusalem (2 S 6). It had a state of sorts to protect it in its formative centuries, but this state split (1 K 12:17-20) and so did the church (v. 28-29). One of the successor churches we call the Jews, the other the Samaritans. Each has its own history up to the beginning of the Common Era, when another great split took place.
Because churches have doctrines to teach, both branches of Israel, but especially the Jews, made converts outside the two states. The Book of Jonah proclaims Israel's duty to spread the doctrines. By the beginning of the Common Era there were Jews from Barbary to Babylon and beyond.
Israel expected a Redeemer, a Messiah (Is 61:1-2 and many other places). At the beginning of the Common Era, Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Messiah (Lk 4:21, Jn 4:25-26). About the year 50, at the Council of Jerusalem (Ac 15:5-29), his followers renewed Israel. In the year 70, when the Romans were about to destroy Jerusalem, premessianic Jews stayed in the city while Christians fled beyond Jordan. The Emperor gave permission to rebuild the Temple, but instead the premessianic-Jewish hierarchy stayed in Jamnia, also known as Yavne. About the year 90 the Council of Jamnia founded the Rabbinical Jewish church as a continuing premessianic branch of Israel. Thus the Jews split into Christians and Rabbinical Jews, the most obvious difference being the question of whether Jesus was the Messiah, the most important perhaps the question of which matters of the Law are the weightiest (Mt 23:23 etc.).
Meanwhile we find a reference (Jn 11:48-52) to the people of the Holy Land as a nation, presumably a result of the Herodian conquest's unifying effect. The chief priest would certainly not call Israel a nation, and John would not make the mistake of putting such a mistake in his mouth. This is the nation we now call Palestine, the first majority Jewish nation.
Both Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity continued evangelization, the Christians by the year 200 converting a majority of the Palestinians from Samaritanism and premessianic Judaism - an apostasy for which some Rabbinical Jews have not yet forgiven them. The Palestinians remained majority-Christian until after the Crusades. Christians converted most of the Roman Empire, whereas Rabbinical Jews converted several Central Asian peoples, most notably the Khazars, from the remains of whose Empire the original Israelis came.

Posted on Aug 27, 2010 8:52:33 PM PDT
jill says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?ref=science

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 5, 2010 8:59:15 PM PDT
Oh yeah, average Americans would want you in a position of power and influence.......not.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 2:17:39 PM PDT
webrand says:
Koestler was a novelist, not a historian.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 3:27:58 PM PDT
My copy of The Thirteenth Tribe is not to hand, but I remember that his main source was an Israeli historian. The Ashkenazim in the Holy Land know quite well they are Khazars, whatever impression they may try to give outsiders.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 3:35:12 PM PDT
cbk says:
>>The Ashkenazim in the Holy Land know quite well they are Khazars, whatever impression they may try to give outsiders.

Really? As an Ashkenazi citizen of the Holy Land I can testify that this is laughable. There is no such belief among Ashkenazim. The only ones that wave the ashkenazim-are-kazars view are those whose agenda is to deny the authenticity of Judaism's claim to the Torah. We've survived much greater threats from much greater empires and churches, than those echoed by nazis on internet fora are able to muster. When their empires' eventually fall, as all do, Nation of Israel will still be here.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Participants:  13
Total posts:  30
Initial post:  Jan 4, 2010
Latest post:  Jun 29, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The Invention of the Jewish People
The Invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand (Hardcover - October 19, 2009)
3.7 out of 5 stars (189)