The real holocaust of the 20th century

[jgress]

The Wikipedia article explains that the term Ashkenazi refers to their German origins, since they called Germany Ashkenaz. Do you have a reference for the claim that they are called this because they are descended from Ashkenaz?

And the Prophet Ezekiel, when speaking of his enemies' foreign descent, is speaking of the northern Israelites, who had mixed with Gentiles, not to the tribe of Judah, is he not?

I don't think our Lord, St Paul or anyone has claimed the non-believing Jews are not true descendants of Sem and Abraham. In fact, the whole significance of their rejection of Christ is that he was their true King. If they were not true Jews, then Christ would not have been their King, would He?

If you have some other authorities that confirm your interpretation, I would like to see them. Otherwise, I think you are misreading the Scripture and the Fathers.

[Cyprian]

And the Prophet Ezekiel, when speaking of his enemies' foreign descent, is speaking of the northern Israelites, who had mixed with Gentiles, not to the tribe of Judah, is he not?

The passage that Blessed Theodoret was commenting on was the beginning of Ezekiel chapter 16.

Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem; Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan; thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite. (Ezekiel 16:2-3)

Blessed Theodoret
Commentary on the Prophet Hosea
Chapter 12, vv. 7-8

Canaan, in his hand a yoke of injustice, loved to exercise power. Ephraim said, But I have grown rich, I have found respite (vv. 7-8). He gives Ephraim the name Canaan; blessed Ezekiel was also ordered to address Jerusalem in such terms, “Your origins and your birth are from Canaan, you father an Amorite, your mother a Hittite,” whose impiety they emulated, sharing also their name. So he is saying, You, O Ephraim, in imitation of the wickedness of Canaan, have acquired unjust balances in your mind: you persist in lack of respect for righteousness, you hanker after unjust influence, you glory in wealth, and with false pretensions you assign to yourself the task of amassing it.

[jgress]

I see. So Ezekiel was addressing Judah after all. But it seems to me he was referring to their spiritual kinship with the Canaanites, not their carnal kinship.

I don't think you have established that the Jews of today, or of Christ's day, are not Semites in the carnal sense. As the Wikipedia article explains, the title Ashkenazi refers to their geographical, not their genealogical origins. And Ezekiel's denunciation, according to St Theodoret's interpretation, is only saying that the carnal descendants of Abraham are not the spiritual descendants, a paradox that we already know from the words of our Lord "if ye were the sons of Abraham, ye would have done the works of Abraham".

Yes, you can say we are 'spiritual' Semites. Or more to the point, we are spiritual sons of Abraham, since we are sons by faith, i.e. inheritors of Abraham's promises. I really don't see how that makes 'anti-Semitic' an inaccurate term, as you seem to be arguing. Everyone knows it means hatred of the carnal descendants of Sem. What other word do you propose to use? You could say 'anti-Jewish', but then I could bring in St Paul's words "he is not a Jew who is one outwardly", and argue that the term is inappropriate because we are the true spiritual Jews.

Even someone as dogmatically rigorous as Vladimir Moss is willing to use the term 'anti-Semitic' to describe modern ideologies that are opposed to Jews on racial or cultural grounds. You can distinguish it from 'anti-Judaism', which is the traditional Christian hostility to the Jewish religion, which is not racially motivated. But that would not be accurate to describe the said modern ideologies.

[Cyprian]

I see. So Ezekiel was addressing Judah after all. But it seems to me he was referring to their spiritual kinship with the Canaanites, not their carnal kinship.

Of course. Who said otherwise? Canaan was the son of Ham, and when I came to the carnal claims of the Jews I brought up Japheth, another son of Noah.

I don't think you have established that the Jews of today, or of Christ's day, are not Semites in the carnal sense.

It is not for me to establish that the Jews of today are Semites in a carnal sense. The onus is on them, for they are the ones who are making completely unsupportable claims.

I really don't see how that makes 'anti-Semitic' an inaccurate term, as you seem to be arguing. Everyone knows it means hatred of the carnal descendants of Sem.

Aha...and how is it that you can say with any assuredness who is a carnal descendant of Sem and who is not, seeing how the patriarch lived approximately 4,500 years ago? Certainly you are aware that there have been entire tribes and kingdoms that have converted to Judaism over the millennia. Certainly you recognize that the races have mixed a great deal over this same span. Certainly you recognize that not only the Jews, but also the Ishmaelites (Hagarenes/Saracens) and Edomites also descended from Abraham, making them "Semites" according to your understanding? And what of the many children that Abraham fathered subsequent to Sarah's death, when he took Keturah as his wife? So that would make Jews who hate these groups the anti-Semites, would it not?

Tell me, Jonathan. Can you trace your genealogy back nearly 4,000 years to the age of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Can anyone on this forum produce their family tree going back 4,000 years? How about even 2,000 years? What gives you any assurance that these people claiming to be the literal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and hence Shem, are able to produce what you yourself cannot?

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim 1.4)

The Nuremberg Laws are a perfect example of these types of "questions" which arise from disputes over the nature of these endless genealogies. What if a person has three grandparents that are accounted Jewish? Does that qualify them to be considered of "Jewish blood"? What if they only have two of their four grandparents who are accounted Jewish? Is that person still to be considered a Jew, according to the flesh? You see where this is leading. What if one grandparent was "fully" Jewish (whatever that means), and another grandparent was "half-Jewish"? Wouldn't that make someone 3/8 Jewish? Do you see how silly all of this becomes?

The only reason I bring up these points is to show the abject foolishness of the Jews, who pride themselves on some imagined noble lineage--not that it avails them anything.

What other word do you propose to use? You could say 'anti-Jewish', but then I could bring in St Paul's words "he is not a Jew who is one outwardly", and argue that the term is inappropriate because we are the true spiritual Jews.

You must understand, I do not accept this notion of a modern-day Jewish race. It is largely a myth. The blood of the nations has been sufficiently mixed to a large enough degree, coupled with the fact that the Jewish religion has historically accepted proselytes, and furthermore modern Judaism has departed from the ancient practice of counting genealogy on the basis of the father, but rather changed to the mother, that I regard the whole question as irrelevant. The Jews have very specific reasons for wanting to propagandize the nations with their fables about endless genealogies. An obvious example of their claims to being a race being used to their advantage in modern times, is to tar anyone who opposes their diabolical schemes, which are a result of their perverted beliefs, and not anything to do with their blood, as a "racist". But of course when it doesn't suit the Jews, they do not want to be accounted as a race, but as a religion. Which is why the Jews have lobbied to make sure there is no Jewish racial category listed on the U.S. Census. They want it both ways. They want to be accounted a race when accusing people of being bigoted racists, but when it doesn't suit their purposes, they resort to being classified as a religion.

Even someone as dogmatically rigorous as Vladimir Moss is willing to use the term 'anti-Semitic' to describe modern ideologies that are opposed to Jews on racial or cultural grounds.

Vladimir Moss is a prolific writer. As a consequence, he writes many things with which I am in agreement with. But there are other things which he writes which I do not agree with. He is free to use the term as he so chooses, but it is not incumbent upon me to agree with him on this point.

You can distinguish it from 'anti-Judaism', which is the traditional Christian hostility to the Jewish religion, which is not racially motivated. But that would not be accurate to describe the said modern ideologies.

When is the last time you have heard the expression "anti-Judaism" used in the media or in common culture? When is the last time you heard the expression "anti-Semitism"? The Jews do not want to portray Christians who oppose their perverted religious doctrines merely as people who have a fundamental disagreement over religious doctrines. Their intentions are aimed precisely at portraying Christians as racists. When the Jew does this, it serves to put the Christian on the defensive, diverting attention from the topic at hand, forcing him to make an apology as to why he is not a racist for opposing the aims of Jewry.

[jgress]

I think I misunderstood your use of Theodoret. You introduced your original post by saying the Jews have no kinship with Abraham, which I interpreted as carnal kinship, since you did not specify the sense in which you were using the term kinship, then you immediately cited Theodoret, who was talking about the Jews' spiritual, not carnal kinship, and so I thought you had misinterpreted Theodoret.

As for your claim that the Ashkenazi Jews are not descendants of Sem because they claim Ashkenaz as their ancestor, I continue to maintain that this is a misunderstanding of the term Ashkenazi. This term refers to their geographical origin in Germany, which they thought was the land where the descendants of Ashkenaz had settled. They use the term to distinguish themselves from the Sephardic Jews, who came from Spain (Sepharad in Hebrew). It does not mean they claim to be the descendants of Ashkenaz themselves. It would be absurd if they did, since that would undermine their other claim to be the descendants of Abraham.

Anti-Semitism is not just a creation of the Jews, although I agree with you that Jews often use it to silence any opposition to their religion. Nazism developed quite a sophisticated racialist theory that condemned the Jews precisely on racial, not religious grounds. This is why Nazism also opposed Christianity, because Christians worship a Jewish God and claim spiritual ancestry from the Jews.

As for the extent of non-Semitic genetic mixture in the Jewish race, I do not deny there has been some, although I still believe they are predominantly of Semitic blood. But precisely how much of Sem they have in their genes is beside the point. Our Lord, the Apostles and the Fathers all believed the Jews to be the carnal descendants of Sem and Abraham. St Paul and other saints prophesied that before the Last Judgment the Jews would accept Christ. According to your reasoning, the Jewish race does not even exist. If that is so, how will they accept Christ?

[Cyprian]

As for your claim that the Ashkenazi Jews are not descendants of Sem because they claim Ashkenaz as their ancestor, I continue to maintain that this is a misunderstanding of the term Ashkenazi. This term refers to their geographical origin in Germany, which they thought was the land where the descendants of Ashkenaz had settled.

In my original post, did I not say that Ashkenazi Jews are accounted to be German Jews? What do you mean when you say "their geographical origin in Germany"? Is it not claimed by the Jews that their geographical origin comes from the lands of Sem--e.g. Palestine and surrounding regions? So why are the vast majority of Jewish people who claim to be Semitic, calling themselves after Ashkenaz, who was of Japheth, father of Gentiles? Is this logical? Yes, when Noah cast lots for his three sons, the northern lands (including Germany) fell to the lot of Japheth. Sem was allotted Palestine and the surrounding regions. So why are the vast majority of Jews who are called Ashkenazim, calling themselves after a son of Japheth and not Sem? They are discrediting their own claims to be Semitic.

They use the term to distinguish themselves from the Sephardic Jews, who came from Spain (Sepharad in Hebrew).

The region of Spain was also allotted to Japheth. Whether they call themselves Sephardic or Ashkenazi, (i.e Spanish or German), they are still naming their origins after Japheth, father of Gentile nations, and not Sem, father of the Hebrews/Israelites.

It does not mean they claim to be the descendants of Ashkenaz themselves. It would be absurd if they did, since that would undermine their other claim to be the descendants of Abraham.

So if I follow you correctly, you maintain that their claim is that their "geographic origin" is from Germany (Ashkenaz) and Spain (Sepharad), but their genealogical origin is from Sem, whose descendants did not settle those lands? So is it not incumbent upon them to demonstrate how the Israelite descendants of Sem came to settle in Germany and Spain? Let them bring forth their evidence.

If you go back and read my original posts, my original assertion was that it doesn't make a whit of difference from whom the modern-day Jews of today are descended. For all the reasons I listed above: dispersions, conversions, assimilation, lack of genealogical data, etc., I believe that according to His foresight, God in His wisdom has kept the racial origins of modern-day Jewry in obscurity, to discourage any from priding themselves on some assumed nobility of lineage, as if it availed anything. So I have no strongly held opinion as to whether modern-day Jews are descended, fully or partially, from Sem, or not. It's irrelevant. It is incumbent upon them to prove their ancestral origins, and not for me to disprove it, since they are the ones who pride themselves on some imagined lineage. Even scholars in this field of study hold widely divergent opinions as to the racial origins of modern Jewry, illustrating the futility of these sorts of questions.

[Cyprian]

Anti-Semitism is not just a creation of the Jews, although I agree with you that Jews often use it to silence any opposition to their religion.

The term is a novel one, of recent times. Sem existed some 4,500 years ago, but only in the last century and a half or so did the Jews concoct this concept of someone being an "anti-Semite". If this is a valid and useful term for opposition to Jews, how come none of the fathers ever made use of it throughout history? The term is in fact a creation hatched up by the Jews, to brandish anyone opposed to their aims, as "racist". In recent times the Jews have gone to great lengths with their control of the media and popular culture to convince everyone that they are a unified race, whose origins trace back to Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and consequently further back to Shem. But they have produced no proof of their claims. No modern Jew of today can produce his genealogical history dating back 4,000 years to Abraham. There used to be genealogical records kept in the Temple, but those were lost when Jerusalem was besieged. The only certain genealogical record dating back to Abraham and even prior, is that which is recorded in the Holy Bible, and it ends with the genealogy of Jesus Christ.

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Timothy:
Homily I: 1 Timothy i, 1, 2.

Ver. 4. "Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies."

By "fables" he does not mean the law; far from it; but inventions and forgeries and counterfeit doctrines. For, it seems, the Jews wasted their whole discourse on these unprofitable points, knowledge and research. "That thou mightest charge some," he says, "that they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies." Why does he call them "endless"? It is because they had no end, or none of any use, or none easy for us to apprehend. Mark how he disapproves of questioning. For where faith exists, there is no need of question. Where there is no room for curiosity, questions are superfluous. Questioning is the subversion of faith. For he that seeks has not yet found. He who questions cannot believe. Therefore it is his advice that we should not be occupied with questions, since if we question, it is not faith; for faith sets reasoning at rest.

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Titus:
Homily VI: Titus iii. 8--11.

"These things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject. Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and vain." What do these "genealogies" mean? For in his Epistle to Timothy he mentions "fables and endless genealogies." [Perhaps both here and there glancing at the Jews, who, priding themselves on having Abraham for their forefather, neglected their own part. On this account he calls them both "foolish and unprofitable"; for it is the part of folly to confide in things unprofitable.