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.