Deuteronomy 28. G-d's promise to the Jews is several fold.
If you follow the commandments, good things will happen. (Good harvest, peace with your family, living comfortably and well.)
If you don't follow the commandments, bad things will happen. (Conquered by outsiders, losing your children, fear, starvation, exile.)
In spite of which, the nation of Israel Weill NEVER fully disappear from the earth.
What does that mean to Jews? Or the Jews in 1939 who didn't flee?
They might not have realized they were enter promise 2, perhaps from the rising Reform movement.
They may thought that they'd be safe due to promise 3.
But the problem with promise 3 is that 99% of the Jews could be horribly murdered with only 1% surviving -- but that 1% is enough to show that G-d kept his word in promise 3.
It's foolish to tempt fate that way.
But we've been through promise 2 multiple times in history already. The Holocaust was just the most recently. There have been other times, particularly the fall of the two temples.
You use the term Jew to loosely. People today think all Israelites are Jews. They are not. The meaning of the word has changed over time and has misled many. The meaning originally applied to the judeans living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ. Only a small amount of the tribe of Judah, Benjamin and Levites were there at that time. It is incorrect to refer to the "lost tribes as Jews.
Yeah, strictly speaking it should mean Israelites. But most of the surviving Israelites are from the tribe of Judah, so it became Jews today, though that would include surviving Levites and Benjaminites.
The "lost tribes" refers to those dragged into captivity by the Assyrians.... The Reubenites, Danites, etc. Some may survive, but lost their identity, though some people make that claim here and there.
Man, I wish I understood more on the tribes, how & where they dissipated and each of their general histories. It’s all so convoluted in today’s world. I’m reading an interesting book now that touches on some of it; “The Touchstone Diary”. It’s fact & fiction (drama) & some have labeled it as heretical (cuz it doesn’t fit their narrative), but the author spent 10 years researching for it and I’ve found it fascinating.
Well, in the ancient world you would often do that to a defeated people. If Rome defeated Carthage, say, they could kill everybody (maybe) or enslave them. Or maybe you leave them there and demand they pay tribute.
Problem with tribute is if you keep them on their own land, they might regroup and rebel.
So a trick they did was.... say you beat city A and City B and they're in separate parts of the world. You relocate the people from City A to City B, and city B to A. That way they are dealing with a new place, a new language, new weather systems and they're so busy dealing with the unfamiliar that they can't organize and rebel.
And over the years, the people of A lose their culture and become more like the Empire. and people B lose their cultural identity and join the empire.
That's why you don't find people walking around today claiming to be Babylonians or Carthaginians or Assyrians. Maybe there's a descendent of Babylon today, but he calls himself an Iraqi and has no real connection to the ancient culture of Babylon.
There's a few peoples that have been around for an extraordinary long time. One is the Chinese, mostly because they have a large piece of land that they've never been displaced from. They still had political turmoil. with multiple dynasties that came to the scene, grew, became corrupt, fell, and were replaced by the next dynasty.
The other is the Jews, that somehow kept their cultural identity intact inspire centuries of exile in foreign lands. That's unusual. Even more unusual, the Bible predicted this before it happened.
An addendum, though, is that with all the deliberate relocation today by the globohomos (useful enough term) they're trying the same damn thing. Dilute American culture by bringing in Latin America and Afghani culture. Dilute European culture by bringing in Arab culture. And I imagine its the same reason: dilute the possibility of rebellion.
Deuteronomy 28. G-d's promise to the Jews is several fold.
If you follow the commandments, good things will happen. (Good harvest, peace with your family, living comfortably and well.)
If you don't follow the commandments, bad things will happen. (Conquered by outsiders, losing your children, fear, starvation, exile.)
In spite of which, the nation of Israel Weill NEVER fully disappear from the earth.
What does that mean to Jews? Or the Jews in 1939 who didn't flee?
They might not have realized they were enter promise 2, perhaps from the rising Reform movement.
They may thought that they'd be safe due to promise 3.
But the problem with promise 3 is that 99% of the Jews could be horribly murdered with only 1% surviving -- but that 1% is enough to show that G-d kept his word in promise 3.
It's foolish to tempt fate that way.
But we've been through promise 2 multiple times in history already. The Holocaust was just the most recently. There have been other times, particularly the fall of the two temples.
You use the term Jew to loosely. People today think all Israelites are Jews. They are not. The meaning of the word has changed over time and has misled many. The meaning originally applied to the judeans living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ. Only a small amount of the tribe of Judah, Benjamin and Levites were there at that time. It is incorrect to refer to the "lost tribes as Jews.
Yeah, strictly speaking it should mean Israelites. But most of the surviving Israelites are from the tribe of Judah, so it became Jews today, though that would include surviving Levites and Benjaminites.
The "lost tribes" refers to those dragged into captivity by the Assyrians.... The Reubenites, Danites, etc. Some may survive, but lost their identity, though some people make that claim here and there.
Man, I wish I understood more on the tribes, how & where they dissipated and each of their general histories. It’s all so convoluted in today’s world. I’m reading an interesting book now that touches on some of it; “The Touchstone Diary”. It’s fact & fiction (drama) & some have labeled it as heretical (cuz it doesn’t fit their narrative), but the author spent 10 years researching for it and I’ve found it fascinating.
Well, in the ancient world you would often do that to a defeated people. If Rome defeated Carthage, say, they could kill everybody (maybe) or enslave them. Or maybe you leave them there and demand they pay tribute.
Problem with tribute is if you keep them on their own land, they might regroup and rebel.
So a trick they did was.... say you beat city A and City B and they're in separate parts of the world. You relocate the people from City A to City B, and city B to A. That way they are dealing with a new place, a new language, new weather systems and they're so busy dealing with the unfamiliar that they can't organize and rebel.
And over the years, the people of A lose their culture and become more like the Empire. and people B lose their cultural identity and join the empire.
That's why you don't find people walking around today claiming to be Babylonians or Carthaginians or Assyrians. Maybe there's a descendent of Babylon today, but he calls himself an Iraqi and has no real connection to the ancient culture of Babylon.
There's a few peoples that have been around for an extraordinary long time. One is the Chinese, mostly because they have a large piece of land that they've never been displaced from. They still had political turmoil. with multiple dynasties that came to the scene, grew, became corrupt, fell, and were replaced by the next dynasty.
The other is the Jews, that somehow kept their cultural identity intact inspire centuries of exile in foreign lands. That's unusual. Even more unusual, the Bible predicted this before it happened.
An addendum, though, is that with all the deliberate relocation today by the globohomos (useful enough term) they're trying the same damn thing. Dilute American culture by bringing in Latin America and Afghani culture. Dilute European culture by bringing in Arab culture. And I imagine its the same reason: dilute the possibility of rebellion.