Genetic studies on Palestinians and Israelis

[Coyote]

And here I thought a samaritan was the guy that hooked up a chain to my car and hauled me out of a snowdrift I plowed into last winter...due to a mild miscalculation.

go figure

 

[MHunterB]

Oh, and your interpretation of the NT parable is asinine and hateful: the point was that Samaritans were clearly heretical - and that such was not an excuse to judge them as 'lesser'.

It's a very Jewish point: remember that the focus of the NT is supposed to be Jesus' teachings, and not some running 'running-down' of the Jews.

After all, Jesus was a Jewish Pharisee and taught by using parables: the 'dialogues' are the Greek idiom (Socratic), and some scholars have suggested many of the 'dialogue' sections are later interpolations.

Some silly Christians insist on using 'Pharisee' in much the way you are using 'Zionist': they've made up a 'definition' and 'beliefs' which have no association with the reality, and just proceed as though YHVH Himself had coined their 'definition'........

 

[amity1844]

Oh, and your interpretation of the NT parable is asinine and hateful: the point was that Samaritans were clearly heretical - and that such was not an excuse to judge them as 'lesser'.

It's a very Jewish point: remember that the focus of the NT is supposed to be Jesus' teachings, and not some running 'running-down' of the Jews.

After all, Jesus was a Jewish Pharisee and taught by using parables: the 'dialogues' are the Greek idiom (Socratic), and some scholars have suggested many of the 'dialogue' sections are later interpolations.

Some silly Christians insist on using 'Pharisee' in much the way you are using 'Zionist': they've made up a 'definition' and 'beliefs' which have no association with the reality, and just proceed as though YHVH Himself had coined their 'definition'........

Jesus was neither Pharisee or a Saducee. and used both as bad examples, but particularly the Pharisees. I believe you are thinking of Paul, who described himself as a Pharisee's Pharisee. The word Pharisee is practically synonymous with "hypocrite" is Christian discourse. The historical consensus is that he was likely an Essene or something similar.

 

[MHunterB]

In the end...what do genetics matter?

Both the people that call themselves "Palistinians" and the people that call themselves "Jews" share a rich and intertwined history that goes back milliniums.

The only purpose of these arguments is to justify the disenfranchisment of one or the other.

There needs to be justice and liberty for both. There needs to be a homeland for both.

I have no problem with the 'Palestinian' people being invented in 1967 AND having a homeland next to Israel.

My problem is their OFFICIAL denial that the Temple ever stood on the Temple Mount, their rioting and attacking Jews for simply coming there peacefully, and a few other issues.

I agree: genetics does not matter. It is not being used by Zionists to 'disenfranchise' anyone: it is persistently used to try to disenfranchise 'Ashkenazi' Jews and attack the legitimacy of Israel as the Jewish homeland.

If the 'Palestinians' hadn't been so focused on denying us Jews our right to our homeland - they could have had theirs decades ago. And we'd have been able to help them get things up & running.

 

[Coyote]

In the end...what do genetics matter?

Both the people that call themselves "Palistinians" and the people that call themselves "Jews" share a rich and intertwined history that goes back milliniums.

The only purpose of these arguments is to justify the disenfranchisment of one or the other.

There needs to be justice and liberty for both. There needs to be a homeland for both.

I have no problem with the 'Palestinian' people being invented in 1967 AND having a homeland next to Israel.

My problem is their OFFICIAL denial that the Temple ever stood on the Temple Mount, their rioting and attacking Jews for simply coming there peacefully, and a few other issues.

I agree: genetics does not matter. It is not being used by Zionists to 'disenfranchise' anyone: it is persistently used to try to disenfranchise 'Ashkenazi' Jews and attack the legitimacy of Israel as the Jewish homeland.

If the 'Palestinians' hadn't been so focused on denying us Jews our right to our homeland - they could have had theirs decades ago. And we'd have been able to help them get things up & running.

They weren't "invented". They'd always existed in that region. Maybe they didn't have a name but they didn't suddenly spring out of nowhere. THAT exact argument - that they are an "invented" people is why I say it's an attempt to disenfranchise them.

And yes, it IS genetics IS used as an attempt to disenfranchise them - it's an attempt to show they have no "ties to the land" or, at least their ties aren't as old.

It's as much a tool to disenfranchise them as it is to disenfranchise the "Ahskenazi" Jews.

Let's be honest here.

Both have a right to a homeland. Neither is going to conveniently disappear or be exported to foreign lands.

We just need to figure out the details.

Of course, the devil's in the details...

 

[MHunterB]

Oh, and your interpretation of the NT parable is asinine and hateful: the point was that Samaritans were clearly heretical - and that such was not an excuse to judge them as 'lesser'.

It's a very Jewish point: remember that the focus of the NT is supposed to be Jesus' teachings, and not some running 'running-down' of the Jews.

After all, Jesus was a Jewish Pharisee and taught by using parables: the 'dialogues' are the Greek idiom (Socratic), and some scholars have suggested many of the 'dialogue' sections are later interpolations.

Some silly Christians insist on using 'Pharisee' in much the way you are using 'Zionist': they've made up a 'definition' and 'beliefs' which have no association with the reality, and just proceed as though YHVH Himself had coined their 'definition'........

Jesus was neither Pharisee or a Saducee. and used both as bad examples, but particularly the Pharisees. I believe you are thinking of Paul, who described himself as a Pharisee's Pharisee. The word Pharisee is practically synonymous with "hypocrite" is Christian discourse. The historical consensus is that he was likely an Essene or something similar.

Yes, Jesus was incensed at the Pharisees who were hypocritical. But not all Pharisees were the same: there were at least 7 different schools.

I KNOW I don't have Jesus confused with Paul: Paul claimed all kinds of things about himself which his words don't bear out. But that's waaaay off topic. Let's just say that Paul appears to have been a 'legacy' admission who barely scraped by.......

 

[aris2chat]

again, learn to do a simple search online

http://shomron0.tripod.com/articles/differences.pdf

 

[amity1844]

Yes, Aris, I did know about that. the part I didn't know was their legal status in Israel and whether or not they were considered Jewish.

 

[amity1844]

Let's see the links to the laws which establish such differences.
Oh, and I'd like some independent verification of your other allegations as well.

As for the Jews 'despising' the Samaritans: have you read any of the seemingly endless filth that Protestants churn out attacking Catholics? Or read any of what the Shi'a and Sunni have to say about one another?

No, because I am not interested in filth.

You ARE?

 

[amity1844]

Let's see the links to the laws which establish such differences.
Oh, and I'd like some independent verification of your other allegations as well.

Well, specifically with regard to Samaritans, how does the law of return apply to them, for example? Yes, I know they are already there for the most part, but if they weren't.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Jacob and Esau...check it out

 

[amity1844]

Oh, and your interpretation of the NT parable is asinine and hateful: the point was that Samaritans were clearly heretical - and that such was not an excuse to judge them as 'lesser'.

It's a very Jewish point: remember that the focus of the NT is supposed to be Jesus' teachings, and not some running 'running-down' of the Jews.

After all, Jesus was a Jewish Pharisee and taught by using parables: the 'dialogues' are the Greek idiom (Socratic), and some scholars have suggested many of the 'dialogue' sections are later interpolations.

Some silly Christians insist on using 'Pharisee' in much the way you are using 'Zionist': they've made up a 'definition' and 'beliefs' which have no association with the reality, and just proceed as though YHVH Himself had coined their 'definition'........

Jesus was neither Pharisee or a Saducee. and used both as bad examples, but particularly the Pharisees. I believe you are thinking of Paul, who described himself as a Pharisee's Pharisee. The word Pharisee is practically synonymous with "hypocrite" is Christian discourse. The historical consensus is that he was likely an Essene or something similar.

Yes, Jesus was incensed at the Pharisees who were hypocritical. But not all Pharisees were the same: there were at least 7 different schools.

I KNOW I don't have Jesus confused with Paul: Paul claimed all kinds of things about himself which his words don't bear out. But that's waaaay off topic. Let's just say that Paul appears to have been a 'legacy' admission who barely scraped by.......

Mu understanding of the parable is that the low status of the Samaritans in Jewish society is part of the meaning of the parable.

My understanding of the Samaritans is not that they were considered heretical, but that they were ritually "unclean" because they only had an immature form of religious observance, such as existed prior to the Babylonian captivity. Not sure about that, but the meaning of the story in Christian understanding usually involves them being excluded from religious life in Israel.

And yes, of course not all anyone are anything, so not all Pharisees were hypocritical and I didn't mean to say they were, sorry. That again is just the symbolism because many of Christ's sayings about them are illustrating formalistic religious beliefs versus actual faith.

 

[aris2chat]

Let's see the links to the laws which establish such differences.
Oh, and I'd like some independent verification of your other allegations as well.

Well, specifically with regard to Samaritans, how does the law of return apply to them, for example? Yes, I know they are already there for the most part, but if they weren't.

They are jews.

What is with the obsession about the samaritans?

 

[amity1844]

Just wondering. The usual definition is .... if mother was Jewish then child is Jewish.

Samaritans strictly speaking do not have Jewish mothers.

 

[aris2chat]

Just wondering. The usual definition is .... if mother was Jewish then child is Jewish.

Samaritans strictly speaking do not have Jewish mothers.

samaritans use the fathers lineage

If you had checked the links already given to you, then you would know that and not need to "wonder"

 

[amity1844]

Just wondering. The usual definition is .... if mother was Jewish then child is Jewish.

Samaritans strictly speaking do not have Jewish mothers.

samaritans use the fathers lineage

If you had checked the links already given to you, then you would know that and not need to "wonder"

Yes, but the ISRAELI LAW uses the Jewish mother definition as far as I know.

 

[amity1844]

Never mind, this is not a good place to get factual objective info about Israel from pro-Israeli sources. The anti-Zionists are doing a much better job actually.

 

[MHunterB]

Let's see the links to the laws which establish such differences.
Oh, and I'd like some independent verification of your other allegations as well.

As for the Jews 'despising' the Samaritans: have you read any of the seemingly endless filth that Protestants churn out attacking Catholics? Or read any of what the Shi'a and Sunni have to say about one another?

No, because I am not interested in filth.

You ARE?

NO. I just find it disingenuous in the extreme when anyone pontificates as you have on a phenomenon which is well-nigh universal as though it's unique to one particular group or situation.

I'm so sorry that in your haste to sling insults, you didn't grasp the point which was: virtually ALL religious groups engage in some kind of trash talking one another. Seeking to portray Jews as unique in not appreciating 'their' heretics is extremely inaccurate.

 

[MHunterB]

Let's see the links to the laws which establish such differences.
Oh, and I'd like some independent verification of your other allegations as well.

Well, specifically with regard to Samaritans, how does the law of return apply to them, for example? Yes, I know they are already there for the most part, but if they weren't.

Since it isn't really a question, it has likely not come up so far. As I'm neither an expert in citizenship law nor Israeli law, I won't try to answer the question.

I do, however, have a source or two to consult and will bring back the responses I get.

 

[aris2chat]

Just wondering. The usual definition is .... if mother was Jewish then child is Jewish.

Samaritans strictly speaking do not have Jewish mothers.

samaritans use the fathers lineage

If you had checked the links already given to you, then you would know that and not need to "wonder"

Yes, but the ISRAELI LAW uses the Jewish mother definition as far as I know.

What is bug you have up you ____? Samaritans who's father is jewish has the right to live in Israel. They are jews under Israeli law. Different in some ways but jews.

There are only around 800 of them. Are you expecting some mass migration of Samaritans from outside the country that you are hung up on their right of return?