Evidence that Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, and Modern day Jews do not descend from Yadavas farmers

[Eliana]

At best I am monolatrous your honour, and I deny proselytizing of any nature.

One only needs to read the transcript of this thread to know I am not here to define what is, or isn't, Orthodox Judaism.

If I am guilty, then all I will say is chazak chazak v’nitchazek!


Addition: In Tamil the phrase is enough! enough! you have cried long enough!

- You wasted your efforts with the translation, because I cared what it meant about as much as I care what you think about my Jewish beliefs.

- Saying "your honour" doesn't make logical sense, even as snark, unless I've grilled you or someone about anything. I've never done that because I don't care what other people believe.

@Ehav4Ever What am I missing that this thread is about?

 

[GoodAttention]

- You wasted your efforts with the translation, because I cared what it meant about as much as I care what you think about my Jewish beliefs.

It wasn’t a translation, it was simply the cultural equivalent.

- Saying "your honour" doesn't make logical sense, even as snark, unless I've grilled you or someone about anything. I've never done that because I don't care what other people believe.

I was addressing Elohim, not you.

 

[Eliana]

It wasn’t a translation, it was simply the cultural equivalent.



I was addressing ______, not you.

This you?

Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

I imagine that anyone on this forum would encounter some pushback if they stated in their introductory thread that they can't stand specific religious sects, rudely stated that they don't care about what Muslims and others who don't adhere to their religious beliefs think about their religious...

www.religiousforums.com

This is quite a switch from your somewhat affirming comments towards me and my views up until now, and we have only ever directly interacted one single time. I'm sitting here wondering why this person I don't know is randomly attacking me, and I dug around to see what the possible motivation was.

Not only am I on your follow list for some reason despite us never interacting... except one single time for one sentence, but your personality has totally flipped to like one of the trolls in the "Leftists fear opposing views" thread. I also noted you never participated in that thread either.

Since we've not interacted since then and I've hardly posted at all, there is no reasonable cause for such a dramatic and unprovoked shift in attitude. Nothing I've said, nor my views or "tone" between now and then has been any different. More then likely this is one of your sock puppets and you forgot your prior, totally opposite attitude towards me. I was wondering why certain people would follow me to a totally unrelated thread specifically to attack me. Now it's all coming together.

 

[GoodAttention]

This you?

Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

I imagine that anyone on this forum would encounter some pushback if they stated in their introductory thread that they can't stand specific religious sects, rudely stated that they don't care about what Muslims and others who don't adhere to their religious beliefs think about their religious...

www.religiousforums.com

This is quite a switch from your somewhat affirming comments towards me and my views up until now, and we have only ever directly interacted one single time. I'm sitting here wondering why this person I don't know is randomly attacking me, and I dug around to see what the possible motivation was.

Not only am I on your follow list for some reason despite us never interacting... except one single time for one sentence, but your personality has totally flipped to like one of the trolls in the "Leftists fear opposing views" thread. I also noted you never participated in that thread either.

Since we've not interacted since then and I've hardly posted at all, there is no reasonable cause for such a dramatic and unprovoked shift in attitude. Nothing I've said, nor my views or "tone" between now and then has been any different. More then likely this is one of your sock puppets and you forgot your prior, totally opposite attitude towards me. I was wondering why certain people would follow me to a totally unrelated thread specifically to attack me. Now it's all coming together.

My comments about “orthodox police” was attempt at humour, that is to laugh with you, not at you. If I offended you I apologise.

My follow-up comment was to defend myself against you labelling me a polytheist. If my words offended you, I apologise.

If you are actually not offended, but perhaps experiencing another emotive reaction, then I do not apologise. But I will kindly ask that you stop flattering yourself.

 

[paarsurrey]

Evidence that Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, and Modern day Jews do not descend from Yadavas farmers

Sure, I am a Kashmiri Brahmin. My descent probably is from Kamboja tribe, which merged with Aryans. The line is from a Kamboja sage, Upamanyu.

@Aupmanyav I'll use the word merged from now on.
@GoodAttention Never once did I claim master race. Aryans does not mean master race.

Aryans were nomadic herders and migrated to India around 1,500 BCE and mixed with indigenous people. The indigenous people have not lost their identity.
Aryans had no caste system. Caste system existed in India before the coming of Aryans. Aryans had just four divisions of society.

Evidence that Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, and Modern day Jews do not descend from Yadavas farmers
@Aupmanyav I'll use the word merged from now on.
@GoodAttention Never once did I claim master race. Aryans does not mean master race.
I give etymology of the word "Aryan", please, right?:

Aryan​

c. 1600, as a term in classical history, from Latin Arianus, Ariana, from Greek Aria, Areia, names applied in classical times to the eastern part of ancient Persia and to its inhabitants. Ancient Persians used the name in reference to themselves (Old Persian ariya-), hence Iran. Ultimately from Sanskrit arya- "compatriot;" in later language "noble, of good family."
Also the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts. Thus it was the word early 19c. European philologists (Friedrich Schlegel, 1819, who linked it with German Ehre "honor") applied to the ancient people we now call Indo-Europeans, suspecting that this is what they called themselves. This use is attested in English from 1851. In German from 1845 it was specifically contrasted to Semitic (Lassen).
German philologist Max Müller (1823-1900) popularized Aryan in his writings on comparative linguistics, recommending it as the name (replacing Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Caucasian, Japhetic) for the group of related, inflected languages connected with these peoples, mostly found in Europe but also including Sanskrit and Persian. The spelling Arian was used in this sense from 1839 (and is more philologically correct), but it caused confusion with Arian, the term in ecclesiastical history.
Aryan was gradually replaced in comparative linguistics c. 1900 by Indo-European, except when used to distinguish Indo-European languages of India from non-Indo-European ones. From the 1920s Aryan began to be used in Nazi ideology to mean "member of a Caucasian Gentile race of Nordic type." As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians (most justly to the latter) and has fallen from general academic use since the Nazis adopted it.
also from c. 1600

Entries linking to Aryan​

Arian (adj.)

late 14c., Arrian, "adhering to the doctrines of Arius," from Late Latin Arianus, "pertaining to the doctrines of Arius," priest in Alexandria early 4c., who posed the question of Christ's nature in terms which appeared to debase the Savior's relation to God (denial of consubstantiation). Besides taking an abstract view of Christ's nature, he reaffirmed man's capacity for perfection. The doctrines were condemned at Nice, 325, but the dissension was widespread and split the Church for about a century during the crucial time of barbarian conversions. The name is Greek, literally "warlike, of Ares."

Caucasian (adj.)

1807, of or pertaining to the Caucasus Mountains (q.v.), with -ian. Applied to the "white" race 1795 (in Latin) by German anthropologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), who in his pioneering treatise on anthropology distinguished mankind into five races: Mongolian, Ethiopian, Malay, (Native) American, and Caucasian. In the last group he included nearly all Europeans (except Lapps and Finns), Armenians, Persians, and Hindus, as well as Arabs and Jews. His attempt at division was based on physical similarities in skulls.
"The word has long since been abandoned as a historical/anthropological term." Compare Aryan.
Indo-European

• Iran
• • Japhetic
• • Aryanism
• • Aryanize
• See all related words (7) >
• https://www.etymonline.com/word/Aryan

Right?

Friend @Bharat Jhunjhunwala , please.

Regards

 

[River Sea]

Evidence that Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, and Modern day Jews do not descend from Yadavas farmers

@Aupmanyav I'll use the word merged from now on.
@GoodAttention Never once did I claim master race. Aryans does not mean master race.


I give etymology of the word "Aryan", please, right?:

Aryan​

c. 1600, as a term in classical history, from Latin Arianus, Ariana, from Greek Aria, Areia, names applied in classical times to the eastern part of ancient Persia and to its inhabitants. Ancient Persians used the name in reference to themselves (Old Persian ariya-), hence Iran. Ultimately from Sanskrit arya- "compatriot;" in later language "noble, of good family."
Also the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts. Thus it was the word early 19c. European philologists (Friedrich Schlegel, 1819, who linked it with German Ehre "honor") applied to the ancient people we now call Indo-Europeans, suspecting that this is what they called themselves. This use is attested in English from 1851. In German from 1845 it was specifically contrasted to Semitic (Lassen).
German philologist Max Müller (1823-1900) popularized Aryan in his writings on comparative linguistics, recommending it as the name (replacing Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Caucasian, Japhetic) for the group of related, inflected languages connected with these peoples, mostly found in Europe but also including Sanskrit and Persian. The spelling Arian was used in this sense from 1839 (and is more philologically correct), but it caused confusion with Arian, the term in ecclesiastical history.

Aryan was gradually replaced in comparative linguistics c. 1900 by Indo-European, except when used to distinguish Indo-European languages of India from non-Indo-European ones. From the 1920s Aryan began to be used in Nazi ideology to mean "member of a Caucasian Gentile race of Nordic type." As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians (most justly to the latter) and has fallen from general academic use since the Nazis adopted it.
also from c. 1600

Entries linking to Aryan​

Arian (adj.)

late 14c., Arrian, "adhering to the doctrines of Arius," from Late Latin Arianus, "pertaining to the doctrines of Arius," priest in Alexandria early 4c., who posed the question of Christ's nature in terms which appeared to debase the Savior's relation to God (denial of consubstantiation). Besides taking an abstract view of Christ's nature, he reaffirmed man's capacity for perfection. The doctrines were condemned at Nice, 325, but the dissension was widespread and split the Church for about a century during the crucial time of barbarian conversions. The name is Greek, literally "warlike, of Ares."

Caucasian (adj.)

1807, of or pertaining to the Caucasus Mountains (q.v.), with -ian. Applied to the "white" race 1795 (in Latin) by German anthropologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), who in his pioneering treatise on anthropology distinguished mankind into five races: Mongolian, Ethiopian, Malay, (Native) American, and Caucasian. In the last group he included nearly all Europeans (except Lapps and Finns), Armenians, Persians, and Hindus, as well as Arabs and Jews. His attempt at division was based on physical similarities in skulls.

"The word has long since been abandoned as a historical/anthropological term." Compare Aryan.
Indo-European

• Iran
• • Japhetic
• • Aryanism
• • Aryanize
• See all related words (7) >
• https://www.etymonline.com/word/Aryan

Right?

Regards

@paarsurrey

I never claim Aryans is a master race. It is @GoodAttention who claims I said this when I never did.

I was asking questions about the 1500 BCE and in that area of Germany due to you @paarsurrey showing north area.

There's a huge debate about AIT and OIT. Later I saw this word merging. I was agreeing with OIT, meaning no Aryans in India, people left India, and some returned back to India and could includes Aryans merging with these people.

@Aupmanyav explains that Aryans merged in with tribes in India during 1500 BCE. The OIT claims no Aryans in India during 1500 BCE. Then people left India. Later, people return to India, and this could include some Aryans. Never once did I claim master race.

During 1500 BCE
AIT means Aryans invasion in India. I don't agree with this.
OIT means no Aryans in India. I did agree with this.

During 1500 BCE
However @Aupmanyav explained that the Aryans merged with tribes in India, so I wrote I'll use Merged then.

So the question would be when did the Aryans merged in India?

The website that you @paarsurrey shared says nothing about Master Race in the earlier years. Further down the website, it shows it did claim master race, but that's a later time. I think a mob of people changed this word Aryan for their agenda. Which stole this word Aryan from the people, changing the meaning of the word Aryan for their agenda.

Aryan | Words related to Aryan | Online Etymology Dictionary

Words related to Aryan: Arian, Caucasian, Indo-European, Iran, Japhetic, Aryanism, Aryanize

www.etymonline.com

All I did was asked a question and @GoodAttention shouts with capital letters claiming that I'm writing about master race. I never claimed the word Aryan is a master race. I never did.

@GoodAttention Even if I did write the word Aryan during that time when this word Aryan was stolen from the people and used for an agenda, I'm still not claiming that the word Aryan is a master race.

The word Aryan does not mean master race. However later this word Aryan was stolen from the people and was used for an agenda. Causing this word Aryan to be extremely overly sensitive.

I'm for including all people.

Now thinking this over, when a word is stolen for an agenda and then causing a word to be extremely sensitive. I have to put in a lot of energy to make sure I'm showing others so they understand I'm for including all people.

It went like this

1. I'm kind and asked @Aupmanyav a question, and @Aupmanyav shares memories of each morning waking up to the smell of burnt butter from his grandpa's offerings to God.

2. @GoodAttention draws everyone's attention through capital letters that I'm claiming master race

3. @Aupmanyav claims I'll never understand this word, Aryan.

4. I spend energy to make sure people know I never said master race.

5. Advice on how this can be avoided next time: what is this called?

 

[GoodAttention]

@paarsurrey

I never claim Aryans is a master race. It is @GoodAttention who claims I said this when I never did.

I was asking questions about the 1500 BCE and in that area of Germany due to you @paarsurrey showing north area.

There's a huge debate about AIT and OIT. Later I saw this word merging. I was agreeing with OIT, meaning no Aryans in India, people left India, and some returned back to India and could includes Aryans merging with these people.

@Aupmanyav explains that Aryans merged in with tribes in India during 1500 BCE. The OIT claims no Aryans in India during 1500 BCE. Then people left India. Later, people return to India, and this could include some Aryans. Never once did I claim master race.

During 1500 BCE
AIT means Aryans invasion in India. I don't agree with this.
OIT means no Aryans in India. I did agree with this.

During 1500 BCE
However @Aupmanyav explained that the Aryans merged with tribes in India, so I wrote I'll use Merged then.

So the question would be when did the Aryans merged in India?

The website that you @paarsurrey shared says nothing about Master Race in the earlier years. Further down the website, it shows it did claim master race, but that's a later time. I think a mob of people changed this word Aryan for their agenda. Which stole this word Aryan from the people, changing the meaning of the word Aryan for their agenda.

Aryan | Words related to Aryan | Online Etymology Dictionary

Words related to Aryan: Arian, Caucasian, Indo-European, Iran, Japhetic, Aryanism, Aryanize

www.etymonline.com

All I did was asked a question and @GoodAttention shouts with capital letters claiming that I'm writing about master race. I never claimed the word Aryan is a master race. I never did.

I agree @River Sea you never claimed Aryan is a master race.

My words were not directed at you, they were directed at others to make a point, which is for them to look at themselves.

I apologise for not making myself clear, and for being too emotional. Please believe I value your opinions, questions, and conversation with me.

@GoodAttention Even if I did write the word Aryan during that time when this word Aryan was stolen from the people and used for an agenda, I'm still not claiming that the word Aryan is a master race.

Yes, I agree you are not claiming Aryan is a master race.

The word Aryan does not mean master race. However later this word Aryan was stolen from the people and was used for an agenda. Causing this word Aryan to be extremely overly sensitive.

I'm for including all people.

Now thinking this over, when a word is stolen for an agenda and then causing a word to be extremely sensitive. I have to put in a lot of energy to make sure I'm showing others so they understand I'm for including all people.

It went like this

1. I'm kind and asked @Aupmanyav a question, and @Aupmanyav shares memories of each morning waking up to the smell of burnt butter from his grandpa's offerings to God.

Aupmanyav is a reasonable person who is understanding and speaks from the heart as well as his head. He is open to conversation, and the beauty of his memory is that we can also imagine ourselves there.

2. @GoodAttention draws everyone's attention through capital letters that I'm claiming master race

I did not intend this.

3. @Aupmanyav claims I'll never understand this word, Aryan.

The name or description Aryan has a complex history, and it has not always been good history.

Think of the vikings, they were long considered to be people who would raid other groups and exert their power with violence. However there is more to their history than this, and so we must accept everything aspect, both good and bad.

We should spend out energy looking at the whole picture and discuss topics that are more constructive.

4. I spend energy to make sure people know I never said master race.

Allow me to join you and tell others you never said master race.

5. Advice on how this can be avoided next time: what is this called?

My words come from a deep anger, specifically at those whom I believe to be motivated by power, greed, or political agenda.

I need to be mindful of what I say, as it can cause more harm than good.

Please feel free to message me privately anytime. I am more than happy to add to my comments or respond to you directly to clarify.

 

[River Sea]

@Eliana

Were Hebrews and/or Yadavas: farmers, shepherds, or both farmers and shepherds? And could you explain why you think this?

Your thoughts, please?

 

[River Sea]

1. before we were called Jews, in English, we were called Yehudim in our own language.
2. Yehudim, in our own language, were a subset of a people known as Yisrael / Benei Yisrael / Yisraelim in our own language.
3. Yisrael / Benei Yisrael / Yisraelim descend from a people known as Ivrim / Ivriyim.
4. The Ivrim / Ivriyim were either a) descended from Avraham ben-Terahh or b) people who associated / lived as a part of the culture of Avraham ben-Terahh.
5. All of this is described, in written from, from documents that have been the possesion of Jews, and our ancestors, in the languages known as Ivrith and Yehudith.

This has to be distinquished from the Christianized conept of Abraham.

@Eliana
What are your thoughts on the words Yehudim, Yisraelim, and Ivrim?

There are a number of commentaries state that they were historical people of a certain generation. Yet, it is up for debate at what point of history is being discussed. I.e. there are some Jewish sources that take into that this could have been before recorded history. At least recorded history in terms of alphabetic writing systems. Maybe in regards to cave paintings one may find that this could be the period. The main lesson that a Jew can get out of the Torah on this point is about leadership and what can affect it.

@Eliana
What are your thoughts on cave paintings, and what lessons did people learn from them while viewing them?

 

[River Sea]

In this thread I will present historical and archeological evidence to that modern day Jews do not descend from Yadavas farms. This is not of course to say that there were no Yadavas who didn't convert to the Torah after Jewish exiles reached India culminating in the Cochin Jewish community, the Bombay Jewish community, and the Benei Menashe.

To prove this point I will using the following sources.

1. Actual Hebrew and Aramaic texts written within the last 3,000 years about Jewish ancestry.
2. Archeological sources that discuss the above ancestral claims.
3. Information local to India about how Jews arrived there and when.

@paarsurrey
your thoughts, please
Aramaic texts were written before Hebrew text; am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

@Ehav4Ever What am I missing that this thread is about?

Where to even start with this? I will send you a message to catch you up to speed.

 

[paarsurrey]

Evidence that Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, and Modern day Jews do not descend from Yadavas farmers​

@paarsurrey
your thoughts, please
Aramaic texts were written before Hebrew text; am I understanding this correctly?

IndigoChild5559
"If I have misunderstood, and you are discussing the New Testament, it was not written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, although it has been translated into those languages and many others. It was entirely written in Greek.
There was once a gospel that WAS written in Hebrew. We know this because even though it is now lost to us, other writings make reference to it. But it was not any of the four gospels that are part of Christian canon."
OOO
New Testament text

"The hypothesis that the New Testament text that was read by the Apostles would have preserved the life and sayings of Jesus (as he spoke them in Aramaic – the language of Jesus) before it was translated for those not among them who spoke Greek is not held by the majority of scholars.[citation needed]"

Aramaic original New Testament theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even if this hypothesis is confirmed at a later stage in history, those who narrated NT and or those (anonymous persons) who wrote, it were not trusted disciples/students/followers of/by (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah*, right, please?

So, whom (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah did not trust, one is confident, why should one trust them, please, right?

Regards
_______________________
* who (Jesus) was neither a Zionist nor from the stock of Judah/Judaism aka a Jew

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@paarsurrey
your thoughts, please
Aramaic texts were written before Hebrew text; am I understanding this correctly?

I'm coming in in the middle of your conversation, so I hope I'm understanding it. If my comments are off, please be patient.

I assume you are talking about the Tanakh (the Old Testament). These books are all in Hebrew, and by that I mean originally in Hebrew (since they have been translated into many languages including Aramaic), with only two exceptions. These exceptions are due to the very late time period they were written. Here are those two:

• Daniel 2:4-7:28 is written in Aramaic. This section includes the famous stories of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, the fiery furnace, the handwriting on the wall, and Daniel in the lion's den.
• Ezra 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26. These passages include official letters and decrees issued by Persian kings and other administrative documents.

If I have misunderstood, and you are discussing the New Testament, it was not written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, although it has been translated into those languages and many others. It was entirely written in Greek.

There was once a gospel that WAS written in Hebrew. We know this because even though it is now lost to us, other writings make reference to it. But it was not any of the four gospels that are part of Christian canon.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Evidence that Ivrim, Benei Yisrael, Yehudim, and Modern day Jews do not descend from Yadavas farmers​

"The hypothesis that the New Testament text that was read by the Apostles would have preserved the life and sayings of Jesus (as he spoke them in Aramaic – the language of Jesus) before it was translated for those not among them who spoke Greek is not held by the majority of scholars.[citation needed]"

Aramaic original New Testament theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even if this hypothesis is confirmed at a later stage in history, those who narrated NT and or those (anonymous persons) who wrote, it were not trusted disciples/students/followers of/by (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah*, right, please?

So, whom (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah did not trust, one is confident, why should one trust them, please, right?

Regards
_______________________
* who (Jesus) was neither a Zionist nor from the stock of Judah/Judaism aka a Jew

You are referring to a marginal theory that is NOT the consensus of scholars, and the very article you linked to says exactly that.

When people come along and present a theory that runs contrary to what virtually all others in the field say, one of two things is happening.

1. They are once in a lifetime geniuses that can see where the evidence is leading even though the evidence is not quite there yet. This possibility is very remote.
2. They have an emotionally driven agenda that is clouding their thinking, and they manipulate the evidence to try to support their agenda. This possibility is sky high. In this case, the agenda would be the desire to provide a text in the language actually spoken by Jesus and his disciples, since they realize that any translation of their actual words would be inaccurate in very small ways.

It is true that Jesus and his original disciples spoke Aramaic (and some Hebrew as well for religious purposes). But this doesn't mean that the New Testament is in either Hebrew or Aramaic. Let me explain how that can be.

1. All the books of the New Testament were written to Gentile churches, which included a few Hellenized Jews. The language of the people in those churches would have been Greek. It would make no sense to write to them in Aramaic or Hebrew.
2. Most of the New Testament was written by Paul. Paul was a Hellenized Jew from Tarsus. Greek would have been the language he spoke.
3. In some cases, although the author didn't speak Greek, they used a scribe (illiteracy also played a role in this). 1 Peter would be an example of this.
4. In some cases we have pseudepigraphal texts, meaning they claim to be written by an apostle but are actually not. The author would have been either a Hellenized Jew or a Gentile, which would mean that Greek is their language. 2 Peter is an example of this.
5. In some cases the author is unknown but later generations developed a tradition that they were written by an apostle. The gospels would be examples of this false attribution to disciples (except for Luke, which tradition holds was a Greek doctor). As with the pseudepigraphal texts, these gospels were likely written by Greek speaking Hellenized Jews, Gentiles, or both (since each of the gospels had multiple authors).

 

[Eliana]

Now that someone has kindly untangled this for me, now I know why I was confused. This is essentially a nonsense theory that the ancient Israelites came from India, which is in total contradiction of both historical evidence and the Jewish scriptures.

I am a Hindu, Christian, Jew and Muslim. Born Hindu/

This is not a thing. Judaism does not allow for polytheism, trinities or abrogation/alteration of the Torah. On top of that HaShem strongly condemns idolatry, which is worshipping deities in addition to him or any form of graven image. Saying one is a Jew and another religion is like saying one is an abstinent prostitute, or a pacifist axe murderer.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Now that someone has kindly untangled this for me, now I know why I was confused. This is essentially a nonsense theory that the ancient Israelites came from India, which is in total contradiction of both historical evidence and the Jewish scriptures.

You are absolutely correct. Nonsense is exactly the word that describes it.

While not all Indians have this inclination, I have increasingly run across Indians online that have this view that nothing of significance in history happens without India playing a part in it. Probably the most common example of this is the myth that Jesus traveled to India, where he learned the things he later taught. I refer to this as Indian Supremacy, since it assumes that no other ethnicity has the intelligence to accomplish significant things on their own.

This is not a thing. Judaism does not allow for polytheism, trinities or abrogation/alteration of the Torah. On top of that HaShem strongly condemns idolatry, which is worshipping deities in addition to him or any form of graven image. Saying one is a Jew and another religion is like saying one is an abstinent prostitute, or a pacifist axe murderer.

I mostly agree with you. But I should add that most scholars do think that the monotheism of Israel did evolve out of an earlier polytheism. The commandment that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" most likely indicates that the Israelites did believe other gods existed, but that only the worship of THEIR god was allowed to them. It was only later in history that the idea that the other gods didn't really exist became dominant. This seems to have happened during the Babylonian captivity.

But if by Judaism you are referring to the Judaism that we have today, you are absolutely 100% correct that Judaism does not suffer any form of polytheism. Nor does it suffer muddled monotheisms such as Trinitarianism. Such beliefs may be okay for others, but not for us.

Now let's deal with your comments about being a Jew and some other religion. Being a Jew is an ethnicity. We are a tribal people, not really different from the Lakota or Zulu. Like the Lakota or Zulu, we have our own specific religion. Like the Lakota and Zulu, there are some members of our People who do not hold to that religion, or who may even embrace a foreign religion.

When a Jew gives up Judaism and embraces a foreign religion, they are apostate. However, they technically remain a Jew. I have met a few Jews who have become Christians. Last night, I even encountered a Jew who had adopted a new religion that was an offshoot of Hinduism. It was very odd to see his Jewish star next to his identification with this Hindu-like religion. But, well, you can't unJew a Jew.

The history of how the Torah was compiled and came into its present form is pretty involved, and I'm not sure you really want me to go into that kind of detail. Let me know if you want to discuss this.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Because this thread was originally started by me in the Orthodox Judaism DIR and, in my opinion got hijacked, I do feel the need to address some of the information that has shown up in it. The following threads address some of the issues brought up here since the thread got started.

The meaning of (אלהים) "elohim" according to Jewish and Ancient Sources

This thread will be used to discuss what ancient Israeli / Jewish sources state about the "term" (אלהים) "elohim" including its etymology, meaning, and uses in Jewish texts. Please be aware, this will be using actual source material and not sites like wikpedia and such that are not accurate in...

www.religiousforums.com

Hashem as the single Source of creation (Ancient Yisraeli / Yehudi Concept)

In this thread I will be addressing the issue of whether or not the ancestors of modern day Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews at some point changed from following the fundamentals of the Torah as expressed in the Talmud and by the Rishonim. The Torah fundamental I will be addressing is the nature...

www.religiousforums.com

How the concept of Apostates is addressed in Torah / Halakha

A question was asked in another thread, "what is the Hebrew word for apostate?" I responded in that thread, but I want to expand on the answer I gave. Before I begin, I would like to state that this thread will full of actually sources from within thousands of years of Torah based information...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[GoodAttention]

Because this thread was originally started by me in the Orthodox Judaism DIR and, in my opinion got hijacked, I do feel the need to address some of the information that has shown up in it. The following threads address some of the issues brought up here since the thread got started.

I do appreciate you providing a platform to discuss this, even if it at your thread's expense.

If it is any consolation, I agree with your thread post.

The meaning of (אלהים) "elohim" according to Jewish and Ancient Sources

This thread will be used to discuss what ancient Israeli / Jewish sources state about the "term" (אלהים) "elohim" including its etymology, meaning, and uses in Jewish texts. Please be aware, this will be using actual source material and not sites like wikpedia and such that are not accurate in...

www.religiousforums.com

I have given my interpretation of Elohim, which is, "to whom the respect/sumbission of all peoples is given".

This is to say the plural aspect is "peoples", but the singular aspect remains God, or others, depending on context, such as judges.

My opinion is the word could have been an influence from another language, but that is it.

Hashem as the single Source of creation (Ancient Yisraeli / Yehudi Concept)

In this thread I will be addressing the issue of whether or not the ancestors of modern day Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews at some point changed from following the fundamentals of the Torah as expressed in the Talmud and by the Rishonim. The Torah fundamental I will be addressing is the nature...

www.religiousforums.com

Yes, but this is only "codified" as such by Devarim, which is the last book of the Torah. Up until then, it could be argued that the readings describe monolotry, and not strictly monotheism.

How the concept of Apostates is addressed in Torah / Halakha

A question was asked in another thread, "what is the Hebrew word for apostate?" I responded in that thread, but I want to expand on the answer I gave. Before I begin, I would like to state that this thread will full of actually sources from within thousands of years of Torah based information...

www.religiousforums.com

We are all together on this list somewhere @Ehav4Ever, chosen or unchosen.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Yes, but this is only "codified" as such by Devarim, which is the last book of the Torah. Up until then, it could be argued that the readings describe monolotry, and not strictly monotheism.

Actually, the earliest source of the concept of their being one source that created all of reality predates the written Torah and even the emergance of their being Yisraelim / Yehudim / Jews. This is where the study of history and linquistics come into play. So, for example the conept of a "god" as it exists in modern English is not the same as the meaning of the terms el, eloah, elah, elohim, ul, il, neter, etc. in various languages in this region of the world which simply denote something that either a) has power or that b) someone thinks has power.

There are a number of cultures in the Middle East, at times, that had a concept that there was only one source that created all reality. Akhenaten in Egypt is one example of this, according to some sources he was considered a heretic in their culture for this idea.

It is true that there were some cultures that held that there was at first one, and that one created the others. Even in Mesopotamia there was a concept of their being one source that created everything such as anu. The claim made my early Jewish sources is that Hashem created all of the other powers, of the universe, and certain parts of humanity took those powers and started using them as in betweens, at first, and eventually in some places stated that powers were a) sentient, b) along with Hashem, or c) that those powers completely replaced Hashem.

Now, one of the problems is that if one ignores what the actual linquistic history of the words (אל - אלוה - אלהים) is and instead replaces it with what "god" means in English one comes to the wrong concept. The Torah, both Oral and Written, do not claim that there are other "gods" it makes it clear that there are powerful things in the universe that Hashem created and Hashem is the source. Like I mentioned before, if one wants to translate the word "elohim" as "god" one has several problems.

1. There are several places where the Torah makes it clear that the term "elohim" is describing a human judge who is not a deity. Most English speakers don't call their judges gods.
2. There are several places where the Torah makes it clear that the term "el or elohim" is not describing Hashem, but something that does not have the power to create reality. Thus, since Hebrew does not have capital letters vs. non capitals one has to invent conventions for when they capitalize and when they don't. The need to do so is "foreign" to Middle Eastern langauges including Akkadian, Sumerian, Canaanite, Jewish Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugritic, and Arabic.

But, most damaging of all is that the Torah is clear that throughout most of Jewish history there have always been some sub-set of Israelis who were doing Avodah Zara. I.e. holding to concepts that in the modern world are called pagan. but better defined as concepts that Hashem prohited in the Torah (Written and Oral)

There is no historical evidence that proves that, for example, the Jewish communities of Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Ethiopia, India, Morocco, Lybia, and Kurdestan descend from Jews who did Avodah Zara or had a concept of there being Hashem who created the universe and other powers along with him doing so. I will grant you that maybe somewhere in the world there are some modern Jews who descend from the Jews who the Tanakh describes as doing Avodah Zara, but there is no archeological evidence that proves that this was the case for all Israelis / Jews such as the Jewish communities of Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Ethiopia, India, Morocco, Lybia, and Kurdestan.

 

[GoodAttention]

Actually, the earliest source of the concept of their being one source that created all of reality predates the written Torah and even the emergance of their being Yisraelim / Yehudim / Jews. This is where the study of history and linquistics come into play. So, for example the conept of a "god" as it exists in modern English is not the same as the meaning of the terms el, eloah, elah, elohim, ul, il, neter, etc. in various languages in this region of the world which simply denote something that either a) has power or that b) someone thinks has power.

There are a number of cultures in the Middle East, at times, that had a concept that there was only one source that created all reality. Akhenaten in Egypt is one example of this, according to some sources he was considered a heretic in their culture for this idea.

It is true that there were some cultures that held that there was at first one, and that one created the others. Even in Mesopotamia there was a concept of their being one source that created everything such as anu. The claim made my early Jewish sources is that Hashem created all of the other powers, of the universe, and certain parts of humanity took those powers and started using them as in betweens, at first, and eventually in some places stated that powers were a) sentient, b) along with Hashem, or c) that those powers completely replaced Hashem.

Now, one of the problems is that if one ignores what the actual linquistic history of the words (אל - אלוה - אלהים) is and instead replaces it with what "god" means in English one comes to the wrong concept. The Torah, both Oral and Written, do not claim that there are other "gods" it makes it clear that there are powerful things in the universe that Hashem created and Hashem is the source. Like I mentioned before, if one wants to translate the word "elohim" as "god" one has several problems.

1. There are several places where the Torah makes it clear that the term "elohim" is describing a human judge who is not a deity. Most English speakers don't call their judges gods.
2. There are several places where the Torah makes it clear that the term "el or elohim" is not describing Hashem, but something that does not have the power to create reality. Thus, since Hebrew does not have capital letters vs. non capitals one has to invent conventions for when they capitalize and when they don't. The need to do so is "foreign" to Middle Eastern langauges including Akkadian, Sumerian, Canaanite, Jewish Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugritic, and Arabic.

But, most damaging of all is that the Torah is clear that throughout most of Jewish history there have always been some sub-set of Israelis who were doing Avodah Zara. I.e. holding to concepts that in the modern world are called pagan. but better defined as concepts that Hashem prohited in the Torah (Written and Oral)

There is no historical evidence that proves that, for example, the Jewish communities of Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Ethiopia, India, Morocco, Lybia, and Kurdestan descend from Jews who did Avodah Zara or had a concept of there being Hashem who created the universe and other powers along with him doing so. I will grant you that maybe somewhere in the world there are some modern Jews who descend from the Jews who the Tanakh describes as doing Avodah Zara, but there is no archeological evidence that proves that this was the case for all Israelis / Jews such as the Jewish communities of Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Ethiopia, India, Morocco, Lybia, and Kurdestan.

I respect the way your explain/resist/defend your language, and by extension, the scriptures, Jewish culture, and your identity also.