Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christian Designs Found In Tomb Stones Of Eastern Han Dynasty
CL2000.com ^ | 8-2-2002

Posted on 08/04/2002 3:00:50 PM PDT by blam

Christian Designs Found in Tomb Stones of Eastern Han Dynasty

[2002-08-02] Studies show that as early as 86 A.D., or the third year under the reign of "Yuanhe" of Eastern Han, Dynasty Christianity entered into China, 550 years earlier than the world accepted time.

When studying a batch of stone carvings of Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220 A.D.) stored and exhibited in the Museum of Xuzhou Han Stone Carvings, Christian theology professor Wang Weifan was greatly surprised by some stone engravings demonstrating the Bible stories and designs of early Christian times.

Further studies showed that some of these engravings were made in 86 A.D., or the third year under the reign of "Yuanhe" of Eastern Han Dynasty, 550 years earlier than the world accepted time of Christianity's entrance into China.

The 74-year-old professor, who is also a standing member of the China Christian Council, showed reporter a pile of photos of Han stone carvings and bronze basins taken by him. He also compared the designs on them with that of the Bible, composed of fish, birds, and animals demonstrating how God created the earth.

Designs on these ancient stones displayed the artistic style of early Christian times found in Iraq and Middle East area while bearing the characteristics of China's Eastern Han times.

The stone carvings, being important funeral objects, are mainly found in four cities, and Xuzhou is one of them. It is reported that by now more than 20 intact Han tombs have been found, from which nearly 500 pieces of engraved stones were discovered.

It is globally accepted that Christianity was first carried into China by a Syrian missionary Alopen in 635 A.D. the ninth year under the reign of "Zhenguan" of the Tang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.).

Some experts once raised doubts that Christianity may have entered China in an early time as the Eastern Han, but lack evidence. Nevertheless, professor Wang's discovery serves to strongly back up the theory and the earlier works of his own. By PD Online Staff Member Li Heng [From: CL2000.com]


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ancientchina; archaeology; artifacts; china; christian; christianity; churhhistory; designs; dynasty; economic; found; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; han; history; homerhdubs; liquan; romanempire; romansinchina; stones; tomb; uzbekistan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-157 next last
To: Inyokern
The word "gentile" is used in the Bible as a translation for goy. A goy is someone who is not a descendant of Jacob.

Wasn't the New Testament written in Greek, as opposed to Hebrew for the Old Testament? If so, can you identify the word that was translated to "gentile" by James? I'd do it but I don't have access to a Strong's.

Is "goy" a Hebrew word, a Yiddish word, and if Yiddish, was the source Hebrew/Aramaic or some other root, like Germanic? Lots of different roots make up Yiddish.

I think the important part was to "go unto the Lost Sheep of The House of Israel", which of course must be the descendents of the House of Israel.

51 posted on 08/05/2002 10:38:44 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
I think what he's saying is that 3000 years ago was long before Israel broke up into the two kingdoms and were shuffled off to their respective spankings by the Assyrians and Nebuchadnezzar. There doesn't seem to be the moniker "Jew" until after that time.

52 posted on 08/05/2002 11:05:21 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Where are you seeing the 500 pieces of Han carvings? I clicked on the article source and only saw one. Could the other 499 have such symbols

Perhaps they could, but it would seem to me that, if there was anything specifically about Jesus, that fact would have been prominently mentioned. Since it is not mentioned, I think it is a reasonable assumption that it is not there.

53 posted on 08/06/2002 8:49:23 AM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
You figure that Jews were in China at that time?

I suppose it is as likely that there were Jews as that there were Christians in the area. It is possible that the Chinese encountered Jewish traders on the Silk Road.

54 posted on 08/06/2002 9:02:50 AM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
If there is no mention of Jesus on these stones, how does he know the designs are Christian? They could be Jewish.

From my youth, I remember reading an article on the front page of the newspaper in Plansk (a Polish shtetl), headlined: "Revolution in China: Good for the Jews."

In light of this new evidence, perhaps I should have taken that headline more literally.

55 posted on 08/06/2002 9:08:20 AM PDT by andy_card
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
Perhaps they could, but it would seem to me that, if there was anything specifically about Jesus, that fact would have been prominently mentioned. Since it is not mentioned, I think it is a reasonable assumption that it is not there.

Since story appears in the China Art News I'd suspect they picked the sample included, instead of Prof. Weifan. I would doubt that much of the staff are over-zealous about anything Christian. The Art News may need to publish the find but certainly don't need to publish evidence of the conclusions.

56 posted on 08/06/2002 9:09:02 AM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
Very interesting info, I need to take some religion history classes in my spare time
57 posted on 08/06/2002 9:13:38 AM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Wasn't the New Testament written in Greek, as opposed to Hebrew for the Old Testament?

Yes, but Jesus spoke in Aramaic (a language related to Hebrew), not Greek. He would not have said "gentile." The word Jews use that is translated as gentile is "goy," which refers to the nations descended from Noah, as listed in Genesis.

Is "goy" a Hebrew word, a Yiddish word, and if Yiddish, was the source Hebrew/Aramaic or some other root, like Germanic? Lots of different roots make up Yiddish.

Yiddish is not the source of anything. Yiddish is a Germanic language which Jews began to use in Eastern Europe in medieval times. It includes many Hebrew words, one of which is goy. The word goy is Hebrew and it appears in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.

I think the important part was to "go unto the Lost Sheep of The House of Israel", which of course must be the descendents of the House of Israel.

It could mean that. It could also mean those who have lost faith.

58 posted on 08/06/2002 9:20:59 AM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
I think what he's saying is that 3000 years ago was long before Israel broke up into the two kingdoms and were shuffled off to their respective spankings by the Assyrians and Nebuchadnezzar. There doesn't seem to be the moniker "Jew" until after that time.

As I stated in another thread, this is meaningless. The word Jew is an English word that came into existence hundreds of years after the fact. In the Hebrew language, there is no distinction between Jews and members of the Tribe of Judah. In the Hebrew language, the "Jews" (Yehudim) came into existence with the birth of Judah, the son of Jacob.

59 posted on 08/06/2002 9:39:31 AM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
Yes, but Jesus spoke in Aramaic (a language related to Hebrew), not Greek. He would not have said "gentile." The word Jews use that is translated as gentile is "goy," which refers to the nations descended from Noah, as listed in Genesis.

When I interrogate Strong's about the source of "gentile" in Matthew 10:5,6 it gives me this:

HEBREW:

01484 gowr {gore} or (fem.) gorah {go-raw'}

a variation of 01482; TWOT - 331a; n m

AV - whelp 2; 2

1) whelp

Strongs lists two references to the root Hebrew word for "gentile":

Jer 51:38 They shall roar [07580] (8799) together [03162] like lions [03715]: they shall yell [05286] (8804) as lions [0738]' whelps [01484].

Nah 2:12 The lion [0738] did tear in pieces [02963] (8802) enough [01767] for his whelps [01484], and strangled [02614] (8764) for his lionesses [03833], and filled [04390] (8762) his holes [02356] with prey [02964], and his dens [04585] with ravin [02966].

GREEK:

1484 ethnos {eth'-nos}

probably from 1486; TDNT - 2:364,201; n n

AV - Gentiles 93, nation 64, heathen 5, people 2; 164

1) a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
1a) a company, troop, swarm
2) a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
2a) the human family
3) a tribe, nation, people group
4) in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans,Gentiles
5) Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians

Strongs lists 164 references to the root Greek word for "gentile", Matthew 10:5,6 included. I don't see any references to the root being "not being descended from Noah". But, in any case, not being descended from Noah wouldn't mean much, would it? All the Semites, including Jacob were descended from Shem which includes all those who claim the covenant of Abraham. Noah had two other sons, Ham and Japheth, whose descendents don't claim that covenant.

It could mean that. It could also mean those who have lost faith.

I guess "go unto the Lost Sheep of The House of Israel", could mean that, if one were to ignore the plain wording. There was the House of Judah, which was there, in the area, and the House of Israel, which was dispersed by the Assyrians.

All were Israelites. It seems to take quite a bit of labor to interpret it the way you suggest, and very little to interpret it as refering to the lost House of Israel.

60 posted on 08/06/2002 10:12:45 AM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
As I stated in another thread, this is meaningless. The word Jew is an English word that came into existence hundreds of years after the fact. In the Hebrew language, there is no distinction between Jews and members of the Tribe of Judah. In the Hebrew language, the "Jews" (Yehudim) came into existence with the birth of Judah, the son of Jacob.

I would imagine that the word "Jew" is a reasonable corrupted form of "Judah", but I don't find any reference to "Jews" in Genesis or Exodus, which follows it. All I see are references to "Israelites" Did I miss that reference? It's certainly possible I did. Go ahead and post a cite.

When the Babylonians captured the House of Judah, they would call these aggregate people something, and probably not "Judah" because that House contained Benjamin and the detachment of Levite priests and teachers as well. Paul refers to himself as a "Jew" even though he was of the tribe of Benjamin.

Where do you get your information? It doesn't seem to be Biblically supported.

61 posted on 08/06/2002 10:36:33 AM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
From dictionary.com:

gen·tile   Pronunciation Key  (jntl) n. often Gentile
One who is not of the Jewish faith or is of a non-Jewish nation.

1. A Christian.

2. Archaic. A pagan or heathen.

3. Mormon Church. A non-Mormon.
62 posted on 08/06/2002 10:37:49 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: rb22982
>Very interesting info, I need to take some religion history classes in my spare time

Yes, it is very interesting.  Even just getting the basics of who-is-who and where and the times involved correct changes your whole outlook on a lot of collateral history, as well as making the entire Old Testament come alive. It also gives the New Testament new and important meaning.

Lots of luck on learning much about the Celts and The Lost Tribes of Israel in traditional religion history classes.  As Americans we are quite ignorant of much history other than our own.  I received the bulk of my knowledge on the subject as a Post-Doctoral student at Oxford University studying Biblical Archeology. Did additional post-doc at Trinity College in Dublin studying the early Celts. They were experts on these subjects long before we were a nation, but somehow that didn't make it across the pond into either our seminaries or universities. (And there are others who think it is important the Lost Tribes remain "lost" or "assimilated" or otherwise not "found".)

It's also important to spend time in Europe at the great Celtic sites of Hallstadt in Austria and Le Tennes in Switzerland.  The continental europeans have an important broader perspective which the English miss.  Some Brits belive the Lost Tribes are the Celts alright, but are only found in Cornwall, Wales, Brittany and Ireland.  This narrow (little island) perspective manifests itself in English language book after book, each one copying the other, and most getting the big picture all wrong.  Continentals see the dispersion picture more clearly.

For an excellent jump-start on the subject, the little book at my LostTribe Profile site discussing the Assyrian Tablets in the British Museum is the best I've found so far.  Those 20,000+ clay tablets from Assyria blow the old myths and superstitions apart!

63 posted on 08/06/2002 10:43:20 AM PDT by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: blam
Confucius ask: "What Jesus do?"
64 posted on 08/06/2002 10:45:00 AM PDT by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Yes. They brought advanced dentistry, accountancy, psychiatry, deli's, and a legal system to China....
65 posted on 08/06/2002 10:48:02 AM PDT by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: crystalk
And he would not be comfortable discussing it in THIS plane, at least, for he died suddenly several years ago now, about late 1994.

My guess is, if he showed up for the discussions, we would be the uncomforable ones...

66 posted on 08/06/2002 10:52:40 AM PDT by Corin Stormhands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
In the Hebrew language, there is no distinction between Jews and members of the Tribe of Judah. In the Hebrew
language, the "Jews" (Yehudim) came into existence with the birth of Judah, the son of Jacob.

The Hebrew language is a very crude and imprecise language.  Talk to scholars who deal daily with both Hebrew and Greek as I have and you will see their frustration at trying to "fill in" the gaps in ordinary Hebrew language manuscripts and second guess what the writers had in mind. To suggest the Hebew language is precise, as compared to Greek doesn't make any sense. That it would suggest (as you say) that Jews came into existence with the brith of Judah is a good example that it is also the source of cultural silliness totally out of touch with real history.

67 posted on 08/06/2002 10:54:13 AM PDT by PaulKersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: tracer
Yes. They [early Jews] brought advanced dentistry, accountancy, psychiatry, deli's, and a legal system to China....

Not to mention the Internet.

68 posted on 08/06/2002 10:59:36 AM PDT by PaulKersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
I don't see any references to the root being "not being descended from Noah".

I did not say "not being descended from Noah." Just the opposite. "Goyim" (gentiles) are the nations descended from Noah, as listed in Genesis 10. The word literally means nation. It is used by Jews to refer to other nations, ie. nations other than Israel.

Another way of saying gentile in Hebrew is "ben noach" (son of Noah).

Getting back to the point, the contention that the lost tribes of Israel, if they could be found, would be gentile from a Jewish perspective is false. From a Jewish perspective, they are part of Israel.

69 posted on 08/06/2002 10:59:54 AM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: PaulKersey
To suggest the Hebew language is precise, as compared to Greek doesn't make any sense.

Where did I say the Hebrew language was precise?

I merely said that applying a (relatively modern) English word "Jew" to a certain period of time but not another is silly because the original language makes no such distinction.

70 posted on 08/06/2002 11:06:10 AM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
Mormons say he was in America. It doesn't make it true.
71 posted on 08/06/2002 11:08:51 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
.. the contention that the lost tribes of Israel, if they could be found, would be gentile from a Jewish perspective is false. From a Jewish perspective, they are part of Israel.

I think I see your point. It's a subtle one, but tell me if I have it right.

Lost Tribe said:

...: The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel are a unique sub-set of Gentiles who are Israelites, but not Jews.
From a Jewish perspective they are Gentiles, but from an Israelite perspective they are not....:

You are objecting because that you think the House of Israel are not gentiles but Jews?  (Am I right so far?)

If that is so, how can you claim they were Jews if there weren't any Jews when the Israelites (not Jews) split into different Kingdoms?  The would have to be brother Isrealites.  Right???
 

72 posted on 08/06/2002 11:11:50 AM PDT by PaulKersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
Where did I say the Hebrew language was precise?

You are basing your ENTIRE fine-grain picky-picky argument on the precision and accuracy of Hebrew. Don't you see how absolutely silly that appears now that you are backing away from it's precision?

73 posted on 08/06/2002 11:13:53 AM PDT by PaulKersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar; LostTribe
LT sez-- It takes on special significance in suggesting that Jesus did not spend 20 years of his life pounding nails. There is no Biblical reason to believe that after age 12 he ran the local arts and craft shoppe. Indeed, there is lots of extra-Biblical evidence to suggest he traveled very widely outside the region, including to France and England. Other evidence suggests he traveled to India. Did he also travel to South America???

Ruy sez-- ..new age, mormon nonsense

Is that all there is to this "extra-Biblical evidence", that it's a Mormon thing?

74 posted on 08/06/2002 11:19:49 AM PDT by maxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PaulKersey
I knew it!! Internet Al Gore is Jewish and a lot older than he claims to be!!

A tip of the hat to my Jewish brothers and sisters from a (hopefully) nice goy.....

75 posted on 08/06/2002 11:22:56 AM PDT by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
And it doesn't make it false, either....
76 posted on 08/06/2002 11:24:06 AM PDT by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
>Mormons say he was in America. It doesn't make it true.

Does it make it false? (PS I am NOT a Mormon.)

I don't think you've spent 10 minutes looking for evidence that Jesus may have been doing something besides whittling for 20 years while waiting for the Big Time.

77 posted on 08/06/2002 11:24:25 AM PDT by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: tracer
Yes. They brought advanced dentistry, accountancy, psychiatry, deli's, and a legal system to China....

That's interesting. Can you post some sources? I'm more than a little ignorant about the topic.

78 posted on 08/06/2002 11:39:37 AM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: PaulKersey
Not to mention the Internet.

No, that was Al Gore.

79 posted on 08/06/2002 11:40:32 AM PDT by LexBaird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: PaulKersey
The Hebrew language is a very crude and imprecise language.

No, it's just focused on earthy and tangible content. It looks imprecise if you are needing to make abstract distinctions, which Greek is more suited for.

The correct polarity is not precise/imprecise, but tangible/abstract.

80 posted on 08/06/2002 12:01:21 PM PDT by Taliesan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
The correct polarity is not precise/imprecise, but tangible/abstract.

Thank you for clarifying that distinction.

81 posted on 08/06/2002 12:06:17 PM PDT by PaulKersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
I was responding to your statement, "The word Jews use that is translated as gentile is "goy," which refers to the nations descended from Noah, as listed in Genesis." Shem was the son of Noah, too.

The word Jews use that is translated as gentile is "goy," which refers to the nations descended from Noah, as listed in Genesis.

So, "goy" means non-Jewish? Well, that would support the notion that the other tribes of the Northern Kingdom, which were not of Judah (You said the word "Jew" comes from Judah), could be refered to as gentiles.

I think we're getting confused through imprecision, which seems support Kersey's statement that Hebrew is imprecise. I think you and losttribe are engaging in the very frustrating practice of trying to to nail a drop of water to the wall.

Getting back to the point, the contention that the lost tribes of Israel, if they could be found, would be gentile from a Jewish perspective is false.

That is your opinion. Since the word "gentile" as used in the New Testament traces back to the word "whelp" in Hebrew and "nation" in Greek, and all who were in the area at the time of Jesus were Jews, you don't seem to have a reference for that opinion.

What is important is the strong evidence that Jesus would have his disciples seek out the lost tribes of Israel to bring the gospel to them. That certainly makes more sense than labored interpretaions that seem to be designed only to circumvent that notion.

82 posted on 08/06/2002 12:09:18 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Sorry. I was just making a dumb joke. I am not well-versed in Chinese history and don't really know whether the "Jews" actually did enter into China, although they might have, given their talent in trade, mercantilism, and banking. All the best........
83 posted on 08/06/2002 12:09:23 PM PDT by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: tracer
True, but it makes it suspect at best.
84 posted on 08/06/2002 12:11:20 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: tracer
Oh, sorry. The nature of the topic and discussion on these kinds of threads makes it difficult to sniff out humor. I suspect we could all benefit from exposure to an air conditioner.

85 posted on 08/06/2002 12:15:26 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
True, but it makes it suspect at best.

That goes beyond all reason and actually smacks of anti-mormon bigotry, IMHO.

86 posted on 08/06/2002 12:21:13 PM PDT by PaulKersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: PaulKersey
How is it bigotry when the scientists of the world say the tablets are fake?
87 posted on 08/06/2002 12:44:13 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: PaulKersey
You are objecting because that you think the House of Israel are not gentiles but Jews? (Am I right so far?)

No, you are wrong. They would not be gentiles and they would not be Jews. They would be "yisrael".

A gentile is someone who is not of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, therefore the lost tribes are not gentile.

Member "Lost Tribe" said that, "from a Jewish perspective," the lost tribes would be gentile. This is false. "Lost Tribe" knows nothing about what the Jewish perspective is. He knows nothing about Jewish law on this subject, nor does he care to hear about it.

88 posted on 08/06/2002 1:43:45 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: PaulKersey
You are basing your ENTIRE fine-grain picky-picky argument on the precision and accuracy of Hebrew. Don't you see how absolutely silly that appears now that you are backing away from it's precision?

No, I was merely saying that placing the designation of "Jew" on people only after the Babylonian captivity and not before is completely arbritrary and has no basis in the original language. One could make an equally good argument either way.

89 posted on 08/06/2002 1:49:10 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
So, "goy" means non-Jewish?

No, "goy" means non-Israelite. The lost tribes, if they could be found, would not be goyim.

90 posted on 08/06/2002 1:52:27 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Since the word "gentile" as used in the New Testament traces back to the word "whelp" in Hebrew and "nation" in Greek

I do not believe Jesus would have called people "whelps." In this case, Strong's definition makes no sense.

91 posted on 08/06/2002 1:55:33 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
sure....looking for good take out...
92 posted on 08/06/2002 2:07:33 PM PDT by Khurkris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LostTribe
Congratulations on the finest explanation of the meaning of the word GENTILE I have ever heard, in your message #29. Your explanation takes it a step at a time like dialing in the numbers on a big bank safe and hearing those big tumblers drop into place one by one. I will never view GENTILE the same way again.

Keep up your good work! You are opening up the Bible and making it understandable.

93 posted on 08/06/2002 5:04:06 PM PDT by DensaMensa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
WHERE'S THE BEEF?

I keep looking for the "beef" in your argument and finally found a few crumbs from a stale hamburger.

Member "Lost Tribe" said that, "from a Jewish perspective," the lost tribes would be gentile.

Well, that just means they would "not quite like Jews", because he defined it that way.  No other definition, yours or anyone elses is applicable.

You are comparing apples and oranges.  If you read his post about "gentiles" carefully you'll see he is not claiming to be a Jew or think like a Jew or have some unique "Jewish perspective" or sensitivities, real or imaginary.  He might have worded it better, but he defines what he means by the phrase before he uses it, and that definition is different from yours.

Lost Tribe says, Gentile means "not quite like us". That has nothing to do with theology or even being Jewish.  It just means "not quite like us".  So he uses gentile from a "Mormon perspective" (or reference point) as an example; Mormon gentiles are not quite like Mormons.

Then he uses gentile from a "Jewish perspective" (or reference point)  as an example; Jewish gentiles are not quite like Jews.  This has nothing to do with what you keep squawking about!

The conclusion is, THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR YOUR BEEF.  Forgettaboutit.

94 posted on 08/06/2002 5:36:17 PM PDT by PaulKersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
And opinions do vary in a medium of uncertainty.

95 posted on 08/06/2002 7:32:47 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
In this case, Strong's definition makes no sense.

Well, that's true, unless the Hebrew definition of "whelp" is like ours (likely, since that's the English word chosen for translation):

1. A young offspring of a mammal, such as a dog or wolf.
2. a A child; a youth. b An impudent young fellow.

But the point was that the reference material didn't say "goy" meaning not descended from Noah through Shem. I figure that whatever else Strong's reference system is, it's been well researched by a lot of people and more than one linguist.

96 posted on 08/06/2002 7:45:31 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Khurkris
What, with the ruebin they'd want chinese?

97 posted on 08/06/2002 7:51:01 PM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: DensaMensa
>Keep up your good work! You are opening up the Bible and making it understandable.

Thank You very much! I appreciate that.

98 posted on 08/06/2002 8:54:37 PM PDT by LostTribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: PaulKersey
Member "Lost Tribe" said that, "from a Jewish perspective," the lost tribes would be gentile.

Well, that just means they would "not quite like Jews", because he defined it that way. No other definition, yours or anyone elses is applicable.

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

The beef is that Lost Tribe doesn't know what he is talking about. The Jewish religion does not make any distinction between the various tribes of Israel. The fact that the Jews are the only tribe known today does not mean that another Hebrew tribe, if one were ever found, would be gentile. It most certainly would not.

The other tribes would not be gentile from a Jewish perspective because the Jews would not consider them gentile. How many ways can that be said?

I object when uninformed people like Lost Tribe make cavalier statements about my religion based on no knowledge.

99 posted on 08/06/2002 10:32:53 PM PDT by Inyokern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Inyokern
I get the picture:

Strong's definition makes no sense (Strongs Concordance)

Lost Tribe doesn't know what he is talking about.

Placing the designation of "Jew" ... after the Babylonian captivity ... is completely arbritrary

You're the kind of guy who has to play marbles alone because you change the rules in the middle of the game to suit where your marbles lay.  Bet you even have trouble with the definition of IS.

Forgettaboutit!

100 posted on 08/07/2002 7:08:16 AM PDT by PaulKersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-157 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson