Why do people keep challenging the Jewish ancestral claim despite the vast phenotypical, genetic and historical evidence?
How does one simply deny the very obvious and apparent link?
It also seems that most of the people who claim so are doing it out of their political agenda
(Sacha Baron Cohen in pic)
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>Political Agenda
wat
Baron Cohen lambasts every race and religion there is. His agenda is one of comedy
I used his pic just as an example of the typical Jewish phenotype
Wtf are you talking about?
There's no strong genetic evidence, actually.
Ashkenazi Jews are more Italian than they are Middle Eastern.
Kohanim are slightly more Middle Eastern than the average Jew though.
The reason as to why the Ashkenazi Jewish genepool clusters with Italians is because of the stream of Italian blood during Roman/Byzantine era(supposedly), as the practice of taking foreign women was definitely not uncommon.
But according to various other studies Sephardi Jews (who are usually taken as the original and pure Jews) also cluster together with Ashkenazi Jews and Italians, so what would that mean?
Paternally wise most Jews belong to J and E haplogroups, which are very common in the Middle East and less common amongst the general European population.
I merely used Sacha's pick as a demonstration of the Jewish phenotype, not the reason the other commenter had mistaken it for.
In real life Sacha is actually a Zionist.
Yeah, wtf are you talking about? Ancestral claim?
Many people assert that modern day Jewry are not actually from the original Israelite stock, but are rather nothing more than converts.
ashkenazis are fake assed jews don't buy their shit
Which I s hilarious to think because it's one of the hardest religions to be converted into. There are tons of rules and you litterally have to learn another language just to read their holy book. Also they refuse you like 3 times just out of principal before they even consider taking you in. dk man. It kind of gets back to the idea of breeds and dogs. Why is it OK to say one type of dog has different physical traits but not humans?
>Which I s hilarious to think because it's one of the hardest religions to be converted into.
Yeah, currently. But back in Roman times it was just another religion. A woman who married a Jewish man was instantly a Jew.
>There are tons of rules and you litterally have to learn another language just to read their holy book.
LOL, you can read English translation online right now.
>Also they refuse you like 3 times just out of principal before they even consider taking you in.
That's just a ritual.
People are aware that certain ethnic groups hold different physical traits, it just isn't politically correct to point out or mention such a thing.
such a thing became taboo is because of the Nazi habit of stereotyping the Jewish appearence, and obviously contemporary general hostility towards the Nazi ideology made it even more taboo
Actually, no.
Sephardic Jews cluster with Spaniards because they spent a long time living in Spain. Guess what "Sephardic" means?
Black Hebrew Israelites, have neither genetic, historical, nor a biblical claim. They do not even have a slight resembelance to the general phenotype of the Middle East.
While it would be no surprise that Sephardi Jews would have some genetic similarities with Spaniards, I have read studies that show otherwise, would you be able to link the study which proves that?
Where is your source that says in ancient times people were converting left and right. Jews were always known for not taking outsiders in or for allowing them to practice or even marry. The were hated every where they went so they had to be selective.
And to your point of getting English copy I will point you to your first statement. In olden times you couldn't. In fact it was very long before a translation was even attempted.
And yes refusing you 3 times is now a ritual, but back then it was done as a deterrent. And yes it even has commentaries of rabies attesting to this deterrent in the Talmud selection we read in religious history .
I think there are far less people with Jewish blood then you think. I also don't think a lot of soldiers would take Jewish wives because they were looked down on, like black people and as slaves.
The Khazars converted to Judaism during the Middle Ages, and Ashkenazi "Jews" are said to be their descendants (rather than originating from the original Jews).
It says only their nobility converted to Judaism. Nice try though.
hypothesis*
also, there is no evidence which implies the conversion of anyone else other than the Khazar nobility
This screen shot says studies prove otherwise
>Where is your source that says in ancient times people were converting left and right.
en.wikipedia.org
>Jews were always known for not taking outsiders in or for allowing them to practice or even marry. The were hated every where they went so they had to be selective.
Funny you ask for a source and then go directly to arguing using a stereotype that might not even apply to ancient Jews. The evidence shows that it is largely true that Jews have a high degree of genetic conservation (which is basically the entire point of Jewish religious law that separates Jews from the non-Jewish community, like kosher laws), but it also shows a significant amount of admixture with the populations they lived in. Basically Jewish men took as wives whoever was available.
>And to your point of getting English copy I will point you to your first statement. In olden times you couldn't. In fact it was very long before a translation was even attempted.
That's dead wrong though, the oldest known copies of the Tanach are written in several languages, not just Hebrew. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls are in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
>And yes refusing you 3 times is now a ritual, but back then it was done as a deterrent. And yes it even has commentaries of rabies attesting to this deterrent in the Talmud selection we read in religious history.
First of all, the Talmud is simply a compendium of rabbis' opinions on Jewish law. It doesn't necessarily reflect how all Jews actually lived. There have always been varying levels of observance in Judaism. Second, the Talmud was only compiled between the 3rd and 6th centuries, long after Jewish people had spread all over the world. Again, we know from the evidence that there was a great deal of admixture between Jews and non-Jews, especially non-Jewish women.
>I think there are far less people with Jewish blood then you think.
I never even expressed an opinion about this, so I don't know how you would know that there are less than I think there are.
>I also don't think a lot of soldiers would take Jewish wives because they were looked down on, like black people and as slaves.
It was mostly the other way around, Jewish men taking non-Jewish wives. And Jews were not looked down on throughout all history. During Roman times they were simply another group of people.
Modern Jews generally seem not to be interested in bringing them into context with Khazars, because that undermines their supposed connection to and descendance from the biblical "chosen people". As such, I'd rather take such modern "studies" with a grain of salt.
>I'd rather ignore the data because I want it to be true that Jews aren't Jews
I don't understand the purpose of all this... A lot of Jews will share common ancestry. That's just common sense.
Yes, but many people claim that this common ancestry is not genuine Israelite ancestry, but rather purely of converts