1) I was responding to
@rainerann when he/she made this point
Take Africa for instance. You can’t say you’re black and have people take you seriously if you don’t look black. Consider what happens to these recognizable traits when a black person has a baby with someone from Ireland. Guess what, they no longer to look like they came from Africa anymore. They may have some traits that can be identified as descending from a African origin, but they don’t look like they came from Africa anymore.
Why isn’t there a common genetic look like the Chinese and Africans have if the Jews are an ethnic group, because they are not an ethnic group.
This was absurd because jews are a subethnicity within a wider group, Israelites who are a subethnicity of Caucasoid Sumerians, Abraham was a Sumerian.
2)
I mean "Arab" at one time meant "black"
to who? people have historically generalised. For example the GYPSIES were called gypsies because europeans through they were from egypt based on their skintone..and 'egypt' in that time was just synonymous with anyone brown skinned.
Just like the Greek's in recent history referred to any muslim as a 'turk'. Similarly, there are brits who call all arabs and indians 'pakis'. Americans who call us blacks.
Greek historians such as Eusibius, Megathenes, and Porphory all relayed that the Jews and Ethiopians were black; that all stories and similarities between East-West show us that the tribe of "Ioudi", with their customs and supreme astrological knowledge originated in India.
so jews and were blacks from india?
Porphory, never heard of him.
check this out though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_(philosopher)#Against_the_Christians_(Adversus_Christianos)
Porphyry became one of the most able pagan adversaries of Christianity of his day. His aim was not to disprove the substance of Christianity’s teachings but rather the records within which the teachings are communicated
reminds me of most of the christians on the internet when they try to discredit islam.
"According to Jerome, Porphyry especially attacked the prophecy of Daniel because Jews and Christians pointed to the historical fulfillment of its prophecies as a decisive argument. But these prophecies, he maintained, were written not by Daniel but by some Jew who in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (d. 164 BC) gathered up the traditions of Daniel's life and wrote a history of recent past events but in the future tense, falsely dating them back to Daniel's time."
thing is Daniel 7 and Daniel 9 (the 7 weeks prophecy) point to Jesus and Titus. So obv this guy was wrong..esp wrong to interpret Daniel 7's '10 horns' and the 'little horn' as Antiochus Epiphanes...it was Titus and the 10 horns were 10 roman emperors from Augustus Ceasar to Vespasian with Titus as the 'little horn' since he was Vespasian's son at the time. The 10 emperors are specific because of their rule over the jews during the the jewish temple era. Titus became emperor after the temple had been destroyed.
This is offtopic but im bringing it up to point out that he's hardly a credible source to build an argument off. Are you basically saying the real jews are/were black?
3) the greeks also named the 'holy land' PALESTINE after the phillistines, why? to discredit jews, to tell them 'you are nothing, your religion doesnt mean shit, we will rename you and you will lose your identity', how do you suppose jews would react to that?
So greek opinion of jews is hardly credible.
4) obviously much of my overall view of jews is based on religious scriptures and tradition. So for example you said
From the Hellenic period until then there was no longing for a homeland because the exile was spiritual separation from God. People were quite prosperous and content to be where they were, universally.
why would there be a longing for a homeland from the hellenistic era, when jews already lived there? or do you mean the maccabean revolt?
You mean to tell me the jewish revolt against Heraclius and the byzantine-sassanian war for Jerusalem, wasn't linked to jewish messianicism and the wish to establish Zion?
Also, it goes without saying the idea of Zion was first and foremost about being reconciled with God, that was the primary objective. I don't support zionist nationalism.
5)
Judaism as a distinct, (verifiable) historical movement didn't blossom until the Hasmonean and Hellenic eras. As the concept of monotheism grew throughout the Hellenized world, from Egypt through Asia minor, multiple ethnic groups were circumcised and kept the worship of IAO (as the Greeks wrote the tetragrammaton). With the spread of the culture through intermarriage and conversion there never was a identifiable "Judean" ethnicity.
'verifiable' because you're selective with which bit of history you choose to follow? you quote random historical figures who wrote some shit, but can write off the old testament quite easily.
I don't really know why you're trying to make these points with me, you've assumed a lot from my basic response to
@rainerann , i was merely making a point about ethnicity/bloodline. So i don't really get what it is you're trying to argue here.
Just because greeks/romans identified JEWS (as far as that name goes) their own identity yahudis is far older than the hellenistic era.