(RON)one more time using small words was Re: (Ron) Cohen, Levi, or Israel
Helen Willis hhiwater@BRIGHT.NET
Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:29:52 -0700 (00901322992, 35B8D2A0.1EB4@bright.net)
Brian Dean wrote:
>
> >HELEN:
> >This was in reply to your claims there was no recording of Levi
> descent. It
> >is the same but not a strictly done as Cohen. Not all Cohenic priests
> have
> >this as a last name, not all people with the last name Cohen are even
> Jewish
> >let alone Cohenic priests. If you bother to read the post you would
> know
> >these, ha-Cohen and ha-Levi, are not names but titles. No there are no
> >records that go back to ancient times, but the use of these titles is
> >recorded at the synogogue. Since it hasn't been worth anything for 1600
> >years it apparently isn't something that folks would lie about that
> much. You
> >wrote on 7/20:
> >
> >RON (7\20)
> > According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "A priest was bound to
> >demonstrate the purity of the pedigree of the priestly maiden he
> desired
> >to wed, even as far back as her great-great-grandfather and great-great
> >grandmother." So simple descent would not be enough. "Purity" of
> >lineage would also be required. The geneological records of the House
> of
> >Levi no longer exist. I know of no reliable Jewish authority who
> >pretends to have preserved these records. Can you quote any and give
> >their evidence?
> >
> >HELEN:
> >I personally believe that the Torah as we know it was written around
> 700BC. I
> >suspect that the Cohen began at that time. I originally was replying to
> post
> >that claimed genetics proved the Bible because the Cohens have all the
> >similar "Y" chromosome. I was trying to make the point that anyone who
> knows
> >about the Cohen knows that they have been very carefully noted for
> nearly
> >3000 years and it shouldn't suprise anyone that there is some genetic
> proof
> >of this.
> >Helen
> >hhiwater@bright.net
> >
> RON
> Look Helen, I would be very happy if this were all true. If I were not
> a Christian I would probably be a believer in Judaism alone. But we
> Christians believe the reason God has not restored the Temple is that
> Jesus fulfilled the Law, and His sacrifice renders the Old Testament
> form of Judaism obsolete. God has no use for the Aaronic priesthood as I
> understand it. That's why He allowed their lineage and Temple to be
> wiped out.
> Can you show me these carefully noted records going back 3000 years? I
> would be very interested to see them. Can you even paste some credible
> Jewish source from the internet giving the details about these records?
> Or are we to just take these people's word that they are Aaron's
> descendants?
HELEN:
Ron I posted the original quotes on the Cohen because someone (Terry or
DJC maybe) posted an article under the title "Science proves Bible again".
This article claimed that there was genetic proof for the ancientness,
something around 3000 years, of the Cohen blood line and this proved the
Bible as scientifically true. My whole point was that it makes sense that
there would be some genetic proof of the ancientness of the bloodline because
we know they have been keeping records of it for a little less that 2700
years, since everyone skeptic and inerrantist alike, agrees that the Torah
was written in pretty much the form we have it by around 700BC. If they could
proof the bloodline back to about 1400BC years then they would have some
evidience that there might be some truth to the story of Aaron. I was not the
one claiming that this scientific evidence existed. I was merely responding
that if it did and the blood line only went back a little less than 3000
years it didn't really proof much. I am not comfortable with the accuracy of
the original claim because they must have been some unfaithfulness among the
women in all those centuries, but I responded to it granting the presumption
the science was good.
I will try to find the original post I was responding to and repost it for
you sometime today.
Helen
hhiwater@bright.net