Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even if Hosea indicated what Rosends and Richard say it does, it is a later development in the Northern kingdom religion, which at least parallels if it is not a foundation for the development of Rabbinical Judaism after the destruction of the Temple.
Hannibal, there are several parallel strands evident in the development of modern or Rabbinical Judaism. The point here is that worship without the Temple was a part of the Northern kingdom and of the remnant Jews that became "Samaritans." Whether that tradition directly influenced Diaspora Judaism may be in question. Certainly there are parallels as in how sacrifices are handled. H osea was a product of the Northern kingdom, which may be 500 years later than foundational elements of "Mosaic" Judaism.
Hannibal, there are several parallel strands evident in the development of modern or Rabbinical Judaism. The point here is that worship without the Temple was a part of the Northern kingdom and of the remnant Jews that became "Samaritans." Whether that tradition directly influenced Diaspora Judaism may be in question. Certainly there are parallels as in how sacrifices are handled. H osea was a product of the Northern kingdom, which may be 500 years later than foundational elements of "Mosaic" Judaism.
Hannibal, there are several parallel strands evident in the development of modern or Rabbinical Judaism. The point here is that worship without the Temple was a part of the Northern kingdom and of the remnant Jews that became "Samaritans." Whether that tradition directly influenced Diaspora Judaism may be in question. Certainly there are parallels as in how sacrifices are handled. H osea was a product of the Northern kingdom, which may be 500 years later than foundational elements of "Mosaic" Judaism.
This makes even less sense, the Remnant of Jews who became Samaritans? There were no Jews in the Northern kingdom, NO JEWS became Samaritans, the worship system of the Northern kingdom has ZERO to do with Judaism, that is why the Northern kingdom is known as the ten lost tribes, they rejected Judaism, they rejected Judah, they rejected Jerusalem and chose their own priests to perform duties at their own invented holy days just like Christianity.
What you are trying to say doesn't make any sense because you need to learn the actual history of what you are talking about and you don't seem to know the difference in Israel and Judah or the priesthood, but then few people do know the difference, most preachers haven't a clue.
This makes even less sense, the Remnant of Jews who became Samaritans? There were no Jews in the Northern kingdom, NO JEWS became Samaritans, the worship system of the Northern kingdom has ZERO to do with Judaism, that is why the Northern kingdom is known as the ten lost tribes, they rejected Judaism, they rejected Judah, they rejected Jerusalem and chose their own priests to perform duties at their own invented holy days just like Christianity.
What you are trying to say doesn't make any sense because you need to learn the actual history of what you are talking about and you don't seem to know the difference in Israel and Judah or the priesthood, but then few people do know the difference, most preachers haven't a clue.
There was no judaism then.
The history of the line of kings is fact.
Just as what the Lord spoke to the prophets is fact.
Cease your agenda or be left with no choice of redemption...
Or have you already made your choice?
After what I've read of your heart.
I've begun to lose doubt that there is any truth in you.
Here is a start for research which is not polemics, Hanni. I urge you to continue it.
From Wikipedia:The Samaritans (/səˈmærɪtənz/; Samaritan Hebrew: ࠔࠠࠌࠝࠓࠩࠉࠌ, translit. Shamerim (שַמֶרִים), "Guardians/Keepers/Watchers (of the Torah)") are an ethnoreligious group of the Levant originating from the Israelites (or Hebrews) of the Ancient Near East.
Ancestrally, Samaritans claim descent from the tribe of Ephraim and tribe of Manasseh (two sons of Joseph) as well as from the Levites,[1] who have links to ancient Samaria (now constituting the majority of the territory known as the West Bank) from the period of their entry into Canaan, while some Orthodox Jews suggest that it was from the beginning of the Babylonian captivity up to the Samaritan polity under the rule of Baba Rabba. Samaritans used to include descendants who ascribed to the Benjamin tribe, but this line became extinct in the 1960s.[10] According to Samaritan tradition, the split between them and the Judean-led Southern Israelites began during the biblical time of the priest Eli when the Southern Israelites split off from the central Israelite tradition, as they perceive it.[11]
Here is a start for research which is not polemics, Hanni. I urge you to continue it.
From Wikipedia:The Samaritans (/səˈmærɪtənz/; Samaritan Hebrew: ࠔࠠࠌࠝࠓࠩࠉࠌ, translit. Shamerim (שַמֶרִים), "Guardians/Keepers/Watchers (of the Torah)") are an ethnoreligious group of the Levant originating from the Israelites (or Hebrews) of the Ancient Near East.
Ancestrally, Samaritans claim descent from the tribe of Ephraim and tribe of Manasseh (two sons of Joseph) as well as from the Levites,[1] who have links to ancient Samaria (now constituting the majority of the territory known as the West Bank) from the period of their entry into Canaan, while some Orthodox Jews suggest that it was from the beginning of the Babylonian captivity up to the Samaritan polity under the rule of Baba Rabba. Samaritans used to include descendants who ascribed to the Benjamin tribe, but this line became extinct in the 1960s.[10] According to Samaritan tradition, the split between them and the Judean-led Southern Israelites began during the biblical time of the priest Eli when the Southern Israelites split off from the central Israelite tradition, as they perceive it.[11]
I am sure the Samaritans did claim lies, they claimed lies for 700 straight years right up until Jesus where the woman at the well lied saying that her father was Jacob.
This isn't an opinion, The Samaritans have 700 years of recorded lies where when it was of benefit, they said they were the new Israel JUST LIKE YOU CLAIM, for 2000 years Gentile Christians have been telling the same lie that they are Israel, this is no new thing.
When ever a king came that didn't like Judah, those Samaritans told the truth saying,'' The King of Assyria brought us from Egypt and Babylon and placed us here in the houses of the ten tribes known as Israel but we are not those people.''
Their lies have well been documented and Christians tell the same lies, big deal, you are just making up history as you go.
This is why the parable of the Good Samaritan is misunderstood, you have to start with the fact that these were the worst enemies to the Jews saying they were the true Israel, the true Jew just as Christians do.
A Samaritan is the worst enemy of the Jew, they were never Israel, and they were certainly never Jews, they were placed in the land of Joseph by the king of Assyria in 722 B.C, and here you are making a false claim for them as if they were ever Israel, lies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
