Ancestry and DNA testing

[GearHeaded]

curious if any of you guys have ever done this and what kind of results you have gotten , any surprises in there ?

I found out, which I basically knew already , that I'm 95% Celtic (a combination of Wales, Northern European, and Irish) with a little bit of Viking (Norweigen and Sweeden) thrown in there.

as for the ancestry part, more recent history.. in late 1700s we migrated from Ireland to the US. moved to the south.. my great great great grandpa was s high ranking officer for the Confederate Army in the Civil war..(this I already knew).. but didn't know that my other grandpa was a well known doctor in the early 1900s (they even found a picture of him, looks a lot like me actually lol).

anyhow , pretty inserting to see and follow your family lines and look at your DNA and ancestry

[Fluidic Kimbo]

If anyone on the forum would like to tell me their year of birth, I can give them a concisive ancestral background free of charge

[Proximal]

I’m part Sicilian, that makes me part eggplant . . .

https://youtu.be/_svnsF5OLbI

[GearHeaded]

I guess I'm glad I checked the DNA and ancestry and confirmed what was family tradition..

would be pretty silly getting a Celtic dagger tattoo on my arm if I found out I was actually italian or something and not Celtic


or a Celtic band on the other arm that goes well with the Glock

[Proximal]

I guess I'm glad I checked the DNA and ancestry and confirmed what was family tradition..

would be pretty silly getting a Celtic dagger tattoo on my arm if I found out I was actually italian or something and not Celtic


or a Celtic band on the other arm that goes well with the Glock

For me I have the Statue of Liberty, the American flag, the Virgin Mary, the sacred heart, French Philosopher 2x, and OLDSKOOL on my fingers.

[GearHeaded]

I've got the alter and the eucharist on the other side. my left arm is my spiritual arm .


my right arm is the dagger and the pounding of war. the Griffin, the flail, the pike .. the weapons of war

[Beetlegeuse]

The problem with the "Celtic" thing ...

... it's a myth. The ancient Britons were not Celts.

The myth was created from whole cloth by a guy named Edward Lhuyd in ca. 1707. In a book titled Archaeologia Britannica, he wrote that the ancient Britons spoke a Celtic language. Which has been conflated ever since to mean that ancient Britain was inhabited by Celtic peoples.

Which held sway until the Genome Project crunched Britain's DNA numbers. It turns out there is no genetic evidence that Celts ever migrated in significant numbers to Britain.

Which makes more sense that the Celtic thing because there isn't a single classical reference to any migration of Celts to the British isles. In one of his histories, none other than Julius Caesar himself wrote that the homeland of the Celts was confined to south-central western Europe, roughly where the Rhône-Alpes region of France is today. But it will be some time yet before the historical side of the equation admits that they were wrong and the science side of the equation was right and set about correcting their error.

They might have had Celtic language and Celtic trade goods but that doesn't make them Celts.

Most everybody in England today with family roots in ancient Britain thinks they're an ethnic Celt but their DNA shows that all historical Britons are really about 70% Beaker People. They came more than 4000 years ago but the DNA shows no evidence of an influx of outsiders since -- not the Viking invasions, not the Norman invasions -- that significantly changed the genetic make-up of the Brits.


So I find it ironic that a company that purports to be genetic experts would tell someone of British bloodstock that they're Celtic.

[BG]

Lmfao! Just found out I have a half brother from my mother last night. She had him when she was 17 and put him up for adoption.

[BG]

If anyone on the forum would like to tell me their year of birth, I can give them a concisive ancestral background free of charge

I doubt you’ll get any information from anybody at all......... just saying.

[Proximal]

The problem with the "Celtic" thing ...

... it's a myth. The ancient Britons were not Celts.

The myth was created from whole cloth by a guy named Edward Lhuyd in ca. 1707. In a book titled Archaeologia Britannica, he wrote that the ancient Britons spoke a Celtic language. Which has been conflated ever since to mean that ancient Britain was inhabited by Celtic peoples.

Which held sway until the Genome Project crunched Britain's DNA numbers. It turns out there is no genetic evidence that Celts ever migrated in significant numbers to Britain.

Which makes more sense that the Celtic thing because there isn't a single classical reference to any migration of Celts to the British isles. In one of his histories, none other than Julius Caesar himself wrote that the homeland of the Celts was confined to south-central western Europe, roughly where the Rhône-Alpes region of France is today. But it will be some time yet before the historical side of the equation admits that they were wrong and the science side of the equation was right and set about correcting their error.

They might have had Celtic language and Celtic trade goods but that doesn't make them Celts.

Most everybody in England today with family roots in ancient Britain thinks they're an ethnic Celt but their DNA shows that all historical Britons are really about 70% Beaker People. They came more than 4000 years ago but the DNA shows no evidence of an influx of outsiders since -- not the Viking invasions, not the Norman invasions -- that significantly changed the genetic make-up of the Brits.


So I find it ironic that a company that purports to be genetic experts would tell someone of British bloodstock that they're Celtic.

Come on Beetle, everyone knows that the Celtics are from Boston . . .

[GearHeaded]

The problem with the "Celtic" thing ...

... it's a myth. The ancient Britons were not Celts.

The myth was created from whole cloth by a guy named Edward Lhuyd in ca. 1707. In a book titled Archaeologia Britannica, he wrote that the ancient Britons spoke a Celtic language. Which has been conflated ever since to mean that ancient Britain was inhabited by Celtic peoples.

Which held sway until the Genome Project crunched Britain's DNA numbers. It turns out there is no genetic evidence that Celts ever migrated in significant numbers to Britain.

Which makes more sense that the Celtic thing because there isn't a single classical reference to any migration of Celts to the British isles. In one of his histories, none other than Julius Caesar himself wrote that the homeland of the Celts was confined to south-central western Europe, roughly where the Rhône-Alpes region of France is today. But it will be some time yet before the historical side of the equation admits that they were wrong and the science side of the equation was right and set about correcting their error.

They might have had Celtic language and Celtic trade goods but that doesn't make them Celts.

Most everybody in England today with family roots in ancient Britain thinks they're an ethnic Celt but their DNA shows that all historical Britons are really about 70% Beaker People. They came more than 4000 years ago but the DNA shows no evidence of an influx of outsiders since -- not the Viking invasions, not the Norman invasions -- that significantly changed the genetic make-up of the Brits.


So I find it ironic that a company that purports to be genetic experts would tell someone of British bloodstock that they're Celtic.

intersting information , and thank you.

don't know what I am exactly ,, my Dna test manly says Wales, norweigin and sweeden (98%)
but I think the idea of "Celtic" goes far beyond language or dna , but more towards religion and philosophy which carried on more then any actual "dna" carried on .

idk.. maybe I'm just a pagan. by the looks of it I think maybe I fit that bill

[almostgone]

curious if any of you guys have ever done this and what kind of results you have gotten , any surprises in there ?

I found out, which I basically knew already , that I'm 95% Celtic (a combination of Wales, Northern European, and Irish) with a little bit of Viking (Norweigen and Sweeden) thrown in there.

as for the ancestry part, more recent history.. in late 1700s we migrated from Ireland to the US. moved to the south.. my great great great grandpa was s high ranking officer for the Confederate Army in the Civil war..(this I already knew).. but didn't know that my other grandpa was a well known doctor in the early 1900s (they even found a picture of him, looks a lot like me actually lol).

anyhow , pretty inserting to see and follow your family lines and look at your DNA and ancestry

Which service did you use? One side of my heritage is somewhat of a question mark and have considered doing this, but then read some providers are notoriously inaccurate.

[GearHeaded]

Which service did you use? One side of my heritage is somewhat of a question mark and have considered doing this, but then read some providers are notoriously inaccurate.

ancestory.. the weird thing was even using a fake name and fake address, they knew everything. even traced half sisters and half aunts (which I know of)..
through just a dna sample they knew most things about me and my family line.. even people not necessarily blood related.
kinda weird shit.

[almostgone]

ancestory.. the weird thing was even using a fake name and fake address, they knew everything. even traced half sisters and half aunts (which I know of)..
through just a dna sample they knew most things about me and my family line.. even people not necessarily blood related.
kinda weird shit.

Actually, they kind of freak me out. That's why I never tried them. I may do it underba fake name and have it sent to my sister-in-law's house?

[GearHeaded]

Actually, they kind of freak me out. That's why I never tried them. I may do it underba fake name and have it sent to my sister-in-law's house?

at the end of the day .. I've come to settle in. if the "system" or the ''beast" wants my DNA .. so be it. my soul and the spirit is not attached to the flesh. it can easily rise above all that. do what you want with the flesh but the spirit can never be touched.
lol .. would like to see a "spirit" dna one day..
the spirit cannot be touched by the hands of mortal men

[almostgone]

at the end of the day .. I've come to settle in. if the "system" or the ''beast" wants my DNA .. so be it. my soul and the spirit is not attached to the flesh. it can easily rise above all that. do what you want with the flesh but the spirit can never be touched.
lol .. would like to see a "spirit" dna one day..
the spirit cannot be touched by the hands of mortal men

Just on a side note, many scholars ( quite a few Rabbinical) contend that it wasn't a rib taken from Adam. They can document that the word can be translated curve. Kind of makes you start thinking about the double helix curve of DNA, but I don't want to sidetrack this thread. Interesting concept though.

[XnavyHMCS]

Most everybody in England today with family roots in ancient Britain thinks they're an ethnic Celt but their DNA shows that all historical Britons are really about 70% Beaker People. They came more than 4000 years ago but the DNA shows no evidence of an influx of outsiders since -- not the Viking invasions, not the Norman invasions -- that significantly changed the genetic make-up of the Brits.


So I find it ironic that a company that purports to be genetic experts would tell someone of British bloodstock that they're Celtic.

Beetlegeuse:

"Celtic" has a way cooler ring to it than "Beaker" (this name derives from the containers found at an archaeological dig where the first of remains of these people were found).

[GearHeaded]

Just on a side note, many scholars ( quite a few Rabbinical) contend that it wasn't a rib taken from Adam. They can document that the word can be translated curve. Kind of makes you start thinking about the double helix curve of DNA, but I don't want to sidetrack this thread. Interesting concept though.

your a good thinker and one of the most well rounded and wisest members here... your insights and things that you bring are very good.
I'd venture to say your a SEER.

but I'm tired and had a few too many shots of whisky.. though I don't think that hinders my judgment too much

[XnavyHMCS]

ancestory.. the weird thing was even using a fake name and fake address, they knew everything. even traced half sisters and half aunts (which I know of)..
through just a dna sample they knew most things about me and my family line.. even people not necessarily blood related.
kinda weird shit.

"kinda weird shit" = REALLY SCARY SHIT to me...

WTF man... Unbelievable...

[XnavyHMCS]

your a good thinker and one of the most well rounded and wisest members here... your insights and things that you bring are very good.
I'd venture to say your a SEER.

but I'm tired and had a few too many shots of whisky.. though I don't think that hinders my judgment too much

NOTHING could hinder YOUR judgment and or insight, GH.

OK, OK... Alcohol hinders the judgment... I get it.

Hinders the judgment, but helps to open "the doors of perception".

[almostgone]

your a good thinker and one of the most well rounded and wisest members here... your insights and things that you bring are very good.
I'd venture to say your a SEER.

but I'm tired and had a few too many shots of whisky.. though I don't think that hinders my judgment too much

Thanks, man, but to look at my ink and the subject matter it depicts and my hair braid down my back, I'm atypical Christian by many churchgoer's views, which means "nada" to me.

Even as a child I wasn't comfortable with what many "preachers" feed their flock. So at an early age I decided my faith was important enough to me to learn how to go back to the original languages and pick things apart and get rid of some of the "traditional" views/ check out what was being taught.

Discernment? Maybe,....I don't know. I guess that is a gift and will probably become even more important in the future.

I guess you could say I like to dig into it and try to learn.

Do I have a drink now and then....sure. At times, is my language what some people consider "coarse"...oh yeah.

They would really cringe if they were familiar with "Olde English".

[GearHeaded]

"kinda weird shit" = REALLY SCARY SHIT to me...

WTF man... Unbelievable...

its actually nothing new brother .. the "beast" has been doing this for a long time. read the Bible (I know your trying).. but from the Egyptian Pharaoh 5000 years ago that used a census and killed all the manchilds of of the jewish women in an attempt to kill Moses before he could rise to power .. to Ceaser of Rome doing the same thing to kill Jesus before he could rise to power (ie conducting a census and "dna testing" to find him)..

its nothing new under the sun.. its not scary. its simply how the beast works..
but collect all the DNA you want , census us , and try to collect all the info you want .. you'll never beat us

[GearHeaded]

Thanks, man, but to look at my ink and the subject matter it depicts and my hair braid down my back, I'm atypical Christian by many churchgoer's views, which means "nada" to me.

Even as a child I wasn't comfortable with what many "preachers" feed their flock. So at an early age I decided my faith was important enough to me to learn how to go back to the original languages and pick things apart and get rid of some of the "traditional" views/ check out what was being taught.

Discernment? Maybe,....I don't know. I guess that is a gift and will probably become even more important in the future.

I guess you could say I like to dig into it and try to learn.

Do I have a drink now and then....sure. At times, is my language what some people consider "coarse"...oh yeah.

They would really cringe if they were familiar with "Olde English".

you are a mighty warrior .. sometimes we are not allowed into church or fit in.. , but many other mighty ones will follow us into a righteous battle..
thats just the way it is..

God speaks more highly and brags about his mighty warriors more then he does the "pastors" and church goers.

you've read Samuel, judges, kings, etc.. so you know

[Beetlegeuse]

Just on a side note, many scholars ( quite a few Rabbinical) contend that it wasn't a rib taken from Adam. They can document that the word can be translated curve. Kind of makes you start thinking about the double helix curve of DNA, but I don't want to sidetrack this thread. Interesting concept though.

Hebrew by and large doesn't translate into English, it can at best be "transliterated," which always involves a bit of subjective interpretation. The reason the KJV bible's 6th Commandment says 'do not kill' is Saint Jerome deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew so as not to confuse the hoopleheads with the esoteric distinctions between "killing" and "murder."

I once saw a tape of Admiral Hyman Rickover, Jew, genius, and father of the Atomic Navy, testifying before the US Congress.

At one juncture some (Gentile) Congressman quoted a Bible passage to him. At which point Admiral Rickover arched his eyebrows and asked, "Oh, so, Congressman, you read the Bible, do you?" And the Congressman replied, "Yes, regularly."

The Admiral asks, "And in what language are you reading it?"

And the Congressman answers, "In English ... "

And then Rickover interrupts and says, "Well let me tell you what it really says .... " ... inferring that the Gentiles had botched the translation. Which in many cases they had.

Hell, the Jews can't even agree over the meaning of the Hebrew Bible. They call the Talmud "the book of questions" but if they're being less reverential, they call it "the book of arguments." Training in the Talmud is one of the reasons Jews are so adept at looking at any question with equal enthusiasm from several different perspectives.

"Celtic" has a way cooler ring to it than "Beaker" (this name derives from the containers found at an archaeological dig where the first of remains of these people were found).

Beaker was always one of my two favorite Muppets.



Him and Dr Teeth.

[almostgone]

Hebrew by and large doesn't translate into English, it can at best be "transliterated," which always involves a bit of subjective interpretation. The reason the KJV bible's 6th Commandment says 'do not kill' is Saint Jerome deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew so as not to confuse the hoopleheads with the esoteric distinctions between "killing" and "murder."

I once saw a tape of Admiral Hyman Rickover, Jew, genius, and father of the Atomic Navy, testifying before the US Congress.

At one juncture some (Gentile) Congressman quoted a Bible passage to him. At which point Admiral Rickover arched his eyebrows and asked, "Oh, so, Congressman, you read the Bible, do you?" And the Congressman replied, "Yes, regularly."

The Admiral asks, "And in what language are you reading it?"

And the Congressman answers, "In English ... "

And then Rickover interrupts and says, "Well let me tell you what it really says .... " ... inferring that the Gentiles had botched the translation. Which in many cases they had.

Hell, the Jews can't even agree over the meaning of the Hebrew Bible. They call the Talmud "the book of questions" but if they're being less reverential, they call it "the book of arguments." Training in the Talmud is one of the reasons Jews are so adept at looking at any question with equal enthusiasm from several different perspectives.

True!!! That's why I have a copy of the Masoretic texts, a full Interlinear Bible, and some Orthodox and a few Masorti Jewish friends. We have some lively discussions.

The daughter of one of them did her stint in the IDF and I occasionally take her to the range as a guest. Extremely impressive young lady. Although she carries a G43 as her everyday carry she still has a drop leg holster and Sig M11A1 that she loves to shoot at the range..and humble me. Her reflexes are fast, man!!. She was demonstrating how they carried Condition 3 and her muscle memory is fully intact.

Anyway, if you have a copy of an original 1611 KJV, there's quite a lengthy preface and they discuss how difficult it was for them working from the multiple Latin and Greek translations.

That's why I prefer to find out what original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek word was in the original texts and find out the actual meaning of that word vs. what it was translated/ transliterated into in English. Like Easter, that word was never in the texts...the word "pascha"would have been better translated Passover, Passover meal, Passover offering.

It takes work, but it's worth it to me. ,

Edit: To expand on my earlier post, I know the example that I provided was a Greek example, but I do understand where you're coming from. You have to take into account idioms and Hebraisms when digging for the meaning and also the context of the situation.

For example in I King's 14:10 the phrase "that pisseth against the wall," is generally understood to mean every make that is old enough to stand on his feet and take a leak.

In other places in the OT, it is more in the context of meaning "every male that is of fighting age" whereas in other contexts, it literally means every male from babe to adult male.

It can be challenging to really dig in and study languages, but I find it rewarding and important enough that it is worth the effort.

Just wanted to clarify that as I was posting after a long night shift and now it's time to get up and head for physical therapy. . ugh.

[GearHeaded]

^ intersting stuff guys .. glad to see there are many thinkers out there.

the Hebrew understating and point of view of scripture is something I studied for a long time.. most gentile christians do not interpret it correctly and fall into false doctrines because they cannot see the original context and meaning..

here is an article I wrote on my my Theology blog. about the Romans 7 man , which struggles with sin and law observance. which most gentile Christians complete mis construe and take out of context through lack of proper Hebrew mindset and understanding..

7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[b] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Romans 7

My article
"""""The Romans 7 man is a man whom Paul refers to in the first person whose struggling with the law of God and with sin. Much debate has gone on throughout Christendom as to whether or not Paul in his example is referring to himself as a ‘saved’ man or as an ‘unsaved’ man. I believe most of these debates come from a sincere, but overly individualistic, comparison of one’s self with Paul. We force ourselves into this text because it is so easy to relate to Paul here. But the fact is that none of us can relate to Paul here except perhaps in a peripheral way.

First off Paul is not writing to us. Apart from the obvious that he was only writing to those who lived in 1st century Rome; he was specifically at this point in Romans writing to his fellow Jewish brothers. Paul states in Romans 7:1 “Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law.” Not only does Paul state to whom he is speaking, but he also draws his fellow brothers into the Romans 7 man when he references their second temple Judaist soteriology. Romans 7:10 “The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.” The promise of life through the Torah was in Paul’s day the teaching of the Rabbis.

Here is a quote that promotes an idea that Paul and his audience would familiar with.

Why are the words of Torah compared to a Prince? To tell you that just as a prince has the power to put to death and to grant life, so do the words of Torah have the power to put to death and to grant life. – Talmud Shabbat 88b

Paul and his Jewish brothers were soaked in the idea of ‘life through the Law/Torah’. Not ‘life’ in the idea of simple biological existence, but life in its fullest sense–life in its COVENANTAL sense. Their mode of existence was a covenantal mode of existence where they related to the whole world, and especially to God, through the Torah. There was covenantal relationship and life only through the Torah. The Romans 7 man is a man who lives in this mode of existence. We Gentile Christians have no idea what is like to live in ‘this world’ where God’s righteousness is based on his keeping Covenant with man and man’s righteousness is based on keeping covenant with God through Torah observance.

Paul then establishes from the Romans 7 man the fault of that mode of existence. He does this while still upholding the holiness and goodness of the law (which is fitting considering his audience). Without going into a verse by verse exegesis of this portion of scripture we can clearly draw out of the text that it is not the Torah that is the problem, but the sinful nature of man. Though the law of God is good, man is sinful and even though there is a desire to keep the law, there is along with that desire the desire to do evil. At this point we modern day gentiles will want to jump in and try to personally relate. Though we may relate to the desire to do evil, this is not Paul’s purpose in speaking to his Jewish brothers, i.e., simply stating mankind’s general inclination towards evil.

Paul’s desire to do ‘good’ under the Torah, while giving way to the evil he does not want to do statements are consistent with Judaist teachings. This is a concept that Paul would have understood from his youth, having been taught under the Rabbi Gamaliel. The Rabbis taught the people that along with Torah, there is a God ordained “evil inclination” (their term). Through the Torah is life, but the ‘evil inclination’ is a harasser of those who pursue this life.

“A man’s inclination attacks him every day and seeks to put him to death, as it is said, “the wicked watches for the righteous; seeking to put him to death” (Psalm 37:32), and if it were not for the Holy One who helps him, he could not withstand it” B.Suk. 52b

In this midrash, the “wicked” who is on the lookout for an opportunity to kill the righteous is not another person, rather, the “wicked” is a person’s own nature continually waging war against him (that is the Rabbis interpretation of the Psalm). The help that comes from the Holy One is the Torah, but the ‘evil inclination’ is not taken away rather it is just soothed as medicine soothes a soar, but the soar will always remain.

“Why is the Torah likened to life giving medicine? This can be compared to the case of a man who struck his son with a huge blow and put a compress on his wound. He said to him, “my son, so long as this compress is on your wound, eat whatever you like and drink, and bathe in hot or cold water, and you need not be afraid. But If you take it off, it will break into soars.” Thus the Holy One said to Israel, “My son, I created the evil inclination; I created Torah as its antidote. If you occupy yourselves with Torah, you will not be delivered into its power. . .”” b. Qidd. 30b

Now alongside this ‘evil inclination’ is also the ‘good inclination.’ Here is one more quote from the Rabbis.

“A person should always incite his Good Inclination against his Evil Inclination, as it is written, “So tremble and sin no more.” If he is victorious over it, well and good. If not, let him occupy himself with Torah.” B. Ber. 5a

Perhaps this Judaistic concept is precisely what Paul is referring to (which his audience would be familiar with) when he says “For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (Rom. 7:18). Paul understands that he must ‘incite his Good inclination against his evil inclination’, but he just can’t do it. And even though he has the Torah as the antidote for the evil inclination, and even though he does occupy himself with Torah (delighting in it as he says), it is not working. In fact the Torah, which promises life, is proving to be death to him (Rom. 7:10). This is where Paul dramatically departs from the Rabbis. But Paul provides something much better in their place.

Part 2 –

From looking at Paul (within his Judaist worldview as the Romans 7 man), in part one, we may find ourselves asking the question “What sin or evil deed was Paul specifically struggling with?” The ‘evil inclination’ was clearly part of his life—he did not simply subdue it permanently with the Torah. So, what ‘evil inclinations’ under the life of the Torah did Paul struggle with, what was Paul’s sin(s)? Was he a habitual coveter, or perhaps he was once an adulterer or luster, maybe he was, as someone once suggested in a bible study I attended, a habitual ‘dog kicker’? One thing we do know is that Paul was not without sin, that he may have with his mind coveted his neighbor’s house, or possessions, but, as regards to the Law as covenant Paul was blameless. Paul was not a habitual Law breaker; in fact he had a righteousness of his own under the Law.

For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. . . having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law. (Philippians 3:4-9)

Paul had reason to boast in the flesh (i.e., human will, power, and exertion). He, being blameless, had done everything right; sort of speak, under the Law. According to his own will and strength under the law he was righteous. This sounds a little different than the Romans 7 man on the surface, but I think if we get into it a little deeper we will see the connection. I believe the conduit for the connection is the ‘deceitfulness of sin.’ A surface reading of the Romans 7 text may lead us to believe that the law psychologically stimulates man to disobedience. There is in this the thought that the commandment which forbids a certain practice will actually stimulate a man’s desire to break that commandment. This though, which may in fact be true (especially as is seen in small children), is missing not only Paul’s point in Romans 7, but Paul’s entire gospel message as regarding the Law. Sin is much more deceitful than this.

I believe that the thrust of the problem here is not even the disobedience itself (though that should not be dismissed), but something much deeper as concerning Paul and his Jewish audience. At the heart of Paul’s gospel message is this statement “Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.” (Romans 9:31). Disobedience is not the problem here, but rather Israel’s striving after righteousness by means of Law observance, i.e., ‘works’. This is the ‘deceitfulness of sin’ which had deceived the Romans 7 man, who is really in a way a picture of Israel. We have already seen in part 1 that Torah observance was the way in which a Jew was to pursue life according to the Rabbis interpretation(s). This pursuit of life by works was not only brought about because of sin, but was condemned as sinful itself. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. In this is revealed the sinfulness of sin, that even in the pursuit of Law observance they became guilty of sin.

Thus the question “what was Paul’s evil inclination?” is answered–not in a personal way for him alone, but for all of Israel. The Rabbis teaching, that the cure for the ‘evil inclination’ of man is Torah observance, has itself become the problem—it is actually the most deceitful part of the ‘evil inclination’ and causes the ‘sore’ of which they spoke to become gangrened rather than soothed. Paul’s (and the Rabbis and the Jews) perverted use of the Law of God was the sinfulness of sin (the great ‘evil inclination’). Not only did healing not take place through their use of the law, as they expected, but rather death. The Torah slew Paul (Romans 7:11) because the deceitfulness of sin lured him into a perverted use of the law, i.e., pursuing life by means of law observance based on human power and performance. The Romans 7 man now finds himself in a very big dilemma. He cannot disobey Torah, because this is sin, but he cannot obey Torah either, because of sin. He has found himself within a corporate body of death (sin) in which there does not seem to be a way a way of escape (i.e., resurrection).""""

[Beetlegeuse]

If Jews all read the Torah/Talmud the same, they all either would or wouldn't be wearing prayer curls (payots). But some do (four sects, IIRC) and some don't, which is an obvious physical manifestation that even the greatest Hebraic scholars can't agree on the meaning of the original Hebrew texts.

St Jerome wasn't the only source for bungling the 6th Commandment (the 5th, I think, in Catholic bible), but he is the patron saint of peaceniks nonetheless because there is no blanket proscription against killing in the Hebrew bible. And you kinda sorta have to take the Israelites' word on his one because they were the only ones who ever laid eyes on the tablets that Moses brought down from the mountaintop.

The verb used in the Decalogue (the Hebrew 10 commandments, which the Talmud expands on to 613 commandments, or "mitzvahs") is 'tirzach,' which is the conjugated form of the infinitive verb 'retzach,' which transliterates as "murder" but is actually closer to 'an unlawful killing' or 'a killing of outside G-d's laws.' Long story short it isn't a word that has a clear meaning outside of Jewish religious law, so we transliterate it to "murder." But "kill" is just wrong.

And because St Jerome's Latin Vulgate bible was so influential as a source for many of the English translations (probably most notably the KJV), a great many Christians believe killing is never permissible. When in fact the Hebrew Pentateuch lists several instances when killing is not just permissible but mandatory! Like to prevent a man bent on pederasty from defiling a young virgin girl (in which case it's ostensibly being done not just for the sake of the girl but the man, too, to prevent the crime from forever staining his soul). And not to forget there are at least four (IIRC) instances in the Old Testament of G-d ordering the Israelites to commit genocide. Kill them all, every man, woman, child and cat.

That last bit was actually an attempt at humor. Cats are mentioned nowhere in the Bible.

[almostgone]

If Jews all read the Torah/Talmud the same, they all either would or wouldn't be wearing prayer curls (payots). But some do (four sects, IIRC) and some don't, which is an obvious physical manifestation that even the greatest Hebraic scholars can't agree on the meaning of the original Hebrew texts.

St Jerome wasn't the only source for bungling the 6th Commandment (the 5th, I think, in Catholic bible), but he is the patron saint of peaceniks nonetheless because there is no blanket proscription against killing in the Hebrew bible. And you kinda sorta have to take the Israelites' word on his one because they were the only ones who ever laid eyes on the tablets that Moses brought down from the mountaintop.

The verb used in the Decalogue (the Hebrew 10 commandments, which the Talmud expands on to 613 commandments, or "mitzvahs") is 'tirzach,' which is the conjugated form of the infinitive verb 'retzach,' which transliterates as "murder" but is actually closer to 'an unlawful killing' or 'a killing of outside G-d's laws.' Long story short it isn't a word that has a clear meaning outside of Jewish religious law, so we transliterate it to "murder." But "kill" is just wrong.

And because St Jerome's Latin Vulgate bible was so influential as a source for many of the English translations (probably most notably the KJV), a great many Christians believe killing is never permissible. When in fact the Hebrew Pentateuch lists several instances when killing is not just permissible but mandatory! Like to prevent a man bent on pederasty from defiling a young virgin girl (in which case it's ostensibly being done not just for the sake of the girl but the man, too, to prevent the crime from forever staining his soul). And not to forget there are at least four (IIRC) instances in the Old Testament of G-d ordering the Israelites to commit genocide. Kill them all, every man, woman, child and cat.

That last bit was actually an attempt at humor. Cats are mentioned nowhere in the Bible.

Totally agree the Hebrew texts states there are crimes that demand capital punishment, crimes classed as manslaughter, just as killing during wars (talking a standing army here) isn't murder.

Also agree that there is disagreement between sects as to the exact meaning of the manuscripts, but as someone who has put quite a bit of time into studying and poring over the Masorah with 2 of those sects, (and also the Septuagint toa lesser degree) I'll stand by my beliefs.


.....and you had me laughing my @ss off at feline genocide!!

Edit: On a side note, Beetlegeuse, you were right, the P365XL is a much better fit to my hand. Trying to find an XL with manual safety locally, if not I'll have a dealer at work order it. I lose very minor time with a slide safety and for my purposes it's a no- brainer.

[Beetlegeuse]

I forgot to mention that Torah scholars interpret it to say there are two types of permissible war, one discretionary and the other obligatory, another case of killing being mandatory according to G-d's law.

I find it interesting (and frustrating) how the modern Israelis will delay military action, agonizing over the point at which their enemy's action makes their response obligatory according to Jewish law. It's like Bibi is calling for the nuclear launch codes but there's a wizened old Rabbi carrying "the football" who looks at him knowingly over the top of his reading glasses, shakes his head and says, "Not yet." Bibi and his late brother Jonathan both were Sayeret Matkal, Israel's version of Seal Team Six, and you know it's got to frustrate the hell out the guys with such a strong background as "men of action."

...Edit: On a side note, Beetlegeuse, you were right, the P365XL is a much better fit to my hand. Trying to find an XL with manual safety locally, if not I'll have a dealer at work order it. I lose very minor time with a slide safety and for my purposes it's a no- brainer.

After a couple of months living with mine I find absolutely zero downsides in the XL compared to the regular 365 but it shoots noticeably softer and puts a little more zing on the bullet in the bargain. I got along fine with a manual safety when all I carried was 1911s but I've been Glockified for so long now (and I'm so gall-derned old) that I'd be afraid to try to go back. At my age you have trouble remembering to put pants on before you leave the house, much less remembering to switch off the safety when some mook sticks a Sarridy night special in your face and demands your wallet.

[almostgone]

I forgot to mention that Torah scholars interpret it to say there are two types of permissible war, one discretionary and the other obligatory, another case of killing being mandatory according to G-d's law.

I find it interesting (and frustrating) how the modern Israelis will delay military action, agonizing over the point at which their enemy's action makes their response obligatory according to Jewish law. It's like Bibi is calling for the nuclear launch codes but there's a wizened old Rabbi carrying "the football" who looks at him knowingly over the top of his reading glasses, shakes his head and says, "Not yet." Bibi and his late brother Jonathan both were Sayeret Matkal, Israel's version of Seal Team Six, and you know it's got to frustrate the hell out the guys with such a strong background as "men of action."



After a couple of months living with mine I find absolutely zero downsides in the XL compared to the regular 365 but it shoots noticeably softer and puts a little more zing on the bullet in the bargain. I got along fine with a manual safety when all I carried was 1911s but I've been Glockified for so long now (and I'm so gall-derned old) that I'd be afraid to try to go back. At my age you have trouble remembering to put pants on before you leave the house, much less remembering to switch off the safety when some mook sticks a Sarridy night special in your face and demands your wallet.

I'm right there with you on the age thing ( will be 56 this year), but the habit of sweeping the safety is one bit of memory I've kept. Even when transitioning from 1911s to my P220, M11A1, etc., I can pick up anything with a grip safety and my thumb knows to go for the slide safety at presentation. Of course, since the 365 doesn't have a grip safety I may have to go through some familiarization time with it.

[GearHeaded]

I'm right there with you on the age thing ( will be 56 this year), but the habit of sweeping the safety is one bit of memory I've kept. Even when transitioning from 1911s to the my P220, M11A1, etc., I can pick up anything with a grip safety and my thumb knows to go for the slide safety at presentation. Of course, since the 365 doesn't have a grip safety I may have to go through some familiarization time with it.

completely agree with this thought .. things become an instinctive muscle memory thing.
I did all my tactical training with a Glock. the idea of a safety when under stressful fires just does not enter my mind. tap rack bang in case of a failure comes natural .. the idea of a safety does not.
even though I own a bunch of 1911's, Berretas etc.. that are pretty nice

always just for the range though and just kept in the safe, not for self defense..

however, I'm thinking of retraining myself with the CZ pistol platform (or berreta) of DA/SA hammer down.. just for something new and may even switch my carry gun to a CZ, depending on how efficient I get.
I been shooting striker fired for 20 years and what I'm proficient at. but wouldn't mind a new challenge I guess, just bored

[almostgone]

^^^^ Nice E-series!

[Beetlegeuse]

When you go from a completely passive state of mind to being in mortal fear for your life in the batting of an eyelid, your physiological response -- the body alarm response -- can make you do stupid shit. I've seen guys pull the trigger so hard on their M-16 when we came under fire completely unexpectedly that I thought they were going to break it off. Then they went into an immediate action drill to clear the "malfunction." Only then to discover they'd forgot to flick off the safety.

I never assume for a second that the bad guy is going to let me dictate the terms of the fight. My HD/SD equipment and plans all revolve around the notion that I've been caught completely off-guard because that's the worst-case scenario. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. And I figure the best way to prevent me becoming "that guy" is to choose a firearm with no manual safety to forget about.

Then again, there might well be a healthy dollop of confirmation bias in that attitude because I never fretted about it when I carried a 1911. But then again, what other choice did I have, an HK VP70??? However I have missed getting a shot at a bird or two in the dove field because I'd forgot to turn off the safety.

But on the third hand, I don't own a revolver with a manual safety -- in fact I've only ever touched one -- and AFAIK there's not been one manufactured since 1924. Which happened to be the one I've touched, the Webly-Fosbery autococking revolver.

[almostgone]

When you go from a completely passive state of mind to being in mortal fear for your life, your physiological response can make you do stupid shit. I've seen guys pull the trigger so hard on their M-16 when we came under fire completely unexpectedly that I thought they were going to break it off. Then they went into an immediate action drill to clear the "malfunction." Only then to discover they'd forgot to flick off the safety.

I never assume for a second that the bad guy is going to let me dictate the terms of the fight. My HD/SD equipment and plans all revolve around the idea that I've been caught completely off-guard because that's the worst-case scenario. Plan for the worst and hope for the best. And I figure the best way to prevent me becoming "that guy" is to choose a firearm with no manual safety to forget about.

Then again, there might well be a healthy dollop of confirmation bias in that attitude because I never fretted about it when I carried a 1911. But then again, what choice did I have, an HK VP70??? However I have missed getting a shot at a bird or two in the dove field because I'd forgot to turn off the safety.

But on the third hand, I don't own a revolver with a manual safety -- in fact I've only ever touched one -- and AFAIK there's not been one manufactured since 1924. Which happened to be the one I've touched, the Webly-Fosbery autococking revolver.

LOL, one of the kids I work with bought his first pistol....a revolver from some older friend of his. He was showing me pics of it and pointed out the "safety,". I didn't want to embarrass him as there were some more guys from the shop nearby, so I pulled him to the side and explained that what he thought was a safety was actually an extended cylinder release.

Headed into town now, I may have gotten lucky, we'll see.

[almostgone]

LOL, one of the kids I work with bought his first pistol....a revolver from some older friend of his. He was showing me pics of it and pointed out the "safety,". I didn't want to embarrass him as there were some more guys from the shop nearby, so I pulled him to the side and explained that what he thought was a safety was actually an extended cylinder release.

Headed into town now, I may have gotten lucky, we'll see.

Score, Beetlegeuse!