"Christian racial" identity-concepts teaches, in opposition to the word
of God, that only blood, not adoption counts, and that Ashkenazi Jews
are not real but self-styled Jews. This is primerly used for
modern propagandistic diversion, claiming that post-Nazi and anti-jewish
anti-semites are not really anti-semitic, just anti-khazar but still very
The Book of Ruth proves adoption (and conversion) is biblically
legitimate inheritance, making Khazars legitimate Jews, when Jewish. The
same concept is recognized by Jewish regulation of conversion.
Judaism nowadays claims not to be a missionary faith, but this
only developed in historicly more modern times due to Christian governmental
opression. A few centuries before and after Christ, they actually
were very aggressive missionaries. "Proselytizers" would adopt
the converts into their own tribe, so that these and their
descendants would have an inheritance in the Messianic Kingdom
in Israel when The Messiah came. See The Lost Tribes: A Myth
by Morris Epstein (Ktav Publishing House, New York, NY, 1974.)
Epstein figures this is the cause of later reports of travellers
finding lost tribes of Israelites - these would have been descendants of
The legitimacy of adoption, is shown by the ancestry of David.
The Biblical Book of Ruth is about his ancestor,
Ruth the Moabitess. That Moabite blood would have precluded
David from membership in Israel, therefore would have precluded
him from kingship. (Deuteronomy 23:3-5; 17:14-20.) Certainly
David's opponents would have played on his pedigree to rule
him out as legitimate king.
It was probably to deal with that fact, that the Book of Ruth
was written, to show that Ruth was a convert of righteous
character and that an adoption had occurred.
- "Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom,...And the
women, her neighbors, gave it a name, saying, there is a son born
to Naomi." - (Ruth 4:16, 17.)
These were the very same women who had just acknowledged the baby
as Ruth's son (Ruth 4:14, 15.) And everybody around would
have seen who actually had been pregnant of the two.
What we have here is a ritual act of adoption. God knew all
about this, and told Samuel to appoint David as King over Israel.
(Samuel 16:1, 11-13.)
So adoption is considered valid by God.
When Abraham was old, and still had no son, he was thinking of making
Eliezer of Damascus, his trusted slave, to be his heir. God told him not to,
and that his heir would be born normally in due time. (Genesis 15:2). But
this is not a divine repudiation of adoption. God was then displaying
his power over fertility, as apposed to the pagan fertility gods.
Why else would he make the miracle of causing aged men and
women to give birth?
Impatient, and out to solve the matter in a practical way,
Sarah told Abraham to take her slave Hagar the Egyptian to him. This
was in full according to pagan fertility and inheritance oriented social code
in general, and of this Mesopotamian city Nuzi in particular,
which said that a barren woman should provide a female servant
for her husband to impregnate, in order to get an heir (and which would
then be counted to the barren wife's credit).
When Rachel and Leah were in competition in childbearing, they
got their maid servants into the game. Speaking of Bilhah,
Rachel said "she shall bear upon my knees, that I may have
children by her." (Genesis 30:2.) Notice also that these
children were not named by their real mothers but by their
The Chronicles 2:34-41 mentions Sheshan, who had no son. He
married his Egyptian slave to his daughter, and raised their
children to his name. The resulting children are listed among
the tribe of Judah.
The Jewish Khazars, being Diaspora Jews in Europe and Russia, possibly
and eventually, acquired some other Jewish blood anyway.
In fact, you will often see the classic Semitic (i.e., Arab
looking, like the Sephardic Jews) along with the Turkic and more fair german Rūs
features in the very same families of Ashkenazi Jewry.
Jews have, like all other "nations", never been a pure breed:
They already were a mixed lot coming out of Egypt with Moses;
nowadays Jews and Khazars
tend to resemble the people of the lands they have lived in for
a long time; and at several times there have been both very good and hostile
relations indeed between them and Christian neighbors resulting in intermarriage and "crossbreeding".
The prohibition among Jewry against marrying Gentiles
was aimed at pagans, not at non-Jewish blood per se. Canaanites
were in biblical times especially targetted - and Canaan alone among Ham's
sons was cursed, not Ham himself. Ham found Noah naked and
passed out drunk, but probably his son Canaan was the one who
stole his clothes, or went snickering about it to his father
instead of covering him respectfully like the other sons did.
The eventual and partial Khazar conversion to Judaism also
seem to fulfil the Zionistic prophecy in modern time Israel. Noah
said: "God shall enlarge Japeth, and he shall dwell in the tents of
Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." (Genesis 9:25-27.)
This is the actual state of modern Israel, where it is the Japehtic
(Eastern European) element of Jewry who founded and established Zionism
and is (regretably racisticly) in control of Palestine. Earlier Israelite presence in
Palestine was "purely" Shemite and seem to have had a much more altruistic attitude to the will
and commands of God.