"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 anti-zionistic. 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 converts.

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 adoptive mothers.

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 Rûs 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.