Others have commented on the Rothschild aka Khazarian/Ashkenazi connection in relation to Israel, but there is another aspect of this which is extremely relevant today. Much of modern Israel is in fact Edom, which is the descendants of Esau.
In very short though, Esau had a legitimate claim to the rights of the firstborn which was stolen by Jacob at the suggestion of his mother, and made possible because Isaac was blind.
According to Biblical law the only way to disinherit the firstborn is if they screw up (ie Reuben dishonored his father's bed). Esau had not done so as yet, so he had a valid legal claim still.
Fast forward to modern times and you have Esau/Edom taking the birthright/name of Israel/Jacob and taking the land back by deception, empowered by the blinded prophets of the church. They've been given their time in the sun, but ultimately as we see in the state of Israel, I believe they too will be found rebellious before God and will be disinherited on account of their actions.
The link above does a much better job than I have, but maybe that's enough to whet someone's interest.
You seem to have forgetten the part where Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a mere bowl of soup. I am no fan of today's Zionists at all, and I despise CI Scofield's perverted margin interpretations, whose version of the Bible was underwritten by Rothschids, but a transaction between Hebrews of old is a transaction.
Jacob deceived Isaac when it came to receiving the blessing delivered by Isaac as a father, but that blessing was not a ceremonial declaration birthright. It was a blessing for a first born, to whom the birthright was traditionally already granted by virtue of his first born birth position (if by only a few minutes), but it was not a ceremonial awarding of a birthright on that occasion. Esau had the birthright by virtue of being first born. Disinheriting a birthright was not at issue.
Transactional disavowal of the rights attendant to the birthright was Esau's choice. Esau had already disposed of that right to Jacob simply because he was hungry. Stupid move, but he did it just the same. He did not value his birthright more than he valued a bowl of soup. Let that sink in.
What is important is the bloodline of Jesus Christ from Adam came through Jacob through David through Mary (collapsing generations in the narrative of course), not through Esau. Edomites were always described in the Scriptures as enemies/adversaries to Biblical Israel.
Others have commented on the Rothschild aka Khazarian/Ashkenazi connection in relation to Israel, but there is another aspect of this which is extremely relevant today. Much of modern Israel is in fact Edom, which is the descendants of Esau.
Much deeper discussion of this here: https://godskingdom.org/studies/ffi-newsletter/2023/identifying-nations-in-prophecy-part-2/
In very short though, Esau had a legitimate claim to the rights of the firstborn which was stolen by Jacob at the suggestion of his mother, and made possible because Isaac was blind.
According to Biblical law the only way to disinherit the firstborn is if they screw up (ie Reuben dishonored his father's bed). Esau had not done so as yet, so he had a valid legal claim still.
Fast forward to modern times and you have Esau/Edom taking the birthright/name of Israel/Jacob and taking the land back by deception, empowered by the blinded prophets of the church. They've been given their time in the sun, but ultimately as we see in the state of Israel, I believe they too will be found rebellious before God and will be disinherited on account of their actions.
The link above does a much better job than I have, but maybe that's enough to whet someone's interest.
You seem to have forgetten the part where Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a mere bowl of soup. I am no fan of today's Zionists at all, and I despise CI Scofield's perverted margin interpretations, whose version of the Bible was underwritten by Rothschids, but a transaction between Hebrews of old is a transaction.
Jacob deceived Isaac when it came to receiving the blessing delivered by Isaac as a father, but that blessing was not a ceremonial declaration birthright. It was a blessing for a first born, to whom the birthright was traditionally already granted by virtue of his first born birth position (if by only a few minutes), but it was not a ceremonial awarding of a birthright on that occasion. Esau had the birthright by virtue of being first born. Disinheriting a birthright was not at issue.
Transactional disavowal of the rights attendant to the birthright was Esau's choice. Esau had already disposed of that right to Jacob simply because he was hungry. Stupid move, but he did it just the same. He did not value his birthright more than he valued a bowl of soup. Let that sink in.
What is important is the bloodline of Jesus Christ from Adam came through Jacob through David through Mary (collapsing generations in the narrative of course), not through Esau. Edomites were always described in the Scriptures as enemies/adversaries to Biblical Israel.