Like my remarks to OP, these relate to tropes that don't pan out. Please try not to look botlike.
The word "Jew" appears in Hebrew and Greek and means a member of Judah by birth or naturalization. Edom was always different. Herod had some Edomite blood and some Jewish, but he was an exception. There is no evidence that Judas or the Pharisees were Edomite (there was one fictitious cite claimed from the old Jewish Encyclopedia about Edom that, I previously showed, doesn't appear in the printed text). Jesus and Paul were Jews without any question raised by the texts.
I also have no evidence that Canaanites have a notable nose that Hebrews (Habiru) didn't have.
If you're interested in more, I'd love to talk, because I seek out evidences that might controvert what I've learned; but people fail to provide evidences in the direction you're going.
Here's a deep dive on the subject of Israelites, Jews, Edomites and deception.
I assume you have the Spirit of God in you and he will convey the truth.
Yes, we invoke the Spirit of God to convey all truth to us. Thanks?
The Chosen Tribe of God, the Hebrew family of Jacob (Known as Israel afterwards) were all Caucasian, white people. The “Jews” who say they are Jews but are not, and do lie – are actually the synagogue of Satan – the Edomites (Through Jacob’s brother, Esau – A murderous Barbarian)
So the foundational argument is that Jacob was racially white but his fraternal twin Esau wasn't? They were both Isaac's (Rom. 9:10) so I'd have difficulty starting with the idea that they get to define "white" and "nonwhite".
The graphic called "God's Chosen People -- True Israelites" then repeated a second time is an edited version of something a hundred years old that we've previously debunked here; if you want me to dig out the details I can, but they are mostly obvious on the surface. Now we come to the sections:
"The Word Jew Was Not In Original Bibles": I already told you the answer, it's disappointing that he leads with perhaps the worst argument. Of course "Jew", an English word dating to the 13th century (m-w.com), doesn't appear in the original languages, but it's etymologically the same as Yahudah and Ioudaios (any spellings), and the etymological chain has always meant the same thing. In the KJV 1611 it was spelled "Iewe", which is part of the chain. The argument is that "Iou" is valid but "Jew" is invalid, which is linguistically hogwash. If there were actually evidence that Judean and Jew were two different things (which the intro presumes), then there might be an argument at some point, but you don't lead with a loser like this.
Now, it gets to the main point soon enough, saying that Esther and Josephus show that others including Edomites intermarried into Judah. Well, of course! And did you notice that among the first 600,000 Israelites in the exodus, there were many Egyptians who had converted, known as the mixed multitude? Do they cease to be Judah by allowing intermarriage? Not if the citizenship rules of Judah are continued, which they were. All nations rely on birth and naturalization together. There's no evidence that the converts were "to become" (all) the scribes and Pharisees, or that they included Annas and Caiaphas or the Sanhedrin (Annas was installed by Rome in opposition to the Herodians when Herod Archelaus was famously deposed in 6 AD). For instance, Gamaliel, the undisputed leader of the Sanhedrin, had a Judahite lineage back to David, and a maternal lineage among Benjamin. The idea that the Edomites expelled from Jerusalem the Christians (by which is meant all the true descendants of Judah) and reserved the name "Jew" for themselves alone is belied by the entire book of Acts which records that they were called the same name everywhere, Ioudaios, the same word used for Jesus and his followers. Contrary to this idea, many Christians remained in Jerusalem at this time (around the apostles, Acts 8:1, and basically the rest of Acts).
"The Word Jew Is a Deception": If it were, it's modern because there is no distinction in original texts between the two types of Ioudaios that the article imagines. The article falls over itself trying to keep this distinction alive without reference to the originals. A central idea is that "the land of Judah and the land of Idumea were merged into the land then called Judaea in the first century BC": No, "Judaea" is the Roman name as of 6 AD, but before that it was the precious Hasmoneans (John Hyrcanus) who, as Judahites, independently conquered and governed the Idumeans in about 125 BC. If Idumeans didn't accept Judean religion but retained Idumean religion, they didn't get credit as citizens of Judah.
About the most credit I can give this section is to say the nature of the integration of Idumeans into Judean religion is less than fully attested, allowing some inference. But the whole genetic argument assumes that true Judahites were widespread in Judea as well as Edomites, and yet that all the true Judahites were removed in some extrahistorical event while only the true Edomites remained. That's not how history works. The question and division was over practice and theology and never genetics. You might argue that Jesus himself instigated the main division by warning his followers to "head for the hills", which they literally did in 68 AD, putting forward one of the biggest exoduses of Christians from non-Christian Judaeans.
The Jewish quotes are old tropes. The first is about "Jew" being inexact for "Israelite" because there are other Israelite tribes than Jews, not because Jews are not Israelites. The second is rather irrelevant because Judah was always recognized as Hebrew and Israelite even if those names were not widely used. The third is wholly fabricated, the text actually says the historical "The Edomites ... were then incorporated with the Jewish nation, and their country was called by the Greeks and Romans 'Idumea' .... Till its conquest by the Romans .... From this time the Idumeans ceased to be a separate people." The fourth quote from a "Gerald Soman" of a 1935 "World Jewish Federation" (the reality was called the World Jewish Congress) is nonexistent outside its own echoes; I've tracked such quotes before to their fictional rabblerouser origins, so I'm not inclined to do this one today, thanks.
Since the article then jumps to Khazaria, which is another history of the same character without adding anything to the argument, let's stop there for now. What I've learned is that I have had insufficient appreciation for the integration of Idumeans into Jewish society, but that factor doesn't change the fact that there is no separation in this historical period on Esau-Jacob lines and it appears wholly invented and templated onto the history. (I also have sources that indicate that Idumeans continued on the east side of the Jordan, which may not be a continuous thread to the present day but deserves to be noted here too.) If the whole theory is based on the idea that those not racially Judahite get to judge those who say they are racially Judahite (and who have retained continuously, by accord of all societies, the right to judge that name), it's just more racism. Let Elijah show us who the true fathers are.
Is the Spirit of God conveying to you something different about the texts and history?
Still looking for that evidence that the whole people-group became Edomite, it's never appeared.
It falls under Judeans sub race Israelites, or Edomites. There are no Jews in scripture.
King Herod... Edomite
Judas Iscariot... Edomite
The Pharisees in John chapter 8.. Edomites
The reference to the Judeans killing the Lord, the prophets and are contrary to all men aka Pharisee Edomites.
1 Thessalonians chapter 2 verses 14 15
Today You can easily see the markers aka Pinocchio's with the Canaanite nose.
Like my remarks to OP, these relate to tropes that don't pan out. Please try not to look botlike.
The word "Jew" appears in Hebrew and Greek and means a member of Judah by birth or naturalization. Edom was always different. Herod had some Edomite blood and some Jewish, but he was an exception. There is no evidence that Judas or the Pharisees were Edomite (there was one fictitious cite claimed from the old Jewish Encyclopedia about Edom that, I previously showed, doesn't appear in the printed text). Jesus and Paul were Jews without any question raised by the texts.
I also have no evidence that Canaanites have a notable nose that Hebrews (Habiru) didn't have.
If you're interested in more, I'd love to talk, because I seek out evidences that might controvert what I've learned; but people fail to provide evidences in the direction you're going.
Here's a deep dive on the subject of Israelites, Jews, Edomites and deception. I assume you have the Spirit of God in you and he will convey the truth.
https://theserapeum.com/the-true-hebrew-israelites-the-caucasian-race-the-lost-tribes-of-israel/
Yes, we invoke the Spirit of God to convey all truth to us. Thanks?
So the foundational argument is that Jacob was racially white but his fraternal twin Esau wasn't? They were both Isaac's (Rom. 9:10) so I'd have difficulty starting with the idea that they get to define "white" and "nonwhite".
The graphic called "God's Chosen People -- True Israelites" then repeated a second time is an edited version of something a hundred years old that we've previously debunked here; if you want me to dig out the details I can, but they are mostly obvious on the surface. Now we come to the sections:
"The Word Jew Was Not In Original Bibles": I already told you the answer, it's disappointing that he leads with perhaps the worst argument. Of course "Jew", an English word dating to the 13th century (m-w.com), doesn't appear in the original languages, but it's etymologically the same as Yahudah and Ioudaios (any spellings), and the etymological chain has always meant the same thing. In the KJV 1611 it was spelled "Iewe", which is part of the chain. The argument is that "Iou" is valid but "Jew" is invalid, which is linguistically hogwash. If there were actually evidence that Judean and Jew were two different things (which the intro presumes), then there might be an argument at some point, but you don't lead with a loser like this.
Now, it gets to the main point soon enough, saying that Esther and Josephus show that others including Edomites intermarried into Judah. Well, of course! And did you notice that among the first 600,000 Israelites in the exodus, there were many Egyptians who had converted, known as the mixed multitude? Do they cease to be Judah by allowing intermarriage? Not if the citizenship rules of Judah are continued, which they were. All nations rely on birth and naturalization together. There's no evidence that the converts were "to become" (all) the scribes and Pharisees, or that they included Annas and Caiaphas or the Sanhedrin (Annas was installed by Rome in opposition to the Herodians when Herod Archelaus was famously deposed in 6 AD). For instance, Gamaliel, the undisputed leader of the Sanhedrin, had a Judahite lineage back to David, and a maternal lineage among Benjamin. The idea that the Edomites expelled from Jerusalem the Christians (by which is meant all the true descendants of Judah) and reserved the name "Jew" for themselves alone is belied by the entire book of Acts which records that they were called the same name everywhere, Ioudaios, the same word used for Jesus and his followers. Contrary to this idea, many Christians remained in Jerusalem at this time (around the apostles, Acts 8:1, and basically the rest of Acts).
"The Word Jew Is a Deception": If it were, it's modern because there is no distinction in original texts between the two types of Ioudaios that the article imagines. The article falls over itself trying to keep this distinction alive without reference to the originals. A central idea is that "the land of Judah and the land of Idumea were merged into the land then called Judaea in the first century BC": No, "Judaea" is the Roman name as of 6 AD, but before that it was the precious Hasmoneans (John Hyrcanus) who, as Judahites, independently conquered and governed the Idumeans in about 125 BC. If Idumeans didn't accept Judean religion but retained Idumean religion, they didn't get credit as citizens of Judah.
About the most credit I can give this section is to say the nature of the integration of Idumeans into Judean religion is less than fully attested, allowing some inference. But the whole genetic argument assumes that true Judahites were widespread in Judea as well as Edomites, and yet that all the true Judahites were removed in some extrahistorical event while only the true Edomites remained. That's not how history works. The question and division was over practice and theology and never genetics. You might argue that Jesus himself instigated the main division by warning his followers to "head for the hills", which they literally did in 68 AD, putting forward one of the biggest exoduses of Christians from non-Christian Judaeans.
The Jewish quotes are old tropes. The first is about "Jew" being inexact for "Israelite" because there are other Israelite tribes than Jews, not because Jews are not Israelites. The second is rather irrelevant because Judah was always recognized as Hebrew and Israelite even if those names were not widely used. The third is wholly fabricated, the text actually says the historical "The Edomites ... were then incorporated with the Jewish nation, and their country was called by the Greeks and Romans 'Idumea' .... Till its conquest by the Romans .... From this time the Idumeans ceased to be a separate people." The fourth quote from a "Gerald Soman" of a 1935 "World Jewish Federation" (the reality was called the World Jewish Congress) is nonexistent outside its own echoes; I've tracked such quotes before to their fictional rabblerouser origins, so I'm not inclined to do this one today, thanks.
Since the article then jumps to Khazaria, which is another history of the same character without adding anything to the argument, let's stop there for now. What I've learned is that I have had insufficient appreciation for the integration of Idumeans into Jewish society, but that factor doesn't change the fact that there is no separation in this historical period on Esau-Jacob lines and it appears wholly invented and templated onto the history. (I also have sources that indicate that Idumeans continued on the east side of the Jordan, which may not be a continuous thread to the present day but deserves to be noted here too.) If the whole theory is based on the idea that those not racially Judahite get to judge those who say they are racially Judahite (and who have retained continuously, by accord of all societies, the right to judge that name), it's just more racism. Let Elijah show us who the true fathers are.
Is the Spirit of God conveying to you something different about the texts and history?
The studies we're referring to are outside the realm of scripture.
Rather they are historical.
I am still at the DMV waiting for my number to be called.
https://theserapeum.com/the-true-hebrew-israelites-the-caucasian-race-the-lost-tribes-of-israel/