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?
"Esau's biblical appearance and temperament
A "hairy" or "rough" man: The name Esau is believed to be derived from the Hebrew word for "hairy" or "rough," reflecting his appearance at birth.
Reddish complexion: Genesis 25:25 notes that Esau came out "red, all over like a hairy garment". This reddish coloring also inspired his other name, Edom, which means "red".
Outdoor hunter: His rugged physique aligned with his personality, as he grew up to be a "man of the field" and a skilled hunter. This contrasted with Jacob, who was described as a "mild" or "plain" man who preferred to stay in the tents.
Central to a deception: Esau's hairiness was a key element in the story of Jacob stealing the firstborn's blessing. Jacob used goat skins to make his skin feel hairy like Esau's, fooling their blind father, Isaac."
I'm aware; that still doesn't make races. Plus, the above amounts to saying whites are descended from a white guy whose fortune was founded on pretending not to be white (we call that blackface).
It seems to me that the whole theory is modern shards left over from some exploded 19th-century tentative texts where people couldn't debunk things in real time. There is nothing to fear from real history. Jewish leadership counts all ethnic groups within Judaism alike because of continuity of birth/naturalization being the same in all cases, and we as outsiders don't get to tell them they can't self-define. (Unlike Jesus, who as a Jew was able to call out a very small group in Asia Minor that everybody knew was made of Gentiles.) So I keep looking for evidence that the continuity is false or breached, and I don't find it.
The Jews have a rather weird chalky look to their skin.
I believe the fake word Jew came out in the 1800's.
The word Jew needs exterminated out of existence because that word has been massaged as God's chosen people when they are not.
It's rather stolen valor.
The proper translation of Iewe is Judean.
Example 1Thessalonians 2-14-15 NKJV
Why the New King James?
Because the Jews got them ( the publishers) to actually put in the correct word Judeans because Jew in that passage was shining a bright light into their dark cave.
Judeans sub meaning Edomites or Judahites.
In John 4:22 Jesus said salvation is of the Jews an obvious mistranslation.
Correction.. salvation is of the Judahites, the tribe of Judah the largest tribe of Israel.
The lion of the tribe of Judah
When analyzing scripture passages they have to make sense to belong there.
If there are contradictions I have to assume there is something amok
See, arguing about the word suggests to me that there's no real argument there. The word "Jew" is, as I already linked, 13th-century and comes from Anglo-French "Ju" as a shortening of Latin "Judaeus". Etymologists don't argue about differences in spelling such as "Iewe" because no orthography was standardized in those days.
You're speaking of translating English into English. You're also saying the Jews got the NKJV to say "Judean" at the same time as saying the original "Iewe" was also a plot favoring the Jews; that's contradictory.
The simple answer is that wherever you see Ioudaios in Greek it means the same thing, a member of the expanded tribe of Judah by birth or conversion, who was bound to the Mosaic law.
What you're doing is judging race not by genetics but by actions, which is the same as making a race (Edomite) out to be always evil. (You're also judging by external appearance ("chalky"), which I've never understood.) We could just translate Ioudaios as Judean or Judahite in every instance, but then it would say the Judeans/Judahites killed Jesus (gave him up to death), which the theory doesn't like. The fact is that the people were designed for demonstrating both good and evil in mankind, just as Deut. 28 prophesies; and in that generation the people showed forth both strands, in spades.
It appears you're listening to people who have a presupposition that is never either evidenced or questioned, but that is read into every piece of evidence circularly. In all the people here who have put forward similar presuppositions, none have been able to explain it with evidence. It would require that the Judean polity was overthrown from within by an Edomite segment such that no ethnic Judahites remained, and there is no evidence of this happening at any time; I showed you that Gamaliel, undisputed leader of the Sanhedrin in the 40s AD, was descended from David without any charges of being Edomite. So I keep searching.
Nothing there, fren. Do you want to go through it in detail? The Khazars had to get Judaism from Jews, and the fact that they converted en masse doesn't mean that their people remained devoid of Jewish blood, because they would've intermarried with birth Jews. Genetics isn't something where we get to exclude things out of hand.
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?
Esau wasn't white like his brother.
"Esau's biblical appearance and temperament A "hairy" or "rough" man: The name Esau is believed to be derived from the Hebrew word for "hairy" or "rough," reflecting his appearance at birth. Reddish complexion: Genesis 25:25 notes that Esau came out "red, all over like a hairy garment". This reddish coloring also inspired his other name, Edom, which means "red". Outdoor hunter: His rugged physique aligned with his personality, as he grew up to be a "man of the field" and a skilled hunter. This contrasted with Jacob, who was described as a "mild" or "plain" man who preferred to stay in the tents. Central to a deception: Esau's hairiness was a key element in the story of Jacob stealing the firstborn's blessing. Jacob used goat skins to make his skin feel hairy like Esau's, fooling their blind father, Isaac."
I'm aware; that still doesn't make races. Plus, the above amounts to saying whites are descended from a white guy whose fortune was founded on pretending not to be white (we call that blackface).
It seems to me that the whole theory is modern shards left over from some exploded 19th-century tentative texts where people couldn't debunk things in real time. There is nothing to fear from real history. Jewish leadership counts all ethnic groups within Judaism alike because of continuity of birth/naturalization being the same in all cases, and we as outsiders don't get to tell them they can't self-define. (Unlike Jesus, who as a Jew was able to call out a very small group in Asia Minor that everybody knew was made of Gentiles.) So I keep looking for evidence that the continuity is false or breached, and I don't find it.
The Jews have a rather weird chalky look to their skin.
I believe the fake word Jew came out in the 1800's.
The word Jew needs exterminated out of existence because that word has been massaged as God's chosen people when they are not.
It's rather stolen valor.
The proper translation of Iewe is Judean.
Example 1Thessalonians 2-14-15 NKJV
Why the New King James?
Because the Jews got them ( the publishers) to actually put in the correct word Judeans because Jew in that passage was shining a bright light into their dark cave.
Judeans sub meaning Edomites or Judahites.
In John 4:22 Jesus said salvation is of the Jews an obvious mistranslation.
Correction.. salvation is of the Judahites, the tribe of Judah the largest tribe of Israel.
The lion of the tribe of Judah
When analyzing scripture passages they have to make sense to belong there.
If there are contradictions I have to assume there is something amok
See, arguing about the word suggests to me that there's no real argument there. The word "Jew" is, as I already linked, 13th-century and comes from Anglo-French "Ju" as a shortening of Latin "Judaeus". Etymologists don't argue about differences in spelling such as "Iewe" because no orthography was standardized in those days.
You're speaking of translating English into English. You're also saying the Jews got the NKJV to say "Judean" at the same time as saying the original "Iewe" was also a plot favoring the Jews; that's contradictory.
The simple answer is that wherever you see Ioudaios in Greek it means the same thing, a member of the expanded tribe of Judah by birth or conversion, who was bound to the Mosaic law.
What you're doing is judging race not by genetics but by actions, which is the same as making a race (Edomite) out to be always evil. (You're also judging by external appearance ("chalky"), which I've never understood.) We could just translate Ioudaios as Judean or Judahite in every instance, but then it would say the Judeans/Judahites killed Jesus (gave him up to death), which the theory doesn't like. The fact is that the people were designed for demonstrating both good and evil in mankind, just as Deut. 28 prophesies; and in that generation the people showed forth both strands, in spades.
It appears you're listening to people who have a presupposition that is never either evidenced or questioned, but that is read into every piece of evidence circularly. In all the people here who have put forward similar presuppositions, none have been able to explain it with evidence. It would require that the Judean polity was overthrown from within by an Edomite segment such that no ethnic Judahites remained, and there is no evidence of this happening at any time; I showed you that Gamaliel, undisputed leader of the Sanhedrin in the 40s AD, was descended from David without any charges of being Edomite. So I keep searching.
Here's more.
http://socioecohistory.x10host.com/2018/11/07/modern-jews-admit-they-are-not-semitic-people-not-the-descendants-of-the-12-tribes-of-israel-the-bible-says-ashkenazi-jews-90-of-modern-jewry-are-not-semitic-people/
Nothing there, fren. Do you want to go through it in detail? The Khazars had to get Judaism from Jews, and the fact that they converted en masse doesn't mean that their people remained devoid of Jewish blood, because they would've intermarried with birth Jews. Genetics isn't something where we get to exclude things out of hand.