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.
I'll go straight to the horses mouth. The Jews post WWII admitted they were not the ancient Hebrews.
That included the Jewish almanac.
The European Anglo Saxon Caucasians including Germany, Britain, Ireland and America are indeed the Israelites.
The differences are stark.
Paul said this bunch were contrary to all men.
Yep that is them.
con·trar·y
adjective
/ˈkäntrerē/
1.
opposite in nature, direction, or meaning.
"he ignored contrary advice and agreed on the deal"
Similar:
opposite
opposing
opposed
contradictory
clashing
conflicting
antithetical
incompatible
irreconcilable
different
differing
contrasting
inconsistent
incongruous
reverse
counter
backasswards
oppugnant
antipathic
Opposite:
compatible
same
2.
perversely inclined to disagree or to do the opposite of what is expected or desired.
That's not what they said and not what they meant.
I have no problem with Anglo-Saxons and other Europeans wanting to claim blood Israelite ancestry, because it's so muddled that the idea can't be disproven handily. For the same reason I have no problem with the Ashkenazi claiming exactly the same.
Semites included many peoples of which one was Hebrews. Hebrews included many peoples of which one was Abrahamites. Abrahamites included many peoples of which one was Israelites. Israelites included twelve tribes of which one was Judahites (Yehudah, where the tribal name Yehudi is translated Jew). If these distinctions are not kept in mind, then false conclusions come to bear such as "Jews admitted they weren't Hebrews" when they were saying the word Hebrew is a very different scope.
The other type of misunderstood quote is when they admit that e.g. a first-generation Khazar convert to Judaism naturally doesn't have Semitic blood. But for Khazars to be Jewish they would've necessarily intermarried with the Jews who converted and taught them so after a few generations there's plenty of Semitic blood to go around. There's no source that shows that Semitic blood in some people was eliminated or subjugated or replaced or any such event at any time in history.
I'll be happy to repeat specifics: What The Jewish Almanac (Rheins and Siegel 1980) said was, "Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew.'" This is the first sentence in the book and is obviously, in context, a shock quote to interest people in the deep elaboration that follows. One reason that it's "strictly" "incorrect" to call a modern Jew a Hebrew is given as: "Because of the emergence of the slang pejorative 'Hebe,' the advantages of the adaptation are now dubious." Not that they're not descended from the Hebrews, but that some Jews find the word Hebrew less useful. So if you're interested in reading beyond the first deliberately provocative sentence of a book to find its meaning, that's what you find.
Yes, Paul said, "The Jews ... are contrary to all men" (1 Thess. 2:15). Paul also said twice "I ... am a Jew" (Acts 21:39, 22:3). Same word.
So I don't know why it's so necessary for some people to deny to others the right to self-identify. It appears that in some such cases people think they must deny the rights of the self-identified Jews so that they can claim rights to be "Jews inwardly" (i.e., Christians, covenant people). But, surprise, we Christians have access to all the blessings and titles promised to Jews anytime we want, without the birth/conversion Jews needing to lose anything. It's not zero-sum. Romans 11 explains in detail that this long period of Gentile blessings will end with both parties getting blessed.
Anyway, I thank you for trying to present evidence, but it appears we still have no power to reject the names people apply to themselves via continuous polity.
Remember I said watch out for contradictions? It was precisely that passage in first Thessalonians where Paul fingered the Jews for killing our Lord, the prophets and are contrary to all men,
That I realized that that particular translation never made sense because Paul criticizing the Jews for killing our Lord and I'm thinking wait Paul aren't you one of them yourself?
Aren't you indicting yourself as one of them?
"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints".
The apostle Paul cautions people to beware of Satan's tricks, or schemes, which are subtle, strategic, and often disguised to deceive believers. Paul explains in his letters how Satan manipulates situations and presents himself as "an angel of light" to lead people away from a pure devotion to Christ.
The pieces have to fit. When reading scripture.
Don't the Jews do this? Look at us because we are all about to be seen of men?
They hate Christ.
Once again go back to the New King James version of 1st Thessalonians and the word is translated Judeans.
Your conclusion is "Dual meaning, Judean Judahites, (Israelites) Judean Edomites", but the data you present would logically also support the conclusion "Dual meaning, Jesus-following Judahites, Jesus-rejecting Judahites". Plus, since Paul is constantly focusing on that distinction but only once or twice on the Jacob-Esau distinction (and not in this application), it's the likelier reading. There's not evidence that Edomites controlled the Sanhedrin, and I presented evidence that Judahites controlled it, which you haven't answered. When you come to text with the presumption of a history that isn't evidenced, you end up warping the text to your presumption instead of letting your views be shaped by the text and the history. Thank you for presenting your evidence, but it doesn't prove that self-identified Jews ever lost the right to the name at any point in history.
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.
I'll go straight to the horses mouth. The Jews post WWII admitted they were not the ancient Hebrews.
That included the Jewish almanac.
The European Anglo Saxon Caucasians including Germany, Britain, Ireland and America are indeed the Israelites.
The differences are stark.
Paul said this bunch were contrary to all men.
Yep that is them.
con·trar·y adjective /ˈkäntrerē/ 1. opposite in nature, direction, or meaning. "he ignored contrary advice and agreed on the deal" Similar: opposite opposing opposed contradictory clashing conflicting antithetical incompatible irreconcilable different differing contrasting inconsistent incongruous reverse counter backasswards oppugnant antipathic Opposite: compatible same 2. perversely inclined to disagree or to do the opposite of what is expected or desired.
That's not what they said and not what they meant.
I have no problem with Anglo-Saxons and other Europeans wanting to claim blood Israelite ancestry, because it's so muddled that the idea can't be disproven handily. For the same reason I have no problem with the Ashkenazi claiming exactly the same.
Semites included many peoples of which one was Hebrews. Hebrews included many peoples of which one was Abrahamites. Abrahamites included many peoples of which one was Israelites. Israelites included twelve tribes of which one was Judahites (Yehudah, where the tribal name Yehudi is translated Jew). If these distinctions are not kept in mind, then false conclusions come to bear such as "Jews admitted they weren't Hebrews" when they were saying the word Hebrew is a very different scope.
The other type of misunderstood quote is when they admit that e.g. a first-generation Khazar convert to Judaism naturally doesn't have Semitic blood. But for Khazars to be Jewish they would've necessarily intermarried with the Jews who converted and taught them so after a few generations there's plenty of Semitic blood to go around. There's no source that shows that Semitic blood in some people was eliminated or subjugated or replaced or any such event at any time in history.
I'll be happy to repeat specifics: What The Jewish Almanac (Rheins and Siegel 1980) said was, "Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a 'Jew' or to call a contemporary Jew an 'Israelite' or a 'Hebrew.'" This is the first sentence in the book and is obviously, in context, a shock quote to interest people in the deep elaboration that follows. One reason that it's "strictly" "incorrect" to call a modern Jew a Hebrew is given as: "Because of the emergence of the slang pejorative 'Hebe,' the advantages of the adaptation are now dubious." Not that they're not descended from the Hebrews, but that some Jews find the word Hebrew less useful. So if you're interested in reading beyond the first deliberately provocative sentence of a book to find its meaning, that's what you find.
Yes, Paul said, "The Jews ... are contrary to all men" (1 Thess. 2:15). Paul also said twice "I ... am a Jew" (Acts 21:39, 22:3). Same word.
So I don't know why it's so necessary for some people to deny to others the right to self-identify. It appears that in some such cases people think they must deny the rights of the self-identified Jews so that they can claim rights to be "Jews inwardly" (i.e., Christians, covenant people). But, surprise, we Christians have access to all the blessings and titles promised to Jews anytime we want, without the birth/conversion Jews needing to lose anything. It's not zero-sum. Romans 11 explains in detail that this long period of Gentile blessings will end with both parties getting blessed.
Anyway, I thank you for trying to present evidence, but it appears we still have no power to reject the names people apply to themselves via continuous polity.
Remember I said watch out for contradictions? It was precisely that passage in first Thessalonians where Paul fingered the Jews for killing our Lord, the prophets and are contrary to all men,
That I realized that that particular translation never made sense because Paul criticizing the Jews for killing our Lord and I'm thinking wait Paul aren't you one of them yourself?
Aren't you indicting yourself as one of them?
"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints".
The apostle Paul cautions people to beware of Satan's tricks, or schemes, which are subtle, strategic, and often disguised to deceive believers. Paul explains in his letters how Satan manipulates situations and presents himself as "an angel of light" to lead people away from a pure devotion to Christ.
The pieces have to fit. When reading scripture.
Don't the Jews do this? Look at us because we are all about to be seen of men?
They hate Christ.
Once again go back to the New King James version of 1st Thessalonians and the word is translated Judeans.
The original older English translation IEWE.
Dual meaning, Judean Judahites, (Israelites) Judean Edomites.
The Exodus of the 10 Tribes occurred 600 BC and that journey is easily traced across the Caucasus mountains.
The book: The Anglo-Israel Thesis Author Reed Benson
https://www.educate-yourself.org/cn/texemarrskhazarianjews08mar13.shtml
Your conclusion is "Dual meaning, Judean Judahites, (Israelites) Judean Edomites", but the data you present would logically also support the conclusion "Dual meaning, Jesus-following Judahites, Jesus-rejecting Judahites". Plus, since Paul is constantly focusing on that distinction but only once or twice on the Jacob-Esau distinction (and not in this application), it's the likelier reading. There's not evidence that Edomites controlled the Sanhedrin, and I presented evidence that Judahites controlled it, which you haven't answered. When you come to text with the presumption of a history that isn't evidenced, you end up warping the text to your presumption instead of letting your views be shaped by the text and the history. Thank you for presenting your evidence, but it doesn't prove that self-identified Jews ever lost the right to the name at any point in history.