Fun video, however the creator has things VERY wrong. The jews did not descend from Judah.
That would have made Jesus a jew, which he was not.
The jews come from Esau, whose name was changed to Edom. His race mixing with the Canaanites and other tribes created the Edomites.
The Jewish Encyclopedia admits that the jews are the Edomites of the Bible, and not the Israelites. But they keep that a secret, probably even from most of their own people. But it is right there in the Jewish Encyclopedia (like most people, most jews don't read these types of books, either).
Judah was a son of Israel, making him an Israelite. There is ZERO way that Judah could ever be a jew, since none of his ancestors were jews.
The word "jew" was not even in the Bible until a few hundred years ago:
Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.
The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" did not appear in it.
The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word "Jew" did not appear in it either. The word "Jew" appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times.
Countless copies of the revised 18th century editions of the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament into English were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. They did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" nor did they care. They accepted the English word "Jew" as the only and as the accepted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios." How could they be expected to have known otherwise? The answer is they could not and they did not. It was a new English word to them.
The translation into English of the Gospel by John, XIX.19, from the Greek in which it was originally written reads "Do not inscribe 'the monarch of the Judeans' but that He Himself said 'I am monarch.'" In the original Greek manuscript the Greek "basileus" appears for "monarch" in the English and the Greek "Ioudaios" appears for "Judeans" in the English. "Ioudaia" in Greek is "Judea" in English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judeans" in English. There is no reason for any confusion.
If the generally accepted understanding today of the English "Jew" and "Judean" conveyed the identical implications, inferences and innuendoes as both rightly should, it would make no difference which of these two words was used when referring to Jesus in the New Testament or elsewhere. But the implications, inferences, and innuendoes today conveyed by these two words are as different as black is from white. The word "Jew" today is never regarded as a synonym for "Judean" nor is "Judean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew."
When the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean." However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew." It is a misrepresentation
In the Bible the word "Jew" means a resident of the land of Judaea regardless of their tribe, race or religion just as an Australian or Englishman may in fact be a Chinese, Negro or an Eskimo, or perhaps a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite).
http://www.wicwiki.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php/The_Etymology_of_the_Word_%22Jew%22
In the New Testament, Jesus was born AFTER the return of some of the people and their descendants who had been captured and held in Babylon. By this time in history, that area that had once been the Kingdom of Judah was now occupied and controlled by the Roman Empire. It was now the Roman province called Judea.
SOME of those people were descendants of Judah, and were true Israelites. But MOST of the people were not. The majority were Edomites (true jews), and others.
It was a "diverse society," just as we see today in White societies.
This is why Jesus spoke differently to the "multitudes" (a group of people, some of whom were NOT His people) than he did to His disciples.
The original scriptures used the word "Judeans" because the Edomites were pretending to be of the Israelites. They were doing things that they THOUGHT would "make them Israelites" or make others think so, such as circumcision, which was originally a Hebrew thing, not a jewish thing.
Over time, they infiltrated Christianity, claiming that they were experts in the Hebrew language, so they should be the translators. In this capacity, they gradually changed the meanings of important words when translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin and eventually into other languages.
So, the video is cleverly done, but the creator has Judah as a jew and that is NOT correct. That makes the rest of his version of history largely false.
Exactly why Jesus was NOT a jew:
Good video, however the jews did not descend from Judah.
That would have made Jesus a jew, which he was not.
The jews come from Esau, whose name was changed to Edom. His race mixing with the Canaanites and other tribes created the Edomites.
The Jewish Encyclopedia admits that the jews are the Edomites of the Bible, and not the Israelites. But they keep that a secret, probably even from most of their own people. But it is right there in the Jewish Encyclopedia (like most people, most jews don't read these types of books, either).
Judah was a son of Israel, making him an Israelite. There is ZERO way that Judah could ever be a jew, since none of his ancestors were jews.
The word "jew" was not even in the Bible until a few hundred years ago:
Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.
The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" did not appear in it.
The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word "Jew" did not appear in it either. The word "Jew" appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times.
Countless copies of the revised 18th century editions of the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament into English were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. They did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" nor did they care. They accepted the English word "Jew" as the only and as the accepted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios." How could they be expected to have known otherwise? The answer is they could not and they did not. It was a new English word to them.
The translation into English of the Gospel by John, XIX.19, from the Greek in which it was originally written reads "Do not inscribe 'the monarch of the Judeans' but that He Himself said 'I am monarch.'" In the original Greek manuscript the Greek "basileus" appears for "monarch" in the English and the Greek "Ioudaios" appears for "Judeans" in the English. "Ioudaia" in Greek is "Judea" in English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judeans" in English. There is no reason for any confusion.
If the generally accepted understanding today of the English "Jew" and "Judean" conveyed the identical implications, inferences and innuendoes as both rightly should, it would make no difference which of these two words was used when referring to Jesus in the New Testament or elsewhere. But the implications, inferences, and innuendoes today conveyed by these two words are as different as black is from white. The word "Jew" today is never regarded as a synonym for "Judean" nor is "Judean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew."
When the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean." However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew." It is a misrepresentation
In the Bible the word "Jew" means a resident of the land of Judaea regardless of their tribe, race or religion just as an Australian or Englishman may in fact be a Chinese, Negro or an Eskimo, or perhaps a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite).
http://www.wicwiki.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php/The_Etymology_of_the_Word_%22Jew%22
In the New Testament, Jesus was born AFTER the return of some of the people and their descendants who had been captured and held in Babylon. By this time in history, that area that had once been the Kingdom of Judah was now occupied and controlled by the Roman Empire. It was now the Roman province called Judea.
SOME of those people were descendants of Judah, and were true Israelites. But MOST of the people were not. The majority were Edomites (true jews), and others.
It was a "diverse society," just as we see today in White societies.
This is why Jesus spoke differently to the "multitudes" (a group of people, some of whom were NOT His people) than he did to His disciples.
The original scriptures used the word "Judeans" because the Edomites were pretending to be of the Israelites. They were doing things that they THOUGHT would "make them Israelites" or make others think so, such as circumcision, which was originally a Hebrew thing, not a jewish thing.
Over time, they infiltrated Christianity, claiming that they were experts in the Hebrew language, so they should be the translators. In this capacity, they gradually changed the meanings of important words when translated from Hebrew to Greek to Latin and eventually into other languages.
So, the video is cleverly done, but the creator has Judah as a jew and that is NOT correct. That makes the rest of his version of history largely false.
Exactly why Jesus was NOT a jew: