The word “jew” was introduced into the English language around 1775. It did not exist in the Bible prior to that time.
Therefore, how was Jesus Christ a jew? He wasn’t.
During the time of Christ, a person could’ve been “of Judea” or “Judean,” which refers to geographical location.
And how does it make sense that all Israelites would’ve been called “jew” after the tribe of Judah? What about the other 11 tribes?
Bible versions should be updated to correct the inaccurate inclusion of the word “jew.”
Therefore, how was Jesus Christ a jew? He wasn’t.
During the time of Christ, a person could’ve been “of Judea” or “Judean,” which refers to geographical location.
And how does it make sense that all Israelites would’ve been called “jew” after the tribe of Judah? What about the other 11 tribes?
Bible versions should be updated to correct the inaccurate inclusion of the word “jew.”
I’ll also point out that the word “jew” is nowhere to be found in the Torah, even in modern translations.
The Greek word Ἰουδαίων in Matthew 2:2 is mistranslated as “jews” when it should be Judeans.
Judea was a multiethnic population, so translating Ἰουδαίων as “jews” is inaccurate. The word “jews” is not a substitute for a geographical location.
Judea was a multiethnic population, so translating Ἰουδαίων as “jews” is inaccurate. The word “jews” is not a substitute for a geographical location.
How heartwarming to see hundreds of zionists on here arguing about whether Jesus Christ was a jew. Having the name Jesus Christ on your mind can only be beneficial, even if it burns you a li’l.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
I’d posted a comment last night with this information, but it seems to have miraculously disappeared, so here it is again…
The Latin inscription on the cross of Jesus Christ:
INRI
which stands for
👉🏻Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum
which means
👉🏻Jesus the Nazarene Leader/Ruler of the Judean
(Classical Latin had no “j” sound. Julius Caesar was actually Iulius Caesar.)
On the cross inscription, you can look at the word used “Iudaeorum” (judaeorum) and plainly see with your own two eyes that judaeorum more closely resembles Judean than jews. No one has to be fluent in Latin to see that.
The Latin inscription on the cross of Jesus Christ:
INRI
which stands for
👉🏻Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum
which means
👉🏻Jesus the Nazarene Leader/Ruler of the Judean
(Classical Latin had no “j” sound. Julius Caesar was actually Iulius Caesar.)
On the cross inscription, you can look at the word used “Iudaeorum” (judaeorum) and plainly see with your own two eyes that judaeorum more closely resembles Judean than jews. No one has to be fluent in Latin to see that.
"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew
an ‘Israelite’ or a ‘Hebrew.’ The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all,"
—The Jewish Almanac (1980)
an ‘Israelite’ or a ‘Hebrew.’ The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all,"
—The Jewish Almanac (1980)
“Jesus is referred as a ‘jew’ for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in
the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations
of the New Testament. The etymology of the word ‘jew’ is quite clear. Although ‘jew’ is a
modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English
word ‘jew’ is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin ‘Iudaeus’ found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word ‘Ioudaios.’ The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word ‘jew’ found in the Latin word ‘Iudaeus’ but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century.
“Thus, from the Latin ‘Iudaeus’ to the English ‘jew’ the evolution of these English forms is: Gyu, Giu, Iu, Iuu, Iuw, Ieuu, Ieuy, Iwe, low, Iewe, Ieue, Iue, Ive, lew, and then, finally, the 18th century, “jew.” Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for ‘jews’ is: Giwis, Giws, Gyues, Gywes, Giwes, Geus, Iuys, lows, Iouis, lews, and then, finally, in the 18th century, ‘jews.’”
Source: archive.org/stream/origino…
the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations
of the New Testament. The etymology of the word ‘jew’ is quite clear. Although ‘jew’ is a
modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English
word ‘jew’ is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin ‘Iudaeus’ found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word ‘Ioudaios.’ The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word ‘jew’ found in the Latin word ‘Iudaeus’ but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century.
“Thus, from the Latin ‘Iudaeus’ to the English ‘jew’ the evolution of these English forms is: Gyu, Giu, Iu, Iuu, Iuw, Ieuu, Ieuy, Iwe, low, Iewe, Ieue, Iue, Ive, lew, and then, finally, the 18th century, “jew.” Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for ‘jews’ is: Giwis, Giws, Gyues, Gywes, Giwes, Geus, Iuys, lows, Iouis, lews, and then, finally, in the 18th century, ‘jews.’”
Source: archive.org/stream/origino…
“The Wickliff or Wycliffe Edition published in 1380 is the earliest version of the New Testament in
English from the Latin Vulgate Edition and in it Jesus is there mentioned as One of the
‘iewes.’ That is, the 14th century middle English version of the Latin ‘Iudaeus’ pronounced ‘hew-weeze,’ in the plural, and ‘iewe’ pronounced ‘hew-wee’ in the singular.
“It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the use of ‘J’ as an initial found common usage in English books. As such, all writers before this time were wholly ignorant of the letter ‘J.’ For instance, William Shakespeare never ever saw the word ‘jew’ never mind use the
word it in any of his works.
“In the Merchant of Venice first published in about 1600, Shakespeare wrote: ‘what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?’
“Even the great lexicographer Samuel Johnson was unusually ambivalent in his use of the ‘J’ letter, for, in his seminal English Dictionary of 1755 and 1756 words beginning with ancient ‘I’ and the new letter ‘J’ are interspersed. Moreover, although he defines ‘To judaize’ as ‘To conform to the manner of the jews’ in both editions he finds no room to list the word ‘jew.’
“The 1933 edition of The Oxford English Dictionary is helpful in this respect and lists the first published usage of the word ‘jew.’ In 1653, Greaves wrote ‘In the King's Seraglio that the sultanas are permitted to employ divers Jewes-women about their ordinary occasions.
“Sheridan in 1775 in his play The Rivals, Act II, Scene I wrote: ‘She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a jew.’
“And in 1700 by Bishop Patrick in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 28:37: ‘Better we cannot express the most cut-throat dealing, than thus, you use me like a jew.’
“The 1841 English Hexapla is a compendium of six English translations of the New Testament, which are: the Wycliffe version of 1380 (the first English Scripture, hand-copied prior to Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1455), The Tyndale version of 1534-1536 (the first English printed Scripture), and Cranmer's Great Bible of 1539 (the first Authorized English
Bible); The Geneva ‘1557’ (the English Bible of the Protestant Reformation); the Rheims (the first Roman Catholic English version of 1582); and the King James First Edition of 1611.
“In the Wycliffe version John 19.19 reads: ‘ihesus of Nazareth kyng of the iewes.’ Similarly, in the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the ‘Iewes.’ Likewise, in the Cranmer Edition Jesus was again described as One of the ‘Iewes.’; in the Geneva Edition Jesus was also described as One of the ‘Iewes.’ In the Rheims Edition Jesus was described as One of the ‘Iewes’; and in the King James Edition, also known as the Authorised Version, Jesus was described again as one of the ‘Iewes.’ That is, the word ‘jew’ does not appear in any of these Bibles. First references to Jesus as a so- called ‘jew’ (which He was most definitely not) are found in the 18th century redactions of the 14th century English editions of the New Testament. The first Bible in which the word ‘jew’ first appears is the 1729 Daniel Mace New Testament in Romans 2:13 - 3:21. Afterwards in 1750 in the Douai; the Catholic English Bible newly revised and corrected by Richard Challoner using the 1609 translation of the Latin Vulgate. In 1755 by John Wesley in his ‘New Testament with Explanatory Notes,’ Benjamin Blayney's 1769 modernized version of the 1611 edition of the Authorised King James Bible. And, in John Worsley's 1770 ‘New Testament or New Covenant of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ with notes as translated from the Greek.”
(Source: archive.org/stream/origino…)
English from the Latin Vulgate Edition and in it Jesus is there mentioned as One of the
‘iewes.’ That is, the 14th century middle English version of the Latin ‘Iudaeus’ pronounced ‘hew-weeze,’ in the plural, and ‘iewe’ pronounced ‘hew-wee’ in the singular.
“It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the use of ‘J’ as an initial found common usage in English books. As such, all writers before this time were wholly ignorant of the letter ‘J.’ For instance, William Shakespeare never ever saw the word ‘jew’ never mind use the
word it in any of his works.
“In the Merchant of Venice first published in about 1600, Shakespeare wrote: ‘what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?’
“Even the great lexicographer Samuel Johnson was unusually ambivalent in his use of the ‘J’ letter, for, in his seminal English Dictionary of 1755 and 1756 words beginning with ancient ‘I’ and the new letter ‘J’ are interspersed. Moreover, although he defines ‘To judaize’ as ‘To conform to the manner of the jews’ in both editions he finds no room to list the word ‘jew.’
“The 1933 edition of The Oxford English Dictionary is helpful in this respect and lists the first published usage of the word ‘jew.’ In 1653, Greaves wrote ‘In the King's Seraglio that the sultanas are permitted to employ divers Jewes-women about their ordinary occasions.
“Sheridan in 1775 in his play The Rivals, Act II, Scene I wrote: ‘She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a jew.’
“And in 1700 by Bishop Patrick in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 28:37: ‘Better we cannot express the most cut-throat dealing, than thus, you use me like a jew.’
“The 1841 English Hexapla is a compendium of six English translations of the New Testament, which are: the Wycliffe version of 1380 (the first English Scripture, hand-copied prior to Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1455), The Tyndale version of 1534-1536 (the first English printed Scripture), and Cranmer's Great Bible of 1539 (the first Authorized English
Bible); The Geneva ‘1557’ (the English Bible of the Protestant Reformation); the Rheims (the first Roman Catholic English version of 1582); and the King James First Edition of 1611.
“In the Wycliffe version John 19.19 reads: ‘ihesus of Nazareth kyng of the iewes.’ Similarly, in the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the ‘Iewes.’ Likewise, in the Cranmer Edition Jesus was again described as One of the ‘Iewes.’; in the Geneva Edition Jesus was also described as One of the ‘Iewes.’ In the Rheims Edition Jesus was described as One of the ‘Iewes’; and in the King James Edition, also known as the Authorised Version, Jesus was described again as one of the ‘Iewes.’ That is, the word ‘jew’ does not appear in any of these Bibles. First references to Jesus as a so- called ‘jew’ (which He was most definitely not) are found in the 18th century redactions of the 14th century English editions of the New Testament. The first Bible in which the word ‘jew’ first appears is the 1729 Daniel Mace New Testament in Romans 2:13 - 3:21. Afterwards in 1750 in the Douai; the Catholic English Bible newly revised and corrected by Richard Challoner using the 1609 translation of the Latin Vulgate. In 1755 by John Wesley in his ‘New Testament with Explanatory Notes,’ Benjamin Blayney's 1769 modernized version of the 1611 edition of the Authorised King James Bible. And, in John Worsley's 1770 ‘New Testament or New Covenant of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ with notes as translated from the Greek.”
(Source: archive.org/stream/origino…)
“The evolution of the Holy Bible - the story of how the Bible arrived to us in its present form - is
testament to the working of Higher Hidden Hands in the historical process. How the revealed Word of God was preserved in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek and transmitted into the modern world via Latin from which it was released into common possession by its translation
into the English language by John Wycliffe and others during the Great Reformation.
"’At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and
the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day’
2 Kings 16:6
“The word ‘jew’ is a relatively modern invention used, seemingly indiscriminately and
interchangeably, by 18th century redactors to describe Israelites, Judahites and Judaeans. It first
appeared in these eighteenth century Bibles and it first appears within these redactions in 2 Kings 16:6 .... in an episode that describes a war between Israel and Judah: when Rezin king of Syria and Pekah king of Israel went to war with wicked Ahaz king of Judah. The Syrians ‘drave the Jews from Elath’ who were in possession of it and so here is the first time that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah are called ‘Jews’ when more properly they should be called Judahites.
“However, the point here is this: the very first time the word ‘jew’ is found in the modern Bible,
they are at war with Israel.
“They [the Edomites] were hereafter no other than [non-Israelite] jews.”
Flavius Josephus, The
Antiquities of the Jews Book XIII, Chapter IX, Verse 1, p. 279
“They [the non-Israelite Edomites] were then incorporated with the Jewish nation"
Article entitled EDOM, IDUMEA, The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. V, p. 41 (1904)
"In the days of John Hyrcanus [end of the second century BC] ... the [non-Israelite] Edomites became a section of the Jewish people."
Article entitled EDOM, Encyclopaedia Judaica Vol. 6,
p. 378 (1971)
"From then on they [the non-Israelite Edomites] constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod [King of Judea] being one of their descendants"
Article entitled EDOM (Idumea), The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia p. 589 (1977)
testament to the working of Higher Hidden Hands in the historical process. How the revealed Word of God was preserved in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek and transmitted into the modern world via Latin from which it was released into common possession by its translation
into the English language by John Wycliffe and others during the Great Reformation.
"’At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and
the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day’
2 Kings 16:6
“The word ‘jew’ is a relatively modern invention used, seemingly indiscriminately and
interchangeably, by 18th century redactors to describe Israelites, Judahites and Judaeans. It first
appeared in these eighteenth century Bibles and it first appears within these redactions in 2 Kings 16:6 .... in an episode that describes a war between Israel and Judah: when Rezin king of Syria and Pekah king of Israel went to war with wicked Ahaz king of Judah. The Syrians ‘drave the Jews from Elath’ who were in possession of it and so here is the first time that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah are called ‘Jews’ when more properly they should be called Judahites.
“However, the point here is this: the very first time the word ‘jew’ is found in the modern Bible,
they are at war with Israel.
“They [the Edomites] were hereafter no other than [non-Israelite] jews.”
Flavius Josephus, The
Antiquities of the Jews Book XIII, Chapter IX, Verse 1, p. 279
“They [the non-Israelite Edomites] were then incorporated with the Jewish nation"
Article entitled EDOM, IDUMEA, The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. V, p. 41 (1904)
"In the days of John Hyrcanus [end of the second century BC] ... the [non-Israelite] Edomites became a section of the Jewish people."
Article entitled EDOM, Encyclopaedia Judaica Vol. 6,
p. 378 (1971)
"From then on they [the non-Israelite Edomites] constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod [King of Judea] being one of their descendants"
Article entitled EDOM (Idumea), The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia p. 589 (1977)
“The Edomites are descendants of Esau (hairy, rough) the eldest son of Isaac, and twin brother of Jacob, whose singular appearance at birth originated the name (Gen 25:25). Also, he was given the name of Edom (red) from his conduct in connection with the red lentil ‘pottage’ for which he sold his birthright (Gen. 25:30, Gen. 25:31).
“The Edomites were thus the progeny of Esau…
These Edomites were also separate from the Twelve Tribes of Israel and so were not true
Israelites. They lived separately in a different land nurturing an enmity originating with their
patriarch, Esau/Edom for Jacob/Israel and his descendants: a hatred bom of a deep sense of
injustice and betrayal that birthright and grace had been arrogated by trickery. Edom's violence against Israel (Jacob) was so intense not only due to a sense of betrayal but also because they both came from the same parents (Isaac and Rebekah); in fact, this great and enduring enmity began in Rebekah's womb, continued as the boys grew to manhood and endured until today in the phenomenon of the struggle of nations. Moreover, because of this enduring bitterness and
jealousy, Esau would have destroyed Jacob had Yahweh not intervened.
(See Ezekiel 35:1-15 and Amos 1:11)
“…this seminal struggle of nations, which began in Rebekah's womb, endures
today in the modern-day descendants of Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau).... a great struggle between the Israelites and the Edomites.”
“The Edomites were thus Semites since they are closely related in blood and in language to the Israelites but they had no claim on the unique Bible Covenant and Birthright Promises gifted to Abraham, then to Jacob/Israel and then to his descendants. However, for more than four centuries, the Edomites continued to prosper but during the warlike rule of the
Maccabeans, they were… forced to conform to jewish laws
and rites, and submit to the government of jewish prefects. Here, at this time, the Edomites
become incorporated within the resurgent Judaean kingdom.
“Edomites are therefore descended from Edom (Esau) whose descendants later intermarried with
the Turks to produce a Turco-Edomite mixture which later became known as Khazars. That is, most of today's jews are descendants of this interbreeding that produced a race called Khazars who had once governed an empire called Khazaria. Furthermore, this hybrid race Edomite/Turk/Khazar who created the Kliazar kingdom and who between the seventh and ninth centuries AD, adopted the religion of Judaism. And, it is these Khazar jews who are the ancestors of the vast majority of today's jewish people. That is, Edomite/Turk/Khazars are the ancestors of the modern ‘jews’ including the Torah-true and Zionist jews who spuriously claim right to the land of Palestine claiming it is theirs by biblical demands and ancestral rights.
“Consequently, the majority of today's jewish people are known as ‘jews,’ not because they
are Judahites and descended from Jacob/Israel but because their Edomite/Turk/Khazar ancestors in their Kingdom of Khazaria adopted the religion of Judaism, called themselves ‘jews’ and arrogated the Birthright Promises and Bible Covenants belonging to the
Israelites, but especially those belonging to the Judahites.”
(Source: archive.org/stream/origino…)
“The Edomites were thus the progeny of Esau…
These Edomites were also separate from the Twelve Tribes of Israel and so were not true
Israelites. They lived separately in a different land nurturing an enmity originating with their
patriarch, Esau/Edom for Jacob/Israel and his descendants: a hatred bom of a deep sense of
injustice and betrayal that birthright and grace had been arrogated by trickery. Edom's violence against Israel (Jacob) was so intense not only due to a sense of betrayal but also because they both came from the same parents (Isaac and Rebekah); in fact, this great and enduring enmity began in Rebekah's womb, continued as the boys grew to manhood and endured until today in the phenomenon of the struggle of nations. Moreover, because of this enduring bitterness and
jealousy, Esau would have destroyed Jacob had Yahweh not intervened.
(See Ezekiel 35:1-15 and Amos 1:11)
“…this seminal struggle of nations, which began in Rebekah's womb, endures
today in the modern-day descendants of Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau).... a great struggle between the Israelites and the Edomites.”
“The Edomites were thus Semites since they are closely related in blood and in language to the Israelites but they had no claim on the unique Bible Covenant and Birthright Promises gifted to Abraham, then to Jacob/Israel and then to his descendants. However, for more than four centuries, the Edomites continued to prosper but during the warlike rule of the
Maccabeans, they were… forced to conform to jewish laws
and rites, and submit to the government of jewish prefects. Here, at this time, the Edomites
become incorporated within the resurgent Judaean kingdom.
“Edomites are therefore descended from Edom (Esau) whose descendants later intermarried with
the Turks to produce a Turco-Edomite mixture which later became known as Khazars. That is, most of today's jews are descendants of this interbreeding that produced a race called Khazars who had once governed an empire called Khazaria. Furthermore, this hybrid race Edomite/Turk/Khazar who created the Kliazar kingdom and who between the seventh and ninth centuries AD, adopted the religion of Judaism. And, it is these Khazar jews who are the ancestors of the vast majority of today's jewish people. That is, Edomite/Turk/Khazars are the ancestors of the modern ‘jews’ including the Torah-true and Zionist jews who spuriously claim right to the land of Palestine claiming it is theirs by biblical demands and ancestral rights.
“Consequently, the majority of today's jewish people are known as ‘jews,’ not because they
are Judahites and descended from Jacob/Israel but because their Edomite/Turk/Khazar ancestors in their Kingdom of Khazaria adopted the religion of Judaism, called themselves ‘jews’ and arrogated the Birthright Promises and Bible Covenants belonging to the
Israelites, but especially those belonging to the Judahites.”
(Source: archive.org/stream/origino…)
“The meaning of the word ‘jew’ in the Bible is not the same as the commonly held modern view.
In the Bible the word ‘jew’ is meant to refer to a resident of the land of Judaea. Moreover, it is a reference regardless of tribe, race or religion. Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea… and need not be a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite) or one who followed the Judaic religion. Thus, ‘jews’ and ‘jewry’ in the Bible not only refer Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah) but also a part of (or place in) Palestine and any other peoples who dwelt there. In the modern colloquial idiom ‘jews’ are descendants of Judah while in the Bible it means anyone dwelling in Judaea regardless of lineage or ethnicity.
“Now, Judah was the largest and the most influential of the Twelve Tribes of Israel with the governing right whose sons where to provide the rightful kings of Israel. That is, they were the inheritors of the Bible Covenants but especially
the Davidic Covenant. In short; the Chosen People of Yahweh. However, Jacob prophesied (Gen. 49:10) the tribe would only maintain its pre-eminence until ‘Shiloh,’ came who would then assume headship and receive the allegiance of true spiritual Israel as Isaiah 9:6- 7 foretold. That is, when the Messiah arrived. This is why Jesus' lineage was established in
Matthew 1 and Luke 3 to David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. So that when He took the scepter
from Judah all who receive Him as Messiah give Him their allegiance.”
"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be."
Gen. 49:10
“At the time of Christ's Mission, in the days of His flesh, few of the citizens of Judaea were
Judahites, that is, direct descendants of Judah and so the "Chosen People"; the true recipients of the Bible Covenants. Following the destruction of David's Kingdom (its dismemberment first by
Babylonians and then by Assyrians) the forced depopulation of Israel and its people in Exile and bondage, their release by Cyrus the Great, and their return and restoration of the Temple, the
population of Palestine was very mixed. Although some did indeed belong to the tribe of
Judah, and others to one of the other tribes of Israel, many others were descendants of other patriarchs, but, especially, of Esau. These were the Edomites who had been conquered and now assimilated and become co-religionists with the Judahites and remnants of the other tribes of Israel. Moreover, this mixed race were melded together by a hybrid religion developed during
the captivity in Babylon. This is the religion of the Pharisee .... Pharisaism ... the man-made
religion of the Talmud that is today called Judaism. This man-centered, man-made religion was the religion vehemently condemned by Christ since it is the antithesis of the Mosaic Law and the prophets and makes the Word of God of no effect (Matt. 15:1-9).”
Source: archive.org/stream/origino…
In the Bible the word ‘jew’ is meant to refer to a resident of the land of Judaea. Moreover, it is a reference regardless of tribe, race or religion. Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea… and need not be a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite) or one who followed the Judaic religion. Thus, ‘jews’ and ‘jewry’ in the Bible not only refer Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah) but also a part of (or place in) Palestine and any other peoples who dwelt there. In the modern colloquial idiom ‘jews’ are descendants of Judah while in the Bible it means anyone dwelling in Judaea regardless of lineage or ethnicity.
“Now, Judah was the largest and the most influential of the Twelve Tribes of Israel with the governing right whose sons where to provide the rightful kings of Israel. That is, they were the inheritors of the Bible Covenants but especially
the Davidic Covenant. In short; the Chosen People of Yahweh. However, Jacob prophesied (Gen. 49:10) the tribe would only maintain its pre-eminence until ‘Shiloh,’ came who would then assume headship and receive the allegiance of true spiritual Israel as Isaiah 9:6- 7 foretold. That is, when the Messiah arrived. This is why Jesus' lineage was established in
Matthew 1 and Luke 3 to David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. So that when He took the scepter
from Judah all who receive Him as Messiah give Him their allegiance.”
"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be."
Gen. 49:10
“At the time of Christ's Mission, in the days of His flesh, few of the citizens of Judaea were
Judahites, that is, direct descendants of Judah and so the "Chosen People"; the true recipients of the Bible Covenants. Following the destruction of David's Kingdom (its dismemberment first by
Babylonians and then by Assyrians) the forced depopulation of Israel and its people in Exile and bondage, their release by Cyrus the Great, and their return and restoration of the Temple, the
population of Palestine was very mixed. Although some did indeed belong to the tribe of
Judah, and others to one of the other tribes of Israel, many others were descendants of other patriarchs, but, especially, of Esau. These were the Edomites who had been conquered and now assimilated and become co-religionists with the Judahites and remnants of the other tribes of Israel. Moreover, this mixed race were melded together by a hybrid religion developed during
the captivity in Babylon. This is the religion of the Pharisee .... Pharisaism ... the man-made
religion of the Talmud that is today called Judaism. This man-centered, man-made religion was the religion vehemently condemned by Christ since it is the antithesis of the Mosaic Law and the prophets and makes the Word of God of no effect (Matt. 15:1-9).”
Source: archive.org/stream/origino…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
