Is the land restoration to the nation of Israel found in the new covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
God's choice depends on what Jewish tradition deems?

Christ speaking to the scribes and Pharisees:

Mark 7
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

You can be assured that God's conditions and criteria have nothing to do with what Jewish tradition deems.


I did not say that God's choice depended upon what Jewish tradition presently deems which will be a moot issue when Christ returns. But if you really want to know how Jews determine who is able to become a citizen of Israel, you would have to consult their laws and traditions concerning such.

One thing that is for sure. the nation of Israel descended from the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob which in and of itself still plays a central role in determining whether one is made part of the nation of Israel. The Church on the other hand transcends bloodlines and nations. Only upon repentance will the nation of Israel be one with the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A few discussions threads on that subject.........:angel:

The 1000 Year Reign of Christ ??? - Article



What is the purpose of the thousand-year reign of Christ?


An article for your viewing pleasure.........

Reigning With Christ:

Revelation 20:1-6 In Its Salvation-Historical Setting

Even if we regard the above categories in terms of "salvation in three tenses" (we have been saved, we are being saved, we will be saved), the basic binary structure of soteriology is not disrupted, because the "present tense" of redemption is but the extension of the "past tense" and the harbinger of the "future tense" of consummated glory. Thus, the present has meaning only as it relates to the past and the future, to what God has done in Christ at his first coming and what he will do in Christ at his second appearance. For the NT authors, then, human history now assumes the complexion of a time of tension between the two advents of the Son of God, i.e., between the "Already" and the "Not Yet" or between "this age" and "the age to come." To borrow Cullmann's famous illustration, the "D Day" of inaugurated salvation has come, but still outstanding is the "V E Day" of consummation.33

Therefore, as we shall argue from Revelation 20, the thousand year reign of Christ and his people is an integral part of eschatological salvation; it is located within that span of time between the inauguration and the consummation of redemption, during which Christ is drawing all men to himself by the preaching of the cross. He has bound the strong man (Satan) and has plundered his house (Matt 12:29), thus bringing release to the captives and enabling Paul to announce later on the Areopagus that the "times of ignorance" (for the nations) are at an end; God now34 commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:30-31). It is within this interim between the announcement of salvation and its final actualization that the dead hear the voice of the Son of Man and live, anticipating that time when "all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth" (John 5:25-29). Our argument is precisely that the "millennial reign" of Rev 20:1-6 is resurrection to life in Christ.

The purpose of elaborating (and reiterating) all this is to say that the historical unfolding of salvation operates along the lines of two epochs of fulfillment, or, phrased differently, two phases of the same epoch, not three. In a sense, it is a negative point - but a necessary negative. Once the overarching pattern of salvation history has been determined, it follows that there is no place for another time-period which effectively amounts to a third epoch or phase in the outworking of God's purposes. Therefore, we must take exception to those chiliastic schemes which confuse this pattern by placing more emphasis on the (supposed) penultimate rather than ultimate stage of the work of Christ. In our view, they represent an intrusion into and, therefore, interruption of the conceptual framework established by the NT. Not only are such constructions unnecessary,35 they actually obscure the architecture of biblical history.

(2) The relation of Israel and the church lies at the heart of any consideration of eschatological matters. It is, of course, an extremely complex matter; and because of the limitations imposed on this study, I must to a degree proceed presuppositionally................

III. Revelation 20:1-6: The Reign of Christ and His People

Hoekema rightly begins his discussion of Revelation 20 by setting the chapter within the progressive parallelism of the book.42 These sections, he observes, exhibit a "eschatological progress" which climaxes with chapter 21's depiction of the blessedness of the new life on earth.43 Chapter 20, as he notes, forms part of the seventh parallel, chapters 20-22, which narrates the overthrow of the dragon, the ancient serpent.44 "This last section describes the judgment which falls on Satan, and his final doom. Since Satan is the supreme opponent of Christ, it stands to reason that his doom should be narrated last."45 This means that chapter 20 is not to be understood as following chronologically the return of Christ, related by the preceding chapter. Thus, Rev 20:1 takes us back once again to the beginning of the NT era, and the thousand year reign occurs not after the parousia but before it.46 Assuming this as the book's overall literary structure,47 we offer the following observations on the text of Revelation 20.

(1) Within the resumé of salvation history provided by the seventh parallelism, 20:1-3 informs us of the binding of Satan.48 In attempting an explanation of the phenomenon, we must be sensitive to Mounce's caveat that the text of Revelation itself ought to be the foremost indicator of John's intentions.49 Nevertheless, the undergirding assumption here is that as a salvation history, particularly one written from the vantage point of the interim between Jesus' first advent and his parousia, Revelation finds points of contact with other NT documents which address similar, if not identical, concerns to those of John.50 These contacts, consequently, will enable us to construct a biblical theology of the reign of Christ.

In Matt 12:29, Jesus asks: "Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house." This announcement of the binding of the strong man (Satan) is placed in immediate connection with Jesus' exorcism of demons, which are proof-positive that the kingdom of God has arrived. It is hardly accidental, then, that John, who probably was an eyewitness to the Beelzebub controversy related by Matthew, should draw upon the imagery of the binding of Satan. That this particular binding should be performed by an angel is not a problem, because in Apocalyptic angels regularly stand as representatives of God and his doings.51 It makes sense, then, to think that Rev 20:3 marks the inception of the kingdom of God with the binding of Satan.

Luke 10:17-18 is also relevant: "The Seventy returned with joy, saying 'Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!' And he said to them, 'I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven'." Here, again in a figure of speech, Jesus indicates that Satan and his kingdom have been dealt a crushing blow. It is this figure which is taken up by Rev 12:10: "the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night."52 Note as well that in Luke 10 this fall is brought into direct connection with the missionary preaching of the disciples.53

A third significant text is John 12:31-32: "Now is the judgment of this world, now shall the ruler of this world be cast out; and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." Standing in the shadow of Calvary, Jesus announces that the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified (12:23), i.e., to die. In the process, he will "cast out" the ruler of this world. Note that the verb ekballô bears a striking resemblance to ballô in Rev 20:3. More important, however, is the contextual factor that in v. 20 some Greeks arrive at the feast seeking Jesus; they, within the symbolism of the Fourth Gospel, are the vanguard of the new humanity in Christ.54 Hence, the casting out of Satan is inextricably bound up with the acceptance of the nations, the eschatological harvest of John 4:35-38. This corresponds in principle to the mission of the seventy in Luke 10.


This is not the thread to debate the Millennial reign in depth but one thing for certain is that those attempting to deny it as literal appeal to scriptures unrelated to Revelation chapter 20 and another critical factor overlooked by those who insist on interpreting the thousand year reign as symbolic is that Satan continues to presently wage war against the Church.

A bound enemy cannot make war against anyone, nor can he accuse us before God Almighty which he presently does. (Rev. 12:10)

The resurrection of the righteous described in Revelation 20:4 is presented in a literal context and not a spiritual context since this first resurrection describe is that of those who had died in faith beforehand. While being born again may very well be described as a resurrection unto life in the figurative sense, we never undergo two spiritual resurrections but only one. Therefore, the first resurrection can only be understood as a literal bodily resurrection yet to come.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Totally wrong interpretation of the Prophesies. You seem incapable of reading what is Written, other than to suit your preconceived beliefs.
Jeremiah 8:10...I shall give their [Judah's] lands to new owners. Was not fulfilled after the Babylonian exile, or after the Roman exile of 70-135 AD, as each time there remained some Jews and each time they returned to control Jerusalem.

I see that Claninja has it right in how the lost Northern tribes of Israel are mixed among the other nations, we cannot tell who they are now, but God knows. Amos 9:9
It will be them; now the Christian peoples who will be the new owners of the holy Land.
The Jewish remnant who join them, Jeremiah 50:4-5, will be so ashamed of their conduct that they will never again open their mouths. Ezekiel 16:63

If you would read 2 Kings 25:26 and Jeremiah chapters 41-45, you will find that Jeremiah 8:10 was fulfilled when the remaining people fled into Egypt and when the Edomites took possession of their share of the city of Jerusalem and casted lots for it. (Ob. 10-14, 16)
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I did not say that God's choice depended upon what Jewish tradition presently deems which will be a moot issue when Christ returns. But if you really want to know how Jews determine who is able to become a citizen of Israel, you would have to consult their laws and traditions concerning such.

One thing that is for sure. the nation of Israel descended from the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob which in and of itself still plays a central role in determining whether one is made part of the nation of Israel. The Church on the other hand transcends bloodlines and nations. Only upon repentance will the nation of Israel be one with the Church.

It never originally played a role (Genesis 17:12).

When did God decide that it does play a role?
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It never originally played a role (Genesis 17:12).

When did God decide that it does play a role?


The very day that God decided to form the lineage from which Israel would descend.
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,560
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,691.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
If you would read 2 Kings 25:26 and Jeremiah chapters 41-45, you will find that Jeremiah 8:10 was fulfilled when the remaining people fled into Egypt and when the Edomites took possession of their share of the city of Jerusalem and casted lots for it. (Ob. 10-14, 16)
They were not permanent owners, Just as the Saracens and the Turks weren't.
It is obvious to anyone without an agenda to push; that Jeremiah 8 remains unfulfilled.
 
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,560
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,691.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
One thing that is for sure. the nation of Israel descended from the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob which in and of itself still plays a central role in determining whether one is made part of the nation of Israel.
Actually it doesn't.
With the Jewish State of Israel, conversion to Judaism is the deciding factor. Many people groups claim Jewish ethnicity, but none can prove it. So groups like the Ethiopian Falashas and various Indian tribes have successfully gained Israeli citizenship because they make a show of practicing Judaism. How faithful they are, is anybody's guess!

A true Israelite is an Overcomer for God. A faithful Christian believer, from every tribe, race nation and language. Isaiah 66:18b, Revelation 7:9
All the people who are circumcised of the heart, born again believers. Romans 2:29
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is no way to know if the DNA of Ashkenazi Jews specifically matches pre-desolation Hebrews, as there are no DNA samples of pre-desolation Hebrews in the database.


The genes pertaining to Jews, including that of the Ashkenazis, did not just appear out of nowhere. They had to have a point of origin and if not from the pre-desolation Hebrews, then from whom? It is a matter of bridging the gap.


Considering a 2013 study performed by Martin Richards at the University of Haddersfield concluded that 65-80% of Ashkenazi mt-DNA on the maternal side is from European descent, it seems that the matrilineal line of Ashkenazi Jews is not the best test to determine if someone is descended from Jewish ancestry. Although interestingly enough, modern day Israel determines if someone is Jewish based on matrilineal line.

Paternal haplogroups: several Y-chromosome haplogroups that are found more commonly in Ashkenazi Jewish DNA than among other Europeans. According to the website, this "Carrying one of these paternal lineages MAY indicate Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry". According to a study done in 2000 by Filon Nebel, 70% of Jewish men and 82% of Arab men had inherited the Y-chromosomes from the same paternal ancestor. The genetic studies cannot tell us who this paternal ancestor is. So, even as the website states, DNA tests "MAY" indicate Jewish Ancestry, but it's not concrete. The only concrete thing the paternal test can tell is near eastern descent.


If Jews possess genes unique to them that are not found in any other people, including Arabs, then what we do have is as concrete as it can be. But it is no surprise that Jews and Arabs would share genetic similarities not shared with any other people since both claim descent from Abraham.

Furthermore, you also somewhat reiterated a point I made in which I stated that both the paternal and maternal lines must be equally examined. Where one fails to narrow and even close the gap between the pre-desolation Hebrews and those of the post-desolation, the other may succeed.


So Again, 23andMe does not confirm that someone is without a doubt genetically related to pre-desolation Hebrews.


But if present day Jews do not possess inherited genes from the pre-desolation Hebrews, then from what line would they inherit them?


So, although 82% of Arabs and 70% of Jews paternally (y chromosome) share a common ancestor, It is only through the line of Isaac and Jacob that the offspring is reckoned. So how do we know if modern day Jews and Arabs descended from specifically Isaac and Jacob without genealogical records? Who is to say that if Arabs descended from Jacob, then they shouldn't hold just as much claim to the land as the Jews, if in fact the conditional promises of the old covenant are still in effect?


If that were the case, the Palestinian statehood movement would lose all meaning and it would be death of Islam as we know it.


So, if the conditional promises of the old covenant are still in effect, as you have argued, and belong solely to the natural born descendants of Abraham through the line of Isaac and Jacob, how do we determine who the land belongs to based solely on genetics,

While genealogical records played their role in the old covenant for things such as determining land inheritance (numbers 1,26) or priesthood service (ezra 2), etc...., under the new covenant, genealogical records do not matter.


While genetics play an integral part in determining who and who is not considered and Israelite by blood, the rest will not be completely sorted out until the Messiah returns. One passage worthy of note concerning the priesthood is that Isaiah foretold of a day in which God would adopt for Himself people to serve as Levites and priests who are not of the tribe of Levi. (Is. 66:21)


Modern Day Jews cannot follow the 613 laws of moses, for the tabernacle is no longer standing.


They were not able to keep the law even when the Tabernacle was standing.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They were not permanent owners, Just as the Saracens and the Turks weren't.
It is obvious to anyone without an agenda to push; that Jeremiah 8 remains unfulfilled.


No one ever said that they would be permanent owners. Only the Jewish people will be permanent owners. (Ezek. 37:25, Am. 9:15) and if you insist that Jeremiah 8:10 remains unfulfilled, you clearly haven't read all of the recorded events of the captivity carried out by the Babylonians, particularly the events recorded in Jeremiah 41-45 and 2 Kings 25.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually it doesn't.
With the Jewish State of Israel, conversion to Judaism is the deciding factor. Many people groups claim Jewish ethnicity, but none can prove it. So groups like the Ethiopian Falashas and various Indian tribes have successfully gained Israeli citizenship because they make a show of practicing Judaism. How faithful they are, is anybody's guess!

A true Israelite is an Overcomer for God. A faithful Christian believer, from every tribe, race nation and language. Isaiah 66:18b, Revelation 7:9
All the people who are circumcised of the heart, born again believers. Romans 2:29

They rely on their own history to establish Jewish ethnicity and DNA testing, from a genetic standpoint, has been known, in some cases, to confirm the claims. It must also be noted that the religious community within Israel is relatively small in comparison to those less religious.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The genes pertaining to Jews, including that of the Ashkenazis, did not just appear out of nowhere. They had to have a point of origin and if not from the pre-desolation Hebrews, then from whom? It is a matter of bridging the gap.

If Jews possess genes unique to them that are not found in any other people, including Arabs, then what we do have is as concrete as it can be. But it is no surprise that Jews and Arabs would share genetic similarities not shared with any other people since both claim descent from Abraham.
.
No one ever said that they would be permanent owners. Only the Jewish people will be permanent owners. (Ezek. 37:25, Am. 9:15) and if you insist that Jeremiah 8:10 remains unfulfilled, you clearly haven't read all of the recorded events of the captivity carried out by the Babylonians, particularly the events recorded in Jeremiah 41-45 and 2 Kings 25.
The original Jews are only entitled to a few parcels of land.

Eze 48:22
“Moreover, apart from the possession of the Levites and the possession of the city which are in the midst of what belongs to the prince, the area between the border of Judah and the border of Benjamin shall belong to the prince.

314266_3940f77bb44258e45a252158ac8c3a4d.png


History of God's Holy Bible and the so-called Jews

The Etymology of the Word "Jew"

In his classic Facts are Facts, Jewish historian, researcher and scholar Benjamin Freedman writes:


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.

Jhttp://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jew.htmohn 7:1, "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill Him."

According to Strong's Greek Lexicon, the English word "Jewry" in this verse was translated from the Greek word #2449 Ioudaia {ee-oo-dah'-yah} feminine for the land of Judea. Modern translations no longer use the word "Jewry" but the correct translation, "Judea," as in the New American Standard Bible: "And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill Him." The New International Version uses the same word. However, these translations continue to improperly use the word "Jews" in the same verse. A consistent translation would read: ". . . He was unwilling to walk in Judea, because the Judeans were seeking to kill Him."

Today most people think of Jews as the people of Israel, but that is not correct. An Israelite was one who had descended from Jacob. In Jesus' time individual Jews may or may not have descended from Jacob, but they all recognized Pharisaism and not the Law of Moses. A Jew is properly a Judean.

The point is that one who is called a "Jew" in the Bible is not necessarily a chosen man of God, a follower of Moses and the prophets, a member of the tribe of Judah, an Israelite, or even a Semite, but one who is a resident of Judea. A Judean. But a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the new word "Jew" which is not the understanding intended by the Scripture of truth. Those who call themselves Jews today falsely imply they are somehow descendants of the tribes of Israel and chosen of God. Yet few of them are Jews as they are not "Judeans," or residents of Judea.

So if modern day so-called Jews are not the Jews of the Bible, who are they? When asked, "Who is Israel? - Who is a Jew?" the Israeli Government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) unhesitatingly answered:

"The term Israelite is purely Biblical. An Israeli is a citizen of Israel, regardless of religion. A Jew is a person anywhere in the world born to a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism, who is thus identified as a member of the Jewish people and religion" (Information Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem; February, 1998).

The Jewish Almanac concurs: "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 were not have been Jews at all, and contemporary Palestinians, by their own definition of the term "Palestinian," have to include Jews among their own people" (The Jewish Almanac, October, 1980, page 3, Bantam Books, Inc).

The Online Etymology Dictionary describes the etymology of the word 'jew,' but perhaps because its editor is not a Bible student it exhibits an ignorance of the meaning of the original Greek word Ioudaios derived from the Aramaic jehudhai which did not refer to members of the tribe of Judah but to Judeans, the residents of the Babylonian province of Judea. The spelling of our present-day English word Jew is a transliteration of an abbreviation or slang word coined by their Babylonian conquerors for Judeans without reference to the race or religion of the captives. The editor has inadvertently discriminated the Semitic tribesmen of the sons of Israel from the diverse mass of races and religions then resident in Judea by applying the incorrect colloquial idiom, not having recognized the true and Biblical meaning of the original words.


John 7:1, "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill Him."

According to Strong's Greek Lexicon, the English word "Jewry" in this verse was translated from the Greek word #2449 Ioudaia {ee-oo-dah'-yah} feminine for the land of Judea. Modern translations no longer use the word "Jewry" but the correct translation, "Judea," as in the New American Standard Bible: "And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill Him." The New International Version uses the same word. However, these translations continue to improperly use the word "Jews" in the same verse. A consistent translation would read: ". . . He was unwilling to walk in Judea, because the Judeans were seeking to kill Him."

Today most people think of Jews as the people of Israel, but that is not correct. An Israelite was one who had descended from Jacob. In Jesus' time individual Jews may or may not have descended from Jacob, but they all recognized Pharisaism and not the Law of Moses. A Jew is properly a Judean.

The point is that one who is called a "Jew" in the Bible is not necessarily a chosen man of God, a follower of Moses and the prophets, a member of the tribe of Judah, an Israelite, or even a Semite, but one who is a resident of Judea. A Judean. But a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the new word "Jew" which is not the understanding intended by the Scripture of truth. Those who call themselves Jews today falsely imply they are somehow descendants of the tribes of Israel and chosen of God. Yet few of them are Jews as they are not "Judeans," or residents of Judea.

So if modern day so-called Jews are not the Jews of the Bible, who are they? When asked, "Who is Israel? - Who is a Jew?" the Israeli Government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) unhesitatingly answered:

"The term Israelite is purely Biblical. An Israeli is a citizen of Israel, regardless of religion. A Jew is a person anywhere in the world born to a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism, who is thus identified as a member of the Jewish people and religion" (Information Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem; February, 1998).

The Jewish Almanac concurs: "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 were not have been Jews at all, and contemporary Palestinians, by their own definition of the term "Palestinian," have to include Jews among their own people" (The Jewish Almanac, October, 1980, page 3, Bantam Books, Inc).

The Online Etymology Dictionary describes the etymology of the word 'jew,' but perhaps because its editor is not a Bible student it exhibits an ignorance of the meaning of the original Greek word Ioudaios derived from the Aramaic jehudhai which did not refer to members of the tribe of Judah but to Judeans, the residents of the Babylonian province of Judea. The spelling of our present-day English word Jew is a transliteration of an abbreviation or slang word coined by their Babylonian conquerors for Judeans without reference to the race or religion of the captives. The editor has inadvertently discriminated the Semitic tribesmen of the sons of Israel from the diverse mass of races and religions then resident in Judea by applying the incorrect colloquial idiom, not having recognized the true and Biblical meaning of the original words.

So-called Jews

Genesis 27:39-41, "Isaac, Esau's father said to him, Your dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above; you will sustain yourself by your sword, and you shall serve your brother; but you will finally take the dominion and break his yoke from your neck. And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing which his father bestowed on him: and Esau said to himself, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob."

Esau/Edom, the so-called Jew, has been killing Jacob/Israel from that day to this. His had took dominion over the Israelites after John Hyrcanus defeated and forcibly assimilated Edom into the kingdom of Judah 100 years before the birth of Christ. Hence Jesus would not live in Judea "for fear of the [Edomite] Jews" who will rule Israel unto the consummation of life on earth (Daniel 9:27; Luke 21:24; Revelation 11:1-2, 8).

The Bible is not a Jewish Book. Let us consider the claim that our Christian Bible and our religion came from the Jews, meaning Jews by religion. It is certain the New Testament did not from them, for the Jewish religion is condemned throughout the New Testament. But did we get the Old Testament from them? No! In the first place, no Jew by religion existed before the return from the Babylonian captivity, shortly after 536BC. Their great historian Josephus writes, "So the Jews prepared the work. Jew is the name they are called by from the day that they came up from Babylon." The only books of the Old Testament that were written after the return from Babylon are Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (all of them historical, rather than doctrinal), Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. In none of these do the Jews receive anything but rebuke for their wickedness, and their apostasy from the religion of the Old Testament. Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, Chief Rabbi of the United States said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud mark the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism."

The Old Testament text in our Bibles appears not merely to have been corrupted, but to have been purposely corrupted, as an attack upon the Christian Faith! Perhaps one of the most significant problems with the KJV lies in the manuscripts from which it was translated. The Old Testament (mentioned here for the sake of completeness) was translated from the Masoretic Text, a thoroughly corrupted and Talmudic Jewish-produced and inspired text of the Hebrew Testament. The fact that the Masoretic Text was used for the Old Testament of the KJV also has a clear impact upon the New Testament, for the translators of both Testaments had direct and indirect contact with leading Hebraists of the day for purposes of textual and etymological consultation, and it must be understood that all of these leading Hebraists were Talmudic Jews. The counterfeit Masoretic text was created between AD500 and AD1030 and first published in 1427.

Jesus Christ was not a Jew. Had Jesus been a Judean it is very likely He would have been an Edomite, not a kinsman to Adam, and thereby disqualified from being the Holy One of Israel, the last Adam, who was born to redeem the first (Leviticus 25; Ruth). Were Jesus a so-called Jew He would not have been Messiah whom the Lord prophesied would dwell in Galilee of the Gentiles (Isaiah 9:1-7). Jesus did not live in Judea and dared not walk in Jewry (i.e. Judea), "for fear of the Jews" who sought to kill Him.

"Five things did Canaan charge his sons: love one another, love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth" (Talmud, Peshachim 113b). As we read in Genesis, the Jews have sworn to slay the Israelites, and are "the people against whom God has indignation forever" (Genesis 9:25; 27:39-41; Isaiah 34:1-9; Malachi 1:1-4).

The prophet Paul knew exactly who he was, and that the word "Jew" indicated his place of residence, and not that he was of Judah or any of the other Tribes of Israel. Acts 22:3, "I am verily a man who is a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the Law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as you all are this day." Philippians 3:4-5, "If any other man thinks that he has whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee".

Almost no Jew is a Hebrew and Israelite by descent, or even a Semite. According to the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, Jewish rabbis and historians, every Jewish and all Gentile encyclopaedias, the mass of so-called or self-styled Jews may be traced to their vicarious father, Lucifer, through the original sin in the garden of Eden, which was adultery between Eve and the Devil-incarnate Serpent, a handsome upright man-like beast before God changed every bone in his body and placed him on his belly (Genesis 3; Matthew 23:33-36; John 8:23-47).

The so-called Jews also teach this doctrine of the original sin, found in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but they teach we Goyim or non-Jews are "human cattle," animals God created in human form in order to serve the Jews, but this is contrary to God's unchanging Word (Midrasch Talpioth; Yebamoth 98a; Schene Luchoth Haberith, p. 250b). The original sin and the fall of man is explained in the following teachings:
 

Attachments

  • Map Judah Benjamin.png
    Map Judah Benjamin.png
    78.2 KB · Views: 3
  • Like
Reactions: keras
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟783,467.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The very day that God decided to form the lineage from which Israel would descend.

Korah was of that lineage, but God destroyed him. Why didn't his lineage save him?

And how many molecules of DNA are necessary to qualify for lineage?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

keras

Writer of studies on Bible prophecy
Feb 7, 2013
13,560
2,480
82
Thames, New Zealand
Visit site
✟290,691.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
They rely on their own history to establish Jewish ethnicity and DNA testing, from a genetic standpoint, has been known, in some cases, to confirm the claims. It must also be noted that the religious community within Israel is relatively small in comparison to those less religious.
The Jews rely on ignorance and the deceived Christians who want to have a Jewish people who will face the GT, while the Church watches from heaven.
Totally unbelievable and unscriptural. Quite remote from what God wants of His people.

The Jews are of many racial origins:

1. THE ASHKENAZIM JEWS
Some claim a link between Edom and the Khazars, but apart from that there is more than one identity calling themselves “Jews”; none of these have claim to the name ‘Israel’.
Regarding the Ashkenazim Jews who speak Yiddish, most dictionaries and encyclopaedia define Ashkenazim in words like after ‘Ashkenaz’, the second son of Gomer. This confirms Scripture concerning the sons of Noah, [Shem, Japheth and Ham], and their offspring:

2. THE KHAZAR JEWS
The Khazars claimed descent from Japheth, and from their adoption of Judaism, they became known as Jews. But they did not descend from Shem, and therefore they are not Semitic in origin. To relate the term “anti-Semitism” to Jews of this origin is nonsense and part of the great deception! Eastern European Jews of this origin have no Israelite connection. Anti-Semitism could not apply to them! These are the majority in the Israeli state.

3. THE SEPHARDIM JEWS
The American People’s Encyclopaedia, 1925, indicates that these people descended from Edomites who were cast out of Palestine by Prince Titus in AD 70. From thence they spread to North Africa and to Spain converting Berber Tribes and others to Judaism. There were Cardinals and Popes who were Sephardim Jews. They have no simple blood line, being Edomites diluted with Syrian, Canaanite, Phoenician and North African blood.

4. THE SEPHARDIM / ASHKENAZIM JEWISH MIXTURE
It is impossible to determine the degree of intermarriage between these two groups of non- Israelites, but there is evidence that this has been common.

5. THE ETHIOPIAN DESCENDANTS OF HAM [The Falashas]
These are known as “Jews” because of acceptance of Judaism. The Encyclopaedia Judaica states:
'The joke here is that Ham, as a son of Noah, was not a black man. It is amazing that these people, who are supposed to be the educated and erudite, could make such a stupid statement'.

6. BABYLONIAN and PROSELYTE JEWS
In the days of Mordecai and Esther - many who obviously were not of Judah took up Judaism These are people from almost every race on earth. They became known as Jews because of religious spirit and belief in Judaism.

8. THE SHEMITE DESCENDANTS OF ESAU
These people also known as Edomites and some other names in Scripture. Historically, and Biblically, most of these were made proselytes to Judaism and became known as “Jews”.

Anyone who wants to identify the Jews as “Israel” is not speaking about the true Israel of God, as defined in the Bible. If we have another Israel, we have another gospel. But the same people will insist that Jews of much racial mixture are a single race when they are not.
They want it both ways.

The term Ioudaios [Judean] is wrongly accepted as the “racial” term Ioudas [Jew] when reading the New Testament and is the root of the misunderstanding. The use of the territorial term, Judean, is not a measure of race, although some Israelites were amongst the proselytes to Judaism in Judea.

The word, “Jews”, cannot always be taken in the way that is commonly accepted. Modern international Jewry is primarily of Edomic or Japheth/Ashkenazim or Sephardim origin, and the Jewish Encyclopaedia states that Edom is modern Jewry. Edomites are not Israelites; it was Esau who sold his birthright. The descendants of Japheth cannot be ethnic Israelites. Neither are “Jews” of other races Israelites by race.
Modern Jewry relates to Edom, Zionism, World Government and the Israeli state, but not to Biblical Israel. At the end of the age it will be the Edomite-Jewish association with their Babylonic enmity that will be burned by fire. Obadiah 1:16-18; Rev 18:6-8

But there is a final twist declared in Encyclopedia Judaica 1971, 10, column 23:
“JEWS BEGAN IN THE 19TH CENTURY TO CALL THEMSELVES HEBREWS AND ISRAELITES IN 1860.
This coincides with the cry, “anti-Semitism”.. If Zionists began so late in history to pretend that they were Israelites or Hebrews, this confirms the hoax that claims “The Jews” are the Israel of God. Ref: A.E.Kennedy
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
According to strongs it can mean stranger, thus, the Israelites have been referred to as strangers:

alien, sojourner, stranger
Or (fully) geyr (gare); from guwr; properly, a guest; by implication, a foreigner -- alien, sojourner, stranger.

The LXX gives us insight. The LXX does not translate geyer as parepidemos, but parakois. Thus the translaters of the LXX thought that emphasis on temporarily living in a land as a non citizen was an appropriate translation.


Place all the faith in a secondary source that you want. But I would rather place my trust in the primary source or at least in a source that comes as close to the primary source as possible.


Exactly, because the land was not theirs, it was God's. They were temporary strangers or non citizens living on that land. Thus you can't permanently sell something that doesn't belong to you.
The land belongs to GodAnd was ultimately promised to the singular offspring, who is Christ.


And yet He has declared that these temporary strangers would inherit the land forever (Ezek. 37:25, Am. 9:15) and apparently as fellow heirs with Christ to whom the land was promised.


He mentioned the diaspora. In the NT the diaspora refers to the Israelites living among the gentiles. You are going to have to address why the diaspora does not refer to Israel in this case.


I already did. They are called strangers instead of exiles.


From strongs

lit: scattering abroad of seed by the sower, hence: dispersion, used especially of the Jews who had migrated and were scattered over the ancient world


What Greek word defines this?


I would disagree. Contextually #1 doesn't really make sense. The diaspora is used in NT scripture of the Israelites among the greeks. Not of gentiles among gentiles. #2 might make more sense if you are trying to argue that the "strangers/exiles/sojourners" refers to gentiles


Contextually, the people being addressed are not native to the Roman empire and do not appear to be accepted as Jew or Gentile. Other than that, we know nothing else about them. Only history might give us more insight into the matter.


Right, the Jews dispersed among the gentiles in the 1st century were not forced exiles. As Jews in the 1st century lived among the gentiles, but would return to Jerusalem for the required feasts. that's why I argue "exile" is not the best translation.


And yet it makes no sense to call any people of Israel, even those living in Gentile nations, strangers since the term is not typically applied to them but only to Gentiles.


Parepidemos is used elsewhere in scripture (Hebrews 11:13) to describe Abraham as a "stranger" on earth. Thus the earth is the temporary dwelling of Abraham, and the heaven is his home.

Likewise Parepidemos is used in 1 Peter 1 to describe those living in the dispersion. The dispersion, in the NT, typically refers to Israelites living among the gentiles. Thus the dispersion is the temporary dwelling of Peter's audience.


That may be your interpretation of how the word is applied, but there is no solid contextual evidence for this.


And yet, much later than Acts 10, paul refers to peter as the apostle to the circumcised.

Because that was to whom Peter primarily preached the Gospel to and discipled even though to a lesser extent, he did also disciple Gentiles.

This separation is done by literally interpreting OT scripture without the context of the NT.


The Old Testament defines the nation of Israel. The New Testament defines the Church. But neither are called one in the same from a literal standpoint. Even from a figurative standpoint, the Church is hardly ever called Israel.


Who are the gentiles fellow heirs with?
You even acknowledged that gentiles are fellow heirs to the land and tribal status as stated in Ezekiel 37. So how can they be separate?


But they will not be the predominant heirs. They will be a minority.


Incorrect. The argument you just made is known as an argument from ignorance.



This assumes that your interpretation, biased on your eschatological position, of verse that does not even mention land restoration, is true.


If the restoration of those things pertaining to Israel do not serve as evidence of their fulness in Christ, then what would? Anything contrary to that would make it appear as though they were still under the judgment of God, even in Christ which would make it appear as though God was not fulfilling all that He said concerning them.


that would be an argument from silence.


Founded in a greater degree of ignorance than a so-called argument from ignorance.


Christ fulfilled them. He is the one to whom the promises of Abraham were spoke


And yet there have been more things foretold concerning Israel that did not meet their fulfillment in the first century that we are only witnessing now such as their re-establishment as a nation. What we are waiting to see is their spiritual transformation which is yet to come and the return of the King who will rule from Jerusalem.


The NT declares the old covenant obsolete. Land restoration is part of the old covenant.
The burden of proof is on the one claiming the positive, not the negative.

In our case, you are stating a positive: land restoration is still in effect
I am stating a negative: land restoration is no longer in effect

Through your argument from ignorance you attempt to shift the burden to me, instead of simply supplying clear and explicit evidence for your positive assertion.


The positive has at least provided evidence indicating that land restoration is still in effect which the negative has constantly rejected while providing no evidence that land restoration is not in effect other than an assumption.


And since the scripture have been completed, who is to tell us when the unfilled things are actually fulfilled? There are 1,000 different interpretation by futurists on this website alone. How will we know which futurist interpretation will be correct?


Most prophecies do not have a date of fulfillment attached to them which is why we need to constantly watch for their fulfillment and compare transpiring events and every interpretation to the text of the scriptures.


I would disagree.

matthew 24:34 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.


And yet it appears that generation did pass away without all things coming to pass and the only way around that is to consider the possibility of a few representatives from that generation to have been kept alive to this day until our Lord returns. (Jn. 21:22-23) There is simply no other viable way around that.


According to Amos 9, the gentiles come to the Lord after the tent of David has been rebuilt. As Christ's resurrection fulfilled David having an offspring on the throne (acts 2:30-31), it stands that the tent of David was rebuilt by Christ's resurrection and ascension and thus the Gentiles began to seek the Lord.

Acts 15:16-17 “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins,and I will restore it that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,


The resurrection Christ made way for the tabernacle of David to be rebuilt which has only been shown to be underway before the world with the re-establishment of Israel as a nation and will be completed when Christ returns.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Korah was of that lineage, but God destroyed him. Why didn't his lineage save him?

And how many molecules of DNA are necessary to qualify for lineage?


When God said that He would forever preserve the nation of Israel, He never said that they would be preserved in the wicked. It will forever abide in the righteous.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Jews rely on ignorance and the deceived Christians who want to have a Jewish people who will face the GT, while the Church watches from heaven.
Totally unbelievable and unscriptural. Quite remote from what God wants of His people.

The Jews are of many racial origins:

1. THE ASHKENAZIM JEWS
Some claim a link between Edom and the Khazars, but apart from that there is more than one identity calling themselves “Jews”; none of these have claim to the name ‘Israel’.
Regarding the Ashkenazim Jews who speak Yiddish, most dictionaries and encyclopaedia define Ashkenazim in words like after ‘Ashkenaz’, the second son of Gomer. This confirms Scripture concerning the sons of Noah, [Shem, Japheth and Ham], and their offspring:

2. THE KHAZAR JEWS
The Khazars claimed descent from Japheth, and from their adoption of Judaism, they became known as Jews. But they did not descend from Shem, and therefore they are not Semitic in origin. To relate the term “anti-Semitism” to Jews of this origin is nonsense and part of the great deception! Eastern European Jews of this origin have no Israelite connection. Anti-Semitism could not apply to them! These are the majority in the Israeli state.

3. THE SEPHARDIM JEWS
The American People’s Encyclopaedia, 1925, indicates that these people descended from Edomites who were cast out of Palestine by Prince Titus in AD 70. From thence they spread to North Africa and to Spain converting Berber Tribes and others to Judaism. There were Cardinals and Popes who were Sephardim Jews. They have no simple blood line, being Edomites diluted with Syrian, Canaanite, Phoenician and North African blood.

4. THE SEPHARDIM / ASHKENAZIM JEWISH MIXTURE
It is impossible to determine the degree of intermarriage between these two groups of non- Israelites, but there is evidence that this has been common.

5. THE ETHIOPIAN DESCENDANTS OF HAM [The Falashas]
These are known as “Jews” because of acceptance of Judaism. The Encyclopaedia Judaica states:
'The joke here is that Ham, as a son of Noah, was not a black man. It is amazing that these people, who are supposed to be the educated and erudite, could make such a stupid statement'.

6. BABYLONIAN and PROSELYTE JEWS
In the days of Mordecai and Esther - many who obviously were not of Judah took up Judaism These are people from almost every race on earth. They became known as Jews because of religious spirit and belief in Judaism.

8. THE SHEMITE DESCENDANTS OF ESAU
These people also known as Edomites and some other names in Scripture. Historically, and Biblically, most of these were made proselytes to Judaism and became known as “Jews”.

Anyone who wants to identify the Jews as “Israel” is not speaking about the true Israel of God, as defined in the Bible. If we have another Israel, we have another gospel. But the same people will insist that Jews of much racial mixture are a single race when they are not.
They want it both ways.

The term Ioudaios [Judean] is wrongly accepted as the “racial” term Ioudas [Jew] when reading the New Testament and is the root of the misunderstanding. The use of the territorial term, Judean, is not a measure of race, although some Israelites were amongst the proselytes to Judaism in Judea.

The word, “Jews”, cannot always be taken in the way that is commonly accepted. Modern international Jewry is primarily of Edomic or Japheth/Ashkenazim or Sephardim origin, and the Jewish Encyclopaedia states that Edom is modern Jewry. Edomites are not Israelites; it was Esau who sold his birthright. The descendants of Japheth cannot be ethnic Israelites. Neither are “Jews” of other races Israelites by race.
Modern Jewry relates to Edom, Zionism, World Government and the Israeli state, but not to Biblical Israel. At the end of the age it will be the Edomite-Jewish association with their Babylonic enmity that will be burned by fire. Obadiah 1:16-18; Rev 18:6-8

But there is a final twist declared in Encyclopedia Judaica 1971, 10, column 23:
“JEWS BEGAN IN THE 19TH CENTURY TO CALL THEMSELVES HEBREWS AND ISRAELITES IN 1860.
This coincides with the cry, “anti-Semitism”.. If Zionists began so late in history to pretend that they were Israelites or Hebrews, this confirms the hoax that claims “The Jews” are the Israel of God. Ref: A.E.Kennedy


The Jews can only be of one racial origin. Not several. They descended from only one bloodline, not many. The credibility of the information that you presented is questionable at best; dubious at worst. But what you presented does not suggest that the Jews originated from several different lineages, but that they were scattered amongst the nations as foretold in scripture and those claiming to be Jews or of Jewish descent, can only appeal to one lineage and one history.
 
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have been trying to get contender to post over on this other thread, but it appears he wants to keep playing dodge ball............

Multi-tasking is not one of my strong points. I have an external blogsite which I also post on regularly and have established a presence in other social media venues as well and Contender's Edge plans on eventually expanding even further. I will visit that thread as soon as I can. It is a part of a growing list of over threads that I intend to engage as well.

I sense you must think me a worthy detractor to want me to offer my rebuttals and thoughts on some of the threads you have established. If I am right, I'll take that as a compliment.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Contenders Edge

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 13, 2019
2,615
370
43
Hayfork
✟167,447.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The original Jews are only entitled to a few parcels of land.


The amount of territory the Jews are foretold to possess will be larger than they presently have now or even what they had in the past. (Zech. 10:8)


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.


If that is the case, it seems strange that the Jews are not the least bit bothered by this corruption.


The Jewish Almanac concurs: "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 were not have been Jews at all, and contemporary Palestinians, by their own definition of the term "Palestinian," have to include Jews among their own people" (The Jewish Almanac, October, 1980, page 3, Bantam Books, Inc)

Today most people think of Jews as the people of Israel, but that is not correct. An Israelite was one who had descended from Jacob. In Jesus' time individual Jews may or may not have descended from Jacob, but they all recognized Pharisaism and not the Law of Moses. A Jew is properly a Judean.

The point is that one who is called a "Jew" in the Bible is not necessarily a chosen man of God, a follower of Moses and the prophets, a member of the tribe of Judah, an Israelite, or even a Semite, but one who is a resident of Judea. A Judean. But a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the new word "Jew" which is not the understanding intended by the Scripture of truth. Those who call themselves Jews today falsely imply they are somehow descendants of the tribes of Israel and chosen of God. Yet few of them are Jews as they are not "Judeans," or residents of Judea.


Freedman fails to take into account that the distinction between the Jews and the ten other tribes of Israel disappeared after the exile and from that day on, all Israelites became known as Jews and thus seeing the fulfillment of a unified people as foretold in Ezekiel chapter 37 beginning as far back as the post-exile. The Israeli government in this case is right to call all Israelis Jews since it appears that they have been studying the scriptures more intently than Freedman ever did.


The spelling of our present-day English word Jew is a transliteration of an abbreviation or slang word coined by their Babylonian conquerors for Judeans without reference to the race or religion of the captives.


And in an ironic twist, Freedman gives insight into when the distinction between the people of Judah and the ten northern tribes began to disappear.


Esau/Edom, the so-called Jew, has been killing Jacob/Israel from that day to this. His had took dominion over the Israelites after John Hyrcanus defeated and forcibly assimilated Edom into the kingdom of Judah 100 years before the birth of Christ. Hence Jesus would not live in Judea "for fear of the [Edomite] Jews" who will rule Israel unto the consummation of life on earth


The Edomites were never called Jews or Israelites in the scriptures. In fact in the New Testament, they are never mentioned.


Let us consider the claim that our Christian Bible and our religion came from the Jews, meaning Jews by religion. It is certain the New Testament did not from them, for the Jewish religion is condemned throughout the New Testament. But did we get the Old Testament from them? No! In the first place, no Jew by religion existed before the return from the Babylonian captivity, shortly after 536BC. Their great historian Josephus writes, "So the Jews prepared the work. Jew is the name they are called by from the day that they came up from Babylon." The only books of the Old Testament that were written after the return from Babylon are Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (all of them historical, rather than doctrinal), Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. In none of these do the Jews receive anything but rebuke for their wickedness, and their apostasy from the religion of the Old Testament. Rabbi Stephen F. Wise, Chief Rabbi of the United States said, "The return from Babylon and the introduction of the Babylonian Talmud mark the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of Judaism."


This is completely false because the Church was founded by Christ through Jews and the New Testament scriptures were written by Jews. Most of the Apostles were Jews. Ultimately, we receive our entire Bible and the Gospel itself from the Jews. What was condemned was not the Mosaic religion but that of the Pharisees and Sadducees who added to and even in some cases, perverted the laws of Moses.

Another falsehood is that no Jew by religion ever existed before the return from the Babylonian captivity. Any Gentile among the Israelites who embraced the covenant of God was adopted into the nation, even before the captivity. And finally, the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi did not just offer rebuke, but also hope and encouragement as is made plain by anyone who reads what they had to say.


Jesus Christ was not a Jew. Had Jesus been a Judean it is very likely He would have been an Edomite, not a kinsman to Adam, and thereby disqualified from being the Holy One of Israel, the last Adam, who was born to redeem the first (Leviticus 25; Ruth). Were Jesus a so-called Jew He would not have been Messiah whom the Lord prophesied would dwell in Galilee of the Gentiles (Isaiah 9:1-7). Jesus did not live in Judea and dared not walk in Jewry (i.e. Judea), "for fear of the Jews" who sought to kill Him.


The greatest lie yet. One need only consult the genealogies that clearly show the lineage through which Christ came.


"Five things did Canaan charge his sons: love one another, love robbery, love lewdness, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth" (Talmud, Peshachim 113b). As we read in Genesis, the Jews have sworn to slay the Israelites, and are "the people against whom God has indignation forever" (Genesis 9:25; 27:39-41; Isaiah 34:1-9; Malachi 1:1-4).


No wonder why God put a curse on him. As for the other cited passages, they speak of Edom. Not Israel or the Jews.


Almost no Jew is a Hebrew and Israelite by descent, or even a Semite. According to the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, Jewish rabbis and historians, every Jewish and all Gentile encyclopaedias, the mass of so-called or self-styled Jews may be traced to their vicarious father, Lucifer, through the original sin in the garden of Eden, which was adultery between Eve and the Devil-incarnate Serpent, a handsome upright man-like beast before God changed every bone in his body and placed him on his belly


Sounds like the work of a myth and fable to me which is why it cannot be taken seriously. In fact, scripture warns us not give heed to such claims. (1 Tim. 1:4, 4:7, 2 Pet. 1:16)


The so-called Jews also teach this doctrine of the original sin, found in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but they teach we Goyim or non-Jews are "human cattle," animals God created in human form in order to serve the Jews, but this is contrary to God's unchanging Word


Not reflective of the heart of most Jews.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.