Exegesis of Yhudiy

Christian Party

xmas3.gif (5351 bytes)

Exegesis of Yhudiy

	"Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
	Who were the Twelve Tribes of Israel?
	Christ's ancestor Ruth was a pure Israelite.
	Who was Yhudiy, and how was he different from Yhudah?
	1.2 million Israelites were led out of Egypt by Moses.

The foundational error made by many putative "Christians" in this putative Christian nation is encompassed in the following seemingly intentional and ever present false statement:

Feminazi Meggie wrote:

"While the term 'Jew' does denote a lineage of sorts (Israelites of the House of Judah), the term, as used today does not. Here is the AHD's definition of 'Jew':

"Jew (j?/font>) n. 1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture. 2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism. 3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah."

The problem is that the Holy Bible never makes any such claim. The KJV contains 276 references to the word "jew", 86 in the Old Testament, and 190 in the New Testament, which is always translated from the Hebrew word "Yhudiy", or from the Greek word "Ioudaios".

The word "jew" is never translated from the Hebrew word "Yhudah", nor from the Greek word "Ioudas", because both of those words are always translated to the English word "Judah", which appears almost three times more frequently than the word "jew", or 771 times.

English	Frequency	Hebrew	Strong's #	Greek	Strong's #
Judah	771	Yhudah	3063	Ioudas	2455
jew	276	Yhudiy	3064	Ioudaios	2453

You would think that even dunderheads like Meggie could eventually comprehend that the assignment of two different Strong's numbers, in both the Hebrew and the Greek languages, for these two completely different patriarchs and their descendants, would be sufficient evidence to them that they are not one and the same, nor that their descendants are not one and the same, nor that their ancestors were not one and the same, with no further exegesis.

But this is not to be. This simple fact has been presented to them numerous times in numerous different fashions, and they always reply in the same ignorant, arrogant, anti-Christian, un-Godly, pro-jewish manner.

Could the jewish influence in American education have gotten so pervasive that these simple words from the Holy Bible no longer have any meaning? Could a Christian REALLY give more credence to what's written in a jewish dictionary than to what's written in the Holy Bible? Was the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in vain?

No. There are ultimately enough Americans with the will and the wherewithal to scrutinize and comprehend this fine detail of history handed down to us through 20 centuries or more. And with that understanding will come a revival of the Christian faith that will sweep the world. It's impossible that Americans will get stalled on this simple fact of Biblical history based on the writings of jews, feminazis, muds, or any other ignorant or anti-Christian group in this putative Christian nation.

All we need to remember is that whenever the reference is to "Yhudah" or "Iodas" or his descendants, the English word "Judah" is ALWAYS used. Whenever the reference is to "Yhudiy" or "Ioudaios" or his descendants, the word "jew" is ALWAYS used. There is never any exception to this rule. The Holy Bible completely disputes the notion that "the term 'Jew' does denote a lineage of sorts (Israelites of the House of Judah)".

Such a statement is a fabrication and an abomination to the Word of the Holy Bible and to the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, a true Israelite.

Because Israelites never considered the offspring of an Israelite who married a jew or any other non-Israelite to be Israelites, it's impossible for a race like the jews (who claim to be descendants of just about every one of the Israelites' ancient enemies) to ever be Israelites. Esau married Canaanite women and was banned from his people's land for 40 generations, and his descendants the Edomites never socialized with Israelites. The foreign wives and the children of Israelites who had married them were put away by the Israelites, proving that blood is thicker than water.

Is it at all possible that Yhudah and Yhudiy were one and the same, or that their descendants were all the same, or that the words could be used interchangeably in any text in the Holy Bible? This would be the only way the jews could claim that they're Israelites without having to explain which Israelite married a non-Israelite who had a son who become their patriarch. But such Scripture doesn't exist:

Jeremiah 40:11 Likewise when all the Jews that were in Moab, and among the children of Ammon, and in Edom, and that were in all the countries, heard that the king of Babylon had left a remnant of Judah, and that he had set over them Gedaliah the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan;

Here's an example of the use of both words, Yhudah and Yhudiy, in the same paragraph with no indication whatsoever that they're one and the same. If they were one and the same, and if the author knew that, why wouldn't he use just one word or the other, rather than both, unless this is a reference to two different races? The remnant of Judah were the members of the Tribe of Judah [read: Yhudah] who remained in Judaea, and the jews who lived in Moab, Ammon, Edom, and other foreign lands were descendants of Jehudi [read: Yhudiy]. How could they possibly be the same people if they're referred to by two different names and lived in two separated geographies? What would be the logic of having two names for one Tribe of Israel? Why confuse an already complex genealogical account with superfluous words?

Nehemiah 13:23 In those days also saw I the Jews that had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab:

Note that in the entire Chapter of Nehemiah, jews are referred to 11 times and the Tribe of Judah is referred to 27 times. Jews claim this is proof that Yhudiy and Yhudah are one and the same, which is a preposterous claim. If they were one and the same, why not use just one word or the other? And why refer to the Tribe of Levi 39 times, and the Tribe of Ephraim 2 times? Why not just refer to them all as "jews"?

Judah = 27

Levi = 39

jews = 11

Ephraim = 2

TODAY'S JEWS CANNOT BE ISRAELITES, BY DEFINITION

Sephardic jews (less than 2% of all jews) claim to be descendants of Edomites whose patriarch was Esau, who miscegenated with Canaanite women and was banned from his people (other descendants of Abraham). His descendants never socialized with the Israelites who were the descendants of Jacob, Esau's brother. Descendants of an Israelite who miscegenated with an Edomite were neither Israelites nor Edomites, so how could Sephardic jews possibly have been Israelites?

Ashkenaz jews (who are more than 90% of all jews according to their writings) claim that they are descendants of Ashkenaz, who was a descendant of Japheth. This is disputed by jew Koestler who claims that they are descendants of Khazars who didn't even convert to Judaism until the 9th Century AD, and thus were not even descendants of Japheth, much less Shem or Israelites. In neither event could Ashkenazi jews have been descendants of Eber (whose descendants are Hebrews) because Eber was a descendant of Shem, Japheth's brother. And because Israelites never considered the offspring of an Israelite who married an Edomite, Moabite, Ashkenazi, Cushite, Canaanite, Khazar, nor any other non-Israelites to be an Israelite, then how exactly is it possible that any jews could have been Israelites?

If jews really are descendants of Moabites, or Edomites, or Ashkenzis, or Canaanites, or Cushites, or Jehudis, or Khazars, or any other non-Israelite, as both the Holy Bible and numerous jewish writings claim they are, then it's physically and legally impossible for jews to have ever been Israelites, either then or now.

The only thing a jew can do to try to recover from one more utterly ridiculous statement (as when they claimed that Israelite law didn't apply to Ruth because she was a woman) is to claim that they meant that they believe jews are descendants of the Israelites who are known to have miscegenated with the foreign women who, along with their children, were put away by the Israelites:

Ezra 10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all
the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my
lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be
done according to the law.

iow, jews have no choice but to acknowledge that, at best, jews were never Israelites but that they are related to Israelites because they are the by-products of miscegenation of non-Israelites with Israelites, and are thus mongrels.

Or, conversely, they must claim that most jewish writings and the Holy Bible are LIES.

If jews are even remotely related to any of these races, which the Torah and Talmud CLAIM they are, then by definition, it's impossible for jews to have ever been Israelites.

Meggie wrote:

Date: Monday, May 27, 2002 at 2:40 pm

Subject: Origin of the Myth of Satan

Hi Debbi,

I regret that I have just gotten around to your post to Danny concerning what we Christian Israelites not of the DSL persuasion believe. I would like to comment on some of your statements, not as a point of contention, but of a point of difference where we might be able to study and come to the truth of this issue. I see differently some of the things you believe. But unlike the DSLers I would love to discuss these issues in hopes of acquiring knowledge and not in proselyting.

At 06:34 AM 5/20/2002 +0000, lydia_the_faithful wrote:

Quite simply, the non Seedliners believe that jews are from the Esau lineage.

I do not exactly believe this. I believe that we must come to the understanding that the term "Jew" is a confusing term (intentionally so) and we must clarify it before we can hope to be understood when using it.

The term "Jew", as used in the Bible, is not the same as the term "Jew" as is mostly used in today's modern vernacular. The term in the Bible is nearly always used to refer to one from the House of Judah, not just the tribe of Judah.

The term Jew as is used today by the media, government, Judeo-Christians and Jews themselves is generally one who is a follower of the religion of Judaism or one who is through a lineage that has or does follow Judaism. Judaism is divided into several sects, e.g., "conservative", "reform", "orthodox", etc. But Judaism, regardless of which sect one is in, when boiled down to it's final component, is an antichrist "faith." Even those so-called "non-religious" "Jews" are members of this "faith."

While the term "Jew" does denote a lineage of sorts (Israelites of the House of Judah), the term, as used today does not. Here is the AHD's definition of "Jew":

Jew (j?/font>) n. 1. An adherent of Judaism as a religion or culture. 2. A member of the widely dispersed people originally descended from the ancient Hebrews and sharing an ethnic heritage based on Judaism. 3. A native or inhabitant of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

As is evident all three of the definitions of the word "Jew" are different and do not mean the same thing. You can see definition #1 would fit the term "Jew" as it is mostly used today. Also definition #2, excluding the lineage to ancient "Hebrews" would fit today's "Jew." Even though we know that today's Jew is not through the lineage of Hebrews of any kind, much less ancient Hebrews, they must hold to this lie in order to carry on the facade of being "God's chosen people."

Now look at definition #3. That is the true definition of "Jew" as it is used in the KJV. It does not fit the "Jews" of today in any way shape or form.

When we begin to grasp the proper meaning of the word "Jew" and how it is being used, then we can understand how people like Paul could be a Benjamite, Israelite and a Jew all at once. We do not need to convolute, bend and twist as some of those from the DSL persuasion do in order to hold onto our beliefs. John Knight is a perfect example. This feigner of being an Israelite teacher must constantly fabricate, convolute and back track to hold onto his facade of a belief. I have watched him on the News Groups battle with the Jewish apologist Royce Buehler and Buehler is having a field day with John's fiction of the Jews coming from "Jehudi" and others. It would be very humorous if it were not for the fact that many will relate Knights contortions to us through the term "identity" and deduce we are just plain obtuse.

I said all the above to say that while today's Jews may indeed trace their lineage back to Esau, the term "Jew" as it is used in the KJV does not denote one from Esau.

Esau, as you will remember was Jacob's brother, who sold his birthright. Esau moved to an area called Seir in the land of Edom and took wives from the Canaanites, thereby racemixing.

It seems that there is some confusion amongst us "CI"ers as to what "race" actually means. Knight is telling everyone that the sons of Israel were all different races because of the dictionary definition that says "race" is a "genealogical lineage." Now think of the insanity of such a statement. That would mean that if one from the tribe of Asher were to marry one from the tribe of Reuben than one would be race mixing. Such a thought is not only ludicrous and Biblically destruction, but just plain stupid.

In the Bible we see only two "races" of "humans", as we call them today. They are the "beasts of the earth" (Gen 1:25) of the earth and the Adamites (Gen 1:26). While the argument can be made that the term "beasts" ("chay" in Hebrew) can mean more than one "race", the fact still remains that these "beasts" are in contrast to Adamites. Adamites as we know are those who show blood in the face. And as a thorough study of that word will show, it means "white" people. Therefore we have the "white" race.

I have a book called "Racial Hybridity" by Phillip Jones. It goes into detail to show that there are only two original "races." They are the white race and the black race. It goes on to show that all the other so-called "races", e.g., "red" and "yellow" are simply mixtures of the two black and white races. This would coincide with the Bible. There really is no yellow race as per the Bible. While man has declared there are three "great" races of which all the strains of people on earth descend, the Bible does not agree that I can see.

When we look at what a "Canaanite" is I see no reason to call a Canaanite a person of another race. A Canaanite is of the race of Adam or an Adamite as Canaan was a grandson of Noah, who kept his lineage pure. Yes Canaan was cursed, but he wasn't of another race as Jacob. I believe the curse is simply a genetic curse that comes with incest. The same curse seems to have been on Ammon and Moab who were Adamites through incest from "righteous" Lot and his two daughters. So I can't agree that Esau's taking of Canaanite wives is race-mixing. But it was Law-breaking.

Esau's descendents were called Edomites.

I agree, but you will notice that many people call them "Jews." However a "Jew" did not exist in the Bible until the dividing of Israel into two houses. Edomites existed before the breakup of Israel.

The Edomites were conquered by John Hyrcanus in 126 B.C. and forcibly converted to Judaism. Judaism came from the Babylonian captivity which emerged as the center of power during the time of Jesus.

I agree on Judaism coming from Babylon. It was a mixture of God's Law with the religion of Babylon. This is why God removed Adam from the Garden because of the inevitability of his mixing God's Law with man's "law" (Gen 3:22). It was this mixing that Christ called making the Law of God of "none effect." This shows another common fallacy. Most people think Christianity came from Judaism, but it was Judaism that came from mixing God's Law (Christianity) with man's "law."

It was the mixed multitude of Pharisees that rejected and crucified Christ.

I disagree! This is a common misconception IMHO. While there were, no doubt, many proselytes to the religion of the Jews, which we call "Judaism" today, they are not mentioned in the Bible. We know from history that Herod was an Edomite convert to the Jews religion. However he is never called a "Jew."

In fact the term "Judaism" is non-existent in the Bible. Yes some of the more modern translations use that word, but the proper translation is "Jews religion." This would mean it was the religion of the Judahites that was brought back to Jerusalem from Babylon after their captivity.

Whenever the term "Jew" is used in the Bible, especially the NT, it is referring to one from the House of Judah or a Judahite and not to those following the Jews religion that we now know as Judaism. When we see the Bible condemning those that killed Christ we see that it is referring to Israelites.

(Acts 3:12-26 KJV) "...Peter...answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel...{13} The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. {14} But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; {15} And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses...{19} Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out...{20} And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you...{25} Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. {26} Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."

As you can see, those that gave Christ up in Barabbas' stead are those of Israel. Remember that Christ was sent only to Israel (Mat 15:24). But we find that Christ came unto His own and they received Him not (John 1:11). If Christ went unto a mixed race of people or unto people who were not Israelites, then He went unto someone other than Israel did He not? And who was it that did not receive Him? If it was non-Israelites then it was not His people that didn't receive Him.

So, considering the above, I say that those that rejected and crucified Christ were Christ's own people, Israelites from the House of Judah. It was through the stumbling of the Judahites that the rest of Israel, the "gentiles" were salvaged (Rom 11:11).

Christ prophesied their destruction which came to pass in 70AD, however, part of Edom escaped the destruction of Jerusulem and were relocated throughout the Mediterrean, establishing their synogogues of satan. Now then, it should become very academic that centuries later the Khazar empire recruited these Judaic scholars to convert their nation. This is the composite people of Ashkenasi jewry, which for the most part comprises 95% of what is known as world jewry today. These are the people that hate Christ and Christians, and therefore, we should be united in opposing them as the enemies of God.

But notice one important thing here. As you say, the "Jews" of today through this Kharzarian link were proselytes to Judaism. And it was these Khazarians that became known as "Jews." Remember Christ told us that those in Moses seat (Mat 23:2) caused their proselytes to become thrice the children of hell as they (Mat 23:15). However these "Jews" were and are Jews through the man-made religion of Judaism. The Jews of Christ's day were not "Jews" as these "Jews." They were "Jews" because they were Judahites. They were people from the House of Judah. Their religion, which they brought back to Jerusalem from Babylon took it's name from them and not vice versa.

The reason the Pharisees said they were of Abraham's seed, and Jesus AGREED, was that they didn't come through the more select racial bloodline of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

I disagree! If they were Edomites, they would have been called Edomites. No one was called "Jews" because of their religion in the Bible. The term "Jew" was from the Greek word "Ioudaios." The root of that word is "Iouda" and it simply means "Judah." They were not called Jews because of their religion. I stress again that Judaism took it's name from Judah and Jews in the Bible didn't take their name from the religion of Judaism. Jesus not only was giving "bread" to these "Jews", He told them they could be His disciples (John 8:31). If Jesus was not sent to anyone but Israel why would He be saying these things to non-Israelites? He said they were of Abraham's seed because they were. If they had been through Esau, they wouldn't have been called "Jews."

Now I know that the good Rabbi, John Knight, double-talks his bile about the difference between "children" and "seed." The only problem is he never bothers to debate an issue. He simply just makes statements. Paul makes it clear that the "seed" of Abraham is Abraham's seed only if they are of children of the promise:

(Rom 9:7-8 KJV) "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. {8} That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."

Christ was calling these "Jews" both "children" and "seed" of Abraham. Paul shows us that to be called the seed of Abraham meant they were actually children of the promise. Those through Esau would not be called Abraham's seed or children.

Just to remind you that the Pharisees were of the mixed multitude that comprised Edomites.

Again I disagree! The Pharisees sat in Moses' seat:

(Mat 23:2 KJV) "Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:"

If they were not true Israelites, how could they have ever gotten into that position? Paul, himself, was a pharisee. Yet he clearly says he is both a Jew and an Israelite.

In every sense, they, and the current day jews. are the antichrists, according to I John 4:3.

I agree that both the "Jews" in John * and the "Jews" of today are antichrists. But not because of lineage. Because of religion or faith.

I know you are busy with your website, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on my statements. I do believe you and I can discuss this issue without one taking offense of the other because of a disagreement.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue.

Modified Tuesday, November 02, 2010