Israel, Judah and Jew are not synonymous terms

Question: What does you and your mentor think of the tribes being the British and Americans and some of the Europeans? And how about the throne of David?My point, in the context of what Paul was saying is if Paul was using Jews to describe someone presently following the Law, then the people cannot be the (Northern) Israelites. In other words, the fate of the house of Judah is not that of the house of Israel as each have their own destinies. So, if you want to believe that Jew is referring to all 12 tribes, then I am saying is that what Paul said about them must be applicable to both. If so, then I agree with you.If on the other hand he says that "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy."Then he is speaking clearly about Judah only because the lost Israelites were not provoked to jealousy. Many accepted the gospel. As a matter of fact, a lot of what Paul is saying in Romans 9-11 alludes to Isaiah 65. We see two contrasts of people. The one nation that did not seek him (but found him) is the house of Israel, the rebellious ones are the house of Judah.This is what Jesus meant when he said,"The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."That Kingdom (like in Isaiah 65) is the house of Israel. The house of Judah that was of Jesus lineage (his own) would have it taken.I don't believe Paul used the word "Jew" loosely like many would do. Paul was learned, intelligent and very precise. If he did use any word "Jew" for all 12 tribes, then again, what he said must be applicable to both houses and not the example I gave above about being jealous.

Question: What does you and your mentor think of the tribes being the British and Americans and some of the Europeans? And how about the throne of David?
And AGAIN you are dodging the actual issue, Tim.I have NEVER questioned ANY of the history or prophecies you have presented...NOT ONCE and it is an outright fabrication if it is claimed that I have.GO and reread my posts, friend, and this time pay attention.My ONLY POINT is that when the word "JEW" is used in the NT that it does not necessarily mean to speak ONLY about Judah.As for all the information you keep posting again and again it isnt in the least relevant to MY point and the point of THIS thread
I don't believe Paul used the word "Jew" loosely like many would do.
And I believe you are wrong. Which is why Ive posted passages that dont seem to make sense if ONLY those 2 or 3 tribes are meant since all the other tribes would be left out entirely.

Paul was learned, intelligent and very precise.
That may be so, but that that doesnt mean that he always had to nitpick words like you seem to be doing.
If he did use any word "Jew" for all 12 tribes, then again, what he said must be applicable to both houses and not the example I gave above about being jealous.
And again, we are NOT talking about EVERY instance of the word.Where the CONTEXT shows that 'Jew = Judah' then I agree that would be the intent.And this is what I said ealier, that you seem to insist that its "either/or" and cannot be a combination where in some cases "JEW" may be used for Judah while in some cases it is used to speak about ALL of the descendants of Israel/Jacob.

OK fine. If what I say is not relevant and supposedly dodging the issue, then I guess I have nothing more to say. I'm done and made my points.

(tim_from_pa;51558)
OK fine. If what I say is not relevant and supposedly dodging the issue, then I guess I have nothing more to say. I'm done and made my points.
As far as your studies on the history involved, actually at some later point Id be interested in looking at what youve concluded.My one mentor was also very interested in looking it over as well to see what youve presented because he feels your time in the study can probably reveal a lot of things that he would be interested in knowing.The problem isnt what youre claiming as far as the historical facts and the prophecy...Ill concede ALL of those points entirely as Im not qualified to argue that issue, my study interests are not in prophecy in the least.Ive explained my concern, and he also disagreed that every instance of "Jew" in the NT MUST be making the distinction of the kingdom of Judah, but in many cases is simply a generic reference to Israel as a whole.Id love to hook you and him up since hes a lot more studied in those sorts of areas as you are, but frankly, if you come off with this idea that the NT use of "JEW" ALWAYS means 'of Judah' Id think he also would point out that he disagrees with that.Ill give him a link or something and maybe he can contact you when he has some free time. He definitely seemed interested otherwise.

At first I thought it to be wrong,
At first I thought HyperCalvinism was wrong.And then I spent some time studying the scriptures they offer and found that they have a very convincing case.It took me almost a year to get that false doctrine out of my head. I had to reject it even tho they have such an airtight case that its amazing that anyone could end up getting out of it.Im sorry but there IS a place for the descendants of Jacob, the tribes of Isreal, in scripture.Im not into that area of study as much as many are, but Im not going to toss aside what I believe so casually again because those HyperCalvinists taught me a harsh lesson....not to be tossed around by every wind.
At first I thought it to be wrong, but then after I contrasted and studied I found it to be TRUE.
Id gently suggest that you continue to study it.As I said, it was about a year later when I finally figured out that, even tho their evidence was overwhelming, HyperCalvism cannot be right because it removes the entire reason for mans existence.

(Hope;51610)
If you have not read studied and contrasted the information provided in such link , please do not say "The link provided is in clearly in error". Such study provides biblical references (and you are not). Thank you,Hope
my understanding Hope is that Richard has done extensive study that goes far beyond what this article attempts to portray. Though the study provides biblical references there is nothing that dictates the one doing the study is not in error.

(Hope;51616)
I think many did not understand Paul. 1 Corinthians 920And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; Romans 11 1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Paul was an Israelite who became a Jew to gain the Jews.
Now, come on. In Acts Paul claims that he IS a Jew of Tarsus.
(Act 21:39 KJV) But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.(Act 22:3 KJV) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Pauls words in the first verse you gave there does NOT mean to show that he 'became' a Jew in that way.READ the entire Corinthian passage for context.
1Co 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. 1Co 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 1Co 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 1Co 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 1Co 9:23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Paul is simply showing that he modified HIS behavior to fit in to whatever crowd he was in to win souls.If he was with the Jews, he tried to fit in.If he was with gentiles, he did the same.This passage is not saying that Paul WASNT a Jew.Paul himself says he is a Jew.

Hope: I can see where you are coming from. As one that studied the lost tribes of Israel for example, I see there are extreme ends to the swing of the pendulum.You have mainline Christendom that cannot see the difference between the Jew (i.e. of Judah that practice the Law) and Israel. They think that the people in Jesus' day were all 12 tribes.Then you have the opposite extreme that says that modern Jews are impostors.Both of these views I reject.I am aware of Revelation 2:9, but I am also aware of John 1:11. So in these contexts alone, I can agree that maybe there are some impostors as Revelation 2:9 says within the people of John 1:11. However, the tribe of Judah overall was prophesied to keep the Law (Genesis 49:10) and they are the ones that keep the scriptures, the times and seasons, and the Law. Otherwise, even the bible would have been lost to history (just like the lost tribes!)The house of Israel on the other hand was prophesied to lose their identity, roam for awhile, then regroup as many nations ultimately to bring the gospel light to the world.Paul speaks extensively in Romans 9-11 about Israel, both the election of Israel and the Law keepers, as this was a subject about the election of grace when contrasted with the election of race.He said,What then? {ALL}Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election {Ephraim-Israel} hath obtained it, and the rest {Judah-Israel, the Law keepers}were blinded. The Lord always expected Israel to be His chosen to carry out the works of grace and His Word the Law. Therefore, if Christianity was to spread, he'd do it with the elect of Israel, which was the birthright tribe of Ephraim (the Jews do not have the birthright). Likewise, if He wants the Law to be manifest, that is the job of Judah, and none of these responsibilities would go to any other (Gentile) people, otherwise the prophecy in Genesis 12:1-3 would be in error.This is why in the end of Romans 11 he said:For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.The term blindness in part means "partial blindness" and the fullness of the Gentiles is an allusion to Genesis 48:19. So what Paul was saying was that pertaining to the election of grace, that Israel was partly blinded until they (Ephraim) become many nations (racially) in which the elect of grace were within to present the gospel. In the meantime, those under Law (or Israel which follows the Law which are those of Judah) are enemies for the sake of the elect of grace.So in summary, what I am saying is that to discount the present day Jews as being impostors and yet keeping God's Law is as contrary to the prophecy of Scripture as believing that grace was entrusted to non-Israelite Gentiles. Remember, Judah is under Law. Israel is under grace.

Thats very interesting, Tim. See, I cant argue with anything youve said there as I dont have the study time you have in on the topic.One question does come to mind, tho.There are those of what I guess you would call 'Judah' (Jews), who have been blinded, who have become believing Christians.How does that fact fit into your views ?

Apparently hope, you think you have stumbled onto something here.I assure you havent.I already responded to this erroneous assertion in the other thread where you brought it up
(Hope;51616)
I think many did not understand Paul. 1 Corinthians 920And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; Romans 11 1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Paul was an Israelite who became a Jew to gain the Jews.
Now, come on. In Acts Paul claims that he IS a Jew of Tarsus.
(Act 21:39 KJV) But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.(Act 22:3 KJV) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Pauls words in the first verse you gave there does NOT mean to show that he 'became' a Jew in that way.READ the entire Corinthian passage for context.
1Co 9:18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. 1Co 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 1Co 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 1Co 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 1Co 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 1Co 9:23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Paul is simply showing that he modified HIS behavior to fit in to whatever crowd he was in to win souls.If he was with the Jews, he tried to fit in.If he was with gentiles, he did the same.This passage is not saying that Paul WASNT a Jew.Paul himself says he is a Jew.

Apparently my post was lost when these two threads were combined (Hope;51628)
That is not nice. I am sad you started this here when you know I had started this subject under "ISRAEL, JUDAH and the JEW". I really wanted to talk about the matter for I was guided to do so. I did not bring the subject to the forum so others can use the reference to open many points about it and create confusion saying that what I started it could be a real threat to sound doctrine.
Frankly, my thread had nothing to do with yours but was solely to talk about something timfromPA and I were talking about in another thread...it was to keep from derailing that thread.Make sure you UNDERSTAND what is going on before getting bent out of shape.
You think you know about the Bible because you can read?
I think I LIVE in my bible...multiple thousands of hours of study at this point..and most of that study ISNT in reading fallible authors thoughts but Gods word itself.I could ask you the same question you asked me.
It takes more than that.
And it takes more than reading some book and agreeing with it.
Paul was not a Jew in the way you think he was.
yeah...he was.Your verse was taken completely out of context.

Sorry FoC...there just isn't any sense in having two threads going on the same topic...carry on

Hope:I "hope" the merging of these threads does not cause any more confusion, but I want to add one more thought regarding that article that I forgot to mention. The article is very good, and yes, I agree that Jews are a subgroup of Judah just as they are a subgroup of Israel. In the lost tribes teaching, many of the Judahites went into captivity with Israel and are likewise "lost". This is evidenced by such things as people called "Jutes", the royal lineages (which are from Judah) people with Lions in their heraldry and so forth throughout Europe. Jews are from the house of Judah and the reason so much attention is on them is because they have the limelight known as "God's people", and they are the "lawgivers" as prophesied.My only concern with the article, although not radical in the least, was that there could be some confusion regarding the Jews of today as not being true children of Abraham. True, some are mixed, but so has Israel mixed (Hosea 7:8) when they originally practiced idolatry like the other nations.

(Richard_oti;51442)
As I personally do not have much time for discussion currently, please allow me to clearly state that I am not open for discussion at this time.That being said: The link provided is clearly in error. The "House of Judah" consisted of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. It [the "House of Judah"] also later consisted of those from the other tribes who came over to the "House of Judah" from the "House of Israel".I did not read the article in question beyond that point, for if the premise is flawed, so too is the conclusion.Kind regards,Richard
Richard it doesn't mean that Judah and Benjamin were the only tribes members present there were some Levite priests and Im sure some others familys and straglers from other tribes The point is in prophecy God has to be able to separate the two sticks so he uses the names of the largest tribes and the one's the inheritance went to I dont think you can take it to literally mean there was not a single person from another tribe.Only that it was a majority of Judah and Benjamin this is born out in Eze.37