Israel, Judah and Jew are not synonymous terms

(Jackie D;51638)
Sorry FoC...there just isn't any sense in having two threads going on the same topic...carry on
Its ok My actual points didnt fit in the theme of this thread, honestly.I was only bickering the minor point that "Jew" in the NT can be generically used for all of Jacobs descendants.As long as the OP is ok with having both discussions here, Im fine with it

(FoC;51465)
Paul IS an ISRAELITE by his own admission AND he IS a JEW by his own admission
Of the tribe of Benjamin, the House of Judah [aka Jew], of the Israelites.

(Richard_oti;51670)
Of the tribe of Benjamin, the House of Judah [aka Jew], of the Israelites.
ok Not sure if youve read my posts, but Im pretty sure Ive already agreed that this was the case

(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.
Just so you know, your points were fine. Regrettably, this is typical.

(FoC;51675)
Not sure if you've read my posts, but Im pretty sure I've already agreed that this was the case
Yes, I did notice you introduced that as well in your later posts.

(FoC;51533)
And again with the history involved, I am not discussing that here in any way, shape or form.The topic HERE is that the word "Jew" in the NT does not necessarily mean 'house of Judah' by default but ONLY where the context shows that that is the case.
Yet, without knowing the history any study of the NT usage can not be fully supported. The history is required to come to a full depth of understanding upon the topic.

(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
I may or may not have studied the topic a little in times past. However, I will leave you with 2 Chr 11:1. You may take it from there.Edit: You might also find 1 Kings 11:31-35 of interest.

(Hope;51628)
You think you know about the Bible because you can read? It takes more than that.
Devarim D:KT u-viqashtem misham et_YHVH Eloheyko u-matzata ki tidreshenu bekal_levavka u-bekal_nefeshekaHope)
You cannot start a house by the roof.
Indubitably

(Richard_oti;51678)
Yet, without knowing the history any study of the NT usage can not be fully supported. The history is required to come to a full depth of understanding upon the topic.
Ive presented scriptures that use 'JEW' that simply MUST mean the word in a way to universally speak of the descendants of Jacob.

(kriss;51653)
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
Agreed Kriss.As I had previously written: "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'."That some Levites were present is a given from my POV and doesn't require mentioning IMO.Not to mention any aliens/foreigners who had joined themselves unto YHVH Eloheynu amoung them.(kriss)
I dont think you can take it to literally mean there was not a single person from another tribe.
Fully agreed. While there are several instances in which some from the 10 tribes of the "House of Israel" went over to the "House of Judah", there is no way that we are able to validate conclusively such theory. Therefore it remains as speculation at this time.It is my opinion that: Yes, there were possibly some there, but that remains merely speculation and opinion on the part of any of us at this time unless a new bit of datum or data has surfaced that I am unaware of. Which is possible, for I have been out of any real serious study for quite some time now.

(FoC;51685)
Ive [sic] presented scriptures that use 'JEW' that simply MUST mean the word in a way to universally speak of the descendants of Jacob.
I am assuming you are meaning from the NT alone. If so: Understood. However apart from the historical aspect, such an understanding may possibly be flawed. Thus the current confusion that is rampant today. I am not willing to wade through your many posts to review every instance. Nor am I willing to review "copy and pastes" of your former replies. If you are interested in taking this further, please reply directly without the former and include only the necessary and relevant data. My time is very limited.

(Richard_oti;51691)
I am assuming you are meaning from the NT alone. If so: Understood.
Agreed with or simply understood my statement ?
However apart from the historical aspect, such an understanding may possibly be flawed.
Please dont mistake my previous statement.My area of study is not prophecy, but Ive read the entire OT enough to understand the issue that Im discussing well enough.Please dont make this an issue of 'you cant understand because you havent read the OT' or some other nonsense, I assure you that I can keep up with the conversation...I simply have meant that I have not spent time on the topic that TimfromPA seems to be obsessed with (not that that is a bad thing, my obsession is the marriage covenant)
Thus the current confusion that is rampant today. I am not willing to wade through your many posts to review every instance. Nor am I willing to review "copy and pastes" of your former replies. If you are interested in taking this further, please reply directly without the former and include only the necessary and relevant data. My time is very limited.
Huh.So you arent willing to READ the thread, nor are you willing that I present what Ive already spent MY valuable time typing out.Seems that you dont want to actually be in this discussion at all, quite frankly.Maybe you should take a break and return when you have the time for discussion rather than brushing off others hard work without consideration.till then...

(FoC;51693)
Agreed with or simply understood my statement ?
What did I state?(FoC)
Please dont mistake my previous statement.
I did not.(FoC)
My area of study is not prophecy, but Ive read the entire OT enough to understand the issue that Im discussing well enough.
It has nothing to do with 'prophecy'. It is the historical aspect/context.(FoC)
Please dont make this an issue of 'you cant understand because you havent read the OT' or some other nonsense, I assure you that I can keep up with the conversation...
Non sequitur.(FoC)
I simply have meant that I have not spent time on the topic that TimfromPA seems to be obsessed with (not that that is a bad thing, my obsession is the marriage covenant)
Then perhaps you each have your own area of 'strength' or a given 'talent'. However, that does not equate unto any of us having it completely correct in any area.(FoC)
Huh.
IOW: Reply directly on a point by point basis rather than with a "paper blizzard" of "copy and pastes" to be waded through.(FoC)
So you arent willing to READ the thread, nor are you willing that I present what Ive already spent MY valuable time typing out.
Argumentum ad hominem.FYI: I have read the thread. I have noticed it spilled into other/another thread(s).Since you have already written about this, it should be a relatively simple thing to simply present the verse(s) which support your position. No argumentum ad hominem required.(FoC)
Seems that you dont want to actually be in this discussion at all, quite frankly. Maybe you should take a break and return when you have the time for discussion rather than brushing off others hard work without consideration.
Argumentum ad hominem.

I think you and I are finished here, Richard_otiIve no intention of wasting any more time with you. have a nice evening.

(FoC;51707)
I think you and I are finished here, Richard_otiIve no intention of wasting any more time with you. have a nice evening.
So be it.Erev tov.

I wont be posting in any more of these threads.I feel Ive made what few points I wanted to make and I dont want to sit here grinding gears.I only come by this forum to refute a certain MDR doctrines and I think I need to stick to that particular thing.God bless.Sorry for aggrivating anyone

(Tim_From_Pa)
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.
(Richard_oti;51676)
Just so you know, your points were fine. Regrettably, this is typical.
Hi Richard:Now that things calmed down a little, I thought that this whole thread was very confusing because it was merged with another, so it almost sounds like I was answering inconsistently. In this case, like I was not going to say anything else, but that was when they were 2 separate threads yet, and since then I said some things on this thread that did not directly relate to my previous comments.Thanks for the compliment. Yes, I do really find that I have these days where I think it's easier to teach my cats some calculus.

(tim_from_pa;51801)
Yes, I do really find that I have these days where I think it's easier to teach my cats some calculus.
I know some cats that have been able to devise cutaneous incisions, does that count?

I have this posted on site,but I feel it will help here In the Bible you see the term "Jew" used quite a bit. But it isn't in the same sense that we today use the term "Jew." The Word Jew in the Bible can mean two different things: either a descendant of the tribe of Judah OR a person from the land of Judaea (the region in which Jerusalem resides, a 'county' or 'province' so to speak) but not necessarily of the tribe of Judah. it's like you can be an Irishman and live in Germany and yet not be a German. Don't let the different languages and the names in them confuse you on this. Observe:Jew: Greek word #2453 Ioudaios (ee-oo-dah'-yos);from #2448 (in the sense of #2455 as a country); Judaean, i.e. belonging to Jehudah ["Judah" in Hebrew language of Old Testament] : KJV-- Jew (-ess), of Judaea.#2448 Iouda (ee-oo-dah'); of Hebrew origin [3063 or perhaps 3194]; Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah), a part of (or place in) Palestine: KJV-- Judah. #2455 Ioudas (ee-oo-das'); of Hebrew origin [3063]; Judas (i.e. Jehudah), the name of ten Israelites; also of the posterity of one of them and its region: KJV-- Juda (-h, -s); Jude.Judaea: 1). In a narrower sense, to the southern portion of Palestine lying on this side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, to distinguish it from Samaria, Galilee, Peraea, and Idumaea. 2). In a broader sense, referring to all Palestine. So then, when we use the term "Jew" today what are we saying? Allow us to answer that with an excerpt from the Information Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem, and the The Jewish Almanac themselves, lest anyone think we are being so-called anti-Semitic here:The word Jew comes from a Greek word meaning descendent of the tribe of Judah, or someone living in the land of Judea. Today's Jews call themselves Jews to falsely imply that they are somehow descendent from the Biblical tribe of Judah. When asked the question, "Who is Israel? - Who is a Jew?", the Israeli Government's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) unhesitatingly answered thus [emphasis added]: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; Feb, 1998."Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew." Or to call a contemporary Jew [an] "Israelite," or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all, and contemporary Palestinians, by their own definition of the term "Palestinian," have to include Jews among their own people."--The Jewish Almanac, Oct., 1980, page 3, Bantam Books, Inc. Under a headline entitled... 'Identity Crisis'.So in the Bible when you see someone referred to as a "Jew" it could mean a 'good' one like Jesus Christ who was a descendant of the Patriarch Judah on His mother's side, OR, it could mean a 'bad' one like the Jews that sought to kill Jesus Christ:Acts 2:5 (good)5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (KJV)John 7:1(bad)1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. (KJV) My point here is that just because you see someone called a "Jew" in the Bible does not necessarily mean that they are a devote chosen man of God, nor, necessarily an evil person with corrupt religion. You have to take each one in context of the Scripture, the Scripture will let you know which kind of 'Jew' is being spoken about.