Jewish Messiah

[Rachel Rugelach]

If I simply move to Israel and live among the Jews the rest of my life (perhaps I take a job in Israel...), this does not and will not make me a "Jew"...

It would not make you an "Israelite," either. I think that you are confusing historical ethnic terms with nationalistic terms.

Citizenship in the modern-day state of Israel would make you an Israeli -- a term in use since 1948 to distinguish "the citizens of the modern state from the ancient people who had been known in English since the 14th century as Israelites."* "Israeli" is a modern-day term describing one's citizenship and not necessarily one's ethnicity or religion.

In contrast, "Israelite" is a historical, ethnic, and religious term. Etymologically speaking, and since the mid-14th century, the English term "Israelite" has referred to "a Jew; one of the people of ancient Israel, a descendant of Israel or Jacob."* The Biblical Hebrew term is B'nei Yisrael ("Children of Israel").

The Biblical Greek and Latin terms used were Israelites (Ἰσρᾱηλῑ́της) and Israelita respectively. Neither of these terms were applied to "greeks and pagans [who] also lived in the area inhabited by the Kingdom of Judah" (your words). Greeks who lived there were not called Israelites -- they were called Hellenes. In Biblical Hebrew, they were called Yevanim.

Your bizarre condescension notwithstanding ("As you become more familiar with the Tanakh and Jewish history..."), I do believe that @IndigoChild5559 and other Jewish members of this forum are well-acquainted with the Tanakh and Jewish history -- I daresay better than you are.

-----------------------

*See Israelite (n.) at The Online Etymology Dictionary, a site which has been referenced by Oxford University's "Arts and Humanities Community Resource" catalog as "an excellent tool for those seeking the origins of words" as well as used as a data source for quantitative scholarly research.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Rachel Rugelach



1) Historically, the term ”Israelite” is not the same as “Jew”

IndigoChild5559 claimed : "Hebrews=Israelite=Jews". (post #32 – thread on the Didache)

Clear replied : “2) The ancient term "Hebrews" and "Israelites" does NOT simply mean "Jews".

A "Jew" is, historically, from the single tribe of Judah and it came to signify the kingdom of Judah. A "Jew" may also be an adherent to the "Jewish" religion. These are two different things.

While there was always a mixture of tribes and nations, this mixing of nations and kingdoms did not magically create a monolithic group of "Jews".

For example, greeks and pagans also lived in the area inhabited by the Kingdom of Judah. However, simply living among Jews did not make the the greeks and pagans "Jews" just as it did not make a person born into ephraim, or Asher, (i.e. an "Ephraimite" or an "Asherite") into someone born into Judah (i.e. a Jew).

If I simply move to Israel and live among the Jews the rest of my life (perhaps I take a job in Israel...), this does not and will not make me a "Jew" just as an ephraimite does not become a Jew simply by living among them.

Many different family names may be represented at a family reunion, still, this does not turn the "Johnsons" into "Smiths" at a Smith family reunion.” (post #179)



2) Just as Living Jews would not make one a “Jew”, Living among “Israelites” would not make one an “Israelite”.

Rachel Rugelach said : “It would not make you an "Israelite," either. (Post #181)

That is absolutely correct Rachel. That was my point to Indigo5559 as well.

Simply living among Israelites did not make one an “Israelite” anciently just as living among the Jews in their nation did not make one a “Jew”.



3) Living in the Kingdom of Judah did not make one a “Jew”.

IndigoChild5559 made another erroneous historical claim that : “ after the fall of the northern Kingdom of Israel, that refugees fled south to the Kingdom of Judah. So from then on, you can say that the Kingdom of Judah included ALL of the tribes." (IndigoChild5559 in post #44 in the Didache thread)

Thus Clear explained : While there was always a mixture of tribes and nations, this mixing of nations and kingdoms did not magically create a monolithic group of "Jews".

For example, greeks and pagans also lived in the area inhabited by the Kingdom of Judah. However, simply living among Jews did not make the the greeks and pagans "Jews" just as it did not make a person born into ephraim, or Asher, (i.e. an "Ephraimite" or an "Asherite") into someone born into Judah (i.e. a Jew).

If I simply move to Israel and live among the Jews the rest of my life (perhaps I take a job in Israel...), this does not and will not make me a "Jew" just as an ephraimite does not become a Jew simply by living among them.

Many different family names may be represented at a family reunion, still, this does not turn the "Johnsons" into "Smiths" at a Smith family reunion. (post #179)

Rachel Rugelach is correct in the point that living among the Israelites "would not make you an "Israelite either."



4) Ethnic “Jew” as a Genetic term vs “Nationalistic Jew” vs “Jew” as a religious term

Rachel Rugelach said : “I think that you are confusing historical ethnic terms with nationalistic terms.” (post #181)

Actually I am trying to make the historical distinction between ethnic descent from Judah (“Jews”) and the assumption that all twelve tribes are either ethnically “Jews” or that they have all adopted the religion we now call “Judaism”. Given the loss of the 10 tribes, perhaps the majority of Israels descendants are Christians, or Muslim, or Hindu, or some other religion. We simply don’t know without more data.

Thus, while all ethnic Jews are Israelites, not all Israelites are Jews. This is why the historical claim that “Hebrews=Israelites=Jews” is, historically, incorrect.



5) A correct, but irrelevant point of modern citizenship

Rachel Rugelach said : “Citizenship in the modern-day state of Israel would make you an Israeli” (post #181)

While I think you are perfectly correct in your claim that Citizenship in the modern-day state of Israel would make you an “Israeli“ it is irrelevant to the historical discussion since the discussion was not about gaining citizenship in the modern-day state of Israel.


6) How can making incorrect claims and theories indicate one is familiar with the subject matter they make incorrect claims about?

Rachel Rugelach said : “ I do believe that @IndigoChild5559 and other Jewish members of this forum are well-acquainted with the Tanakh and Jewish history -- I daresay better than you are. (post #181)

While this could be correct or not, how are readers to know IndigoChild5559 (or anyone else) is well-acquainted with Judaism or Jewish History by repeating such basic errors in Jewish historical principles?

It has been my experience that, in general, modern Jews seem no more acquainted with early Jewish History than modern Christians are with their early History. Often religious individuals simply repeat talking points or repeat what they have been told.


In any case Rachel, I hope your own spiritual journey is enlightening and wonderful and happy.

Clear

 

[rosends]

A "Jew" is, historically, from the single tribe of Judah and it came to signify the kingdom of Judah. A "Jew" may also be an adherent to the "Jewish" religion. These are two different things.\

No, the kingdom of Judah was made of at least 3 tribes. It was called the kingdom of Judah because the tribe of Judah was the pargest component. But, if you look at the scroll of Esther, Mordechai is identified as a "yehudi" and also from the tribe of Benjamin. Additionally, tyhe scroll describes how many people "mityahadim", became of Yehuda. Now, they didn't move, so the affiliation change can't be nationalistic and geographical. Clearly, the word had dual meanings with complete overlap.

For example, greeks and pagans also lived in the area inhabited by the Kingdom of Judah. However, simply living among Jews did not make the the greeks and pagans "Jews" just as it did not make a person born into ephraim, or Asher, (i.e. an "Ephraimite" or an "Asherite") into someone born into Judah (i.e. a Jew).

Do you have any evidence of someone who lived in the nation of Judah who was not also Jewish? A claim that Greeks and Pagans lived there without any evidence doesn't go very far.

Simply living among Israelites did not make one an “Israelite” anciently just as living among the Jews in their nation did not make one a “Jew”.

The Hebrew word which people can connect to "Israelite" has scant use in the biblical texts. In the 5 books (Lev 24:10-11), one man is identified as a "son of an Israelite woman"

"And the son of a Yisra᾽elite woman, whose father was a Miżrian man, went out among the children of Yisra᾽el: and this son of the Yisra᾽elite woman and a man of Yisra᾽el strove together in the camp;"

There was no geography, nor was there a separate nation of Judah yet. This was a catch-all term for people who lived among the children of Israel.

Sam II 17:25 has the other mention
And Avshalom placed ῾Amasa in charge of the army in place of Yo᾽av: and ῾Amasa was the son of a man named Yitra the Yisra᾽elite who had taken to himself Avigayil the daughter of Naĥash, sister of Żeruya, the mother of Yo᾽av.

Before there were two nations, but Amasa had to feel comfortable marrying her within the bounds of religious law (the verse explicitly identifies the woman through her matrilineal line). So affiliation with the peoplehood seems synonymous with accepting the religious identity regardless of label. (in fact, the commentators claim that Yitra converted to Judaism which is why he was called "Israelite") All this before there were two nations and any label of "Jew" developed from the kingdom of Judah.

Thus, while all ethnic Jews are Israelites, not all Israelites are Jews. This is why the historical claim that “Hebrews=Israelites=Jews” is, historically, incorrect.

Can you show any textual evidence of this? Is there any mention of an Israelite who was not following the code of law which would later be known as "Judaism"?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

A "Jew" is, historically, from the single tribe of Judah and it came to signify the kingdom of Judah.

I have already corrected this mistake more than one time. I can give you the historical facts, but I cannot make you accept them.

 

[Shaul]

That's like saying Germans object to the terminology of translating guten Morgen to good morning. No, Germans don't say the actual phrase good morning in German, but it's what they're saying when they say guten Morgen.

That is a false analogy. It would be more like saying "good morning" in Spanish is "buenos días". While it is usually translated as such, it isn't literally correct. "Buenos días" literally means "good days" or "bueno día" which literally means "good day". Spanish has a word for morning, "mañana". But "bueno mañana" would be idiomatically incorrect. So it is in our example. The Hebrew word "moshiach"("מָשִׁיחַ") literally means "anointed (one)". A מָשִׁיחַ could be many things including scripture that have been anointed, or sanctified for use, including priests, royalty, kings and even utensils used in the Temple. Clearly it does not exclusively mean the particular anointed one that Christians think is Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Clear]

Hi @rosends;

1)Regarding the claim that “Hebrew=Israelite=Jew”.

Clear said : “A "Jew" is, historically, from the single tribe of Judah and it came to signify the kingdom of Judah. A "Jew" may also be an adherent to the "Jewish" religion. These are two different things.”

Rosends said : “No, the kingdom of Judah was made of at least 3 tribes.” (post #183)

I agree with this (as the maps I gave clearly show). I am describing the origin of the name “Judah”. At LEAST 3 tribes lived in the borders of the kingdom which was named after the single tribe of Judah.



2) Some pagans and others who lived among the Jews did convert, often because of fear of the Jews if they did not.

Rosends said : “Additionally, tyhe scroll describes how many people "mityahadim", became of Yehuda (post #183)

Yes, Ester is a wonderful example that makes my point.

“Mityahadim” were non-Jews (Gentiles) who professed to be Jews or became Jews, mostly because of fear of Jews they lived among as Ester 8:17 tells us “ And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.” (NIV)

Thus the verse points out that there were “many people of other nationalities” that lived among the Jews and many of them “became Jews” because of fear of the Jews. Probably some actually converted out of non-coercion as well. However, historically, the Jews had their own historical “inquisitions” and killed many people who would not convert to their religion.


3) The scriptures themselves tell us there were MANY people of other nationalities that lived in the nation of Judah (among Jews)

Rosends said : “Do you have any evidence of someone who lived in the nation of Judah who was not also Jewish? A claim that Greeks and Pagans lived there without any evidence doesn't go very far. (post #183)

Ester 8:17 just told you of “many people of other nationalities” lived among the Jews in the example you just gave me.


4) The term JEW came to be used as a "catch-all" term

Rosends said : “There was no geography, nor was there a separate nation of Judah yet. This was a catch-all term for people who lived among the children of Israel. (post #183)

Yes, you are correct. Read your own statement. You have just admitted that this was a “catch-all term” for “people who lived among the Children of Israel”. That was my point as well.

Many individuals lived in the Kingdom of Judah that were not Jews, such as the mityahadim. Before they were Jews, they may have been called “Jews” but in fact, were not “Jews”. It was, as you said, a “catch-all” term.

This is why I said : “While there was always a mixture of tribes and nations, this mixing of nations and kingdoms did not magically create a monolithic group of "Jews".

For example, greeks and pagans also lived in the area inhabited by the Kingdom of Judah. However, simply living among Jews did not make the the greeks and pagans "Jews" just as it did not make a person born into ephraim, or Asher, (i.e. an "Ephraimite" or an "Asherite") into someone born into Judah (i.e. a Jew).

If I simply move to Israel and live among the Jews the rest of my life (perhaps I take a job in Israel...), this does not and will not make me a "Jew" just as an ephraimite does not become a Jew simply by living among them.

Many different family names may be represented at a family reunion, still, this does not turn the "Johnsons" into "Smiths" at a Smith family reunion.


5) Was there an Israelite that did not follow the prophetic religion? Did the prophets have to tell Israel to repent of sins?
Rosends Challenged : "Can you show any textual evidence of this? Is there any mention of an Israelite who was not following the code of law which would later be known as "Judaism"? (post #183)

Sure : Judges 2:11 And the Israelites did evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals.

The work of the prophets was so often messages of repentance to try to bring idolatrous Israel back to their God and away from idolatry and other practices that were inconsistent prophetic religion.

Rosends, I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful and enlightening. I appreciate the areas of agreement we do have.

Clear

 

[rosends]

“Mityahadim” were non-Jews (Gentiles) who professed to be Jews or became Jews, mostly because of fear of Jews they lived among as Ester 8:17 tells us “ And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.” (NIV)

Thus the verse points out that there were “many people of other nationalities” that lived among the Jews and many of them “became Jews” because of fear of the Jews. Probably some actually converted out of believe as well. However, historically, the Jews had their own historical “inquisitions” and killed many people who would not convert to their religion.

The verse says noting about Greeks and Pagans -- it is speaking of people in the 127 of Persia and Media. It also shows that they lived as Jews, unlike your claim that there were non-Jews who lived among Judeans in Judea but did not become "Judeans." I'm not sure what historical inquisitions you have in mind in which Jews killed people for not becoming Jews. Can you provide some sources for this?

Ester 8:17 just told you of “many people of other nationalities” lived among the Jews in the example you just gave me.

But they lived among the Jews AS Jews. This was taking place in Persia so the ones who did not convert remained Persians. This does not support any contention that in the kingdom of Judah there were people who were not Jews but who lived among the Jews.

Yes, you are correct. Read your own statement. You have just admitted that this was a “catch-all term” for “people who lived among the Children of Israel”. That was my point as well.

But the text shows that the people who lived among were all Jews whose title of "Israelite" showed allegiance to the laws of Judaism.

Many individuals lived in the Kingdom of Judah that were not Jews, such as the mityahadim.

Um, if they were mityahadim, becoming Jews then you can't say that they lived among but were not Jews. You contradict yourself within the same sentence.

Before they were Jews, they may have been called “Jews” but in fact, were not “Jews”.

No, before they were Jews they were not called Jews.

For example, greeks and pagans also lived in the area inhabited by the Kingdom of Judah.

You keep saying this but have not provided any evidence of it.

Sure : Judges 2:11 And the Israelites did evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals.

The work of the prophets was so often messages of repentance to try to bring idolatrous Israel back to their God and away from idolatry and other practices that were inconsistent prophetic religion.

The prophet speaks to the Jews who don't follow their own laws. The text reads "Children of Israel" (not "Israelites") and this refers to those bound in the Mosaic covenant under the laws which would eventually be known as Judaism. So this verse says nothing about non-Jews living among the Jewish people.

 

[Clear]

Hi @rosends

1)REGARDING WHETHER NON-JEWS (PAGANS) WERE PRESENT AMONG JEWS

Clear said : “Mityahadim” were non-Jews (Gentiles) who professed to be Jews or became Jews, mostly because of fear of Jews they lived among as Ester 8:17 tells us “ And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.” (NIV)

Thus the verse points out that there were “many people of other nationalities” that lived among the Jews and many of them “became Jews” because of fear of the Jews. Probably some actually converted out of believe as well. However, historically, the Jews had their own historical “inquisitions” and killed many people who would not convert to their religion. (post #186)

Rosends claimed : The verse says noting about Greeks and Pagans -- it is speaking of people in the 127 of Persia and Media. It also shows that they lived as Jews, unlike your claim that there were non-Jews who lived among Judeans in Judea but did not become "Judeans." (post #187)



It doesn't really matter what country the pagan/strangers living among the israelites came from (though prisoner lists were said to contain many greek names).

The point is that pagan, non-Jews were almost always in the mix in Jewish states and many did NOT adopt either the prophetic religion (nor the later Judaic religions). Simply living among Jews does not make one a Jew.

I do not understand why you want to support the claim that no pagans or individuals from other nations mixed into the Jewish States anciently.


The verse in Ester says that “many people of other nationalities” became Jews because of the fear of the Jews had seized them. The verse does NOT show they lived like Jews, simply that they either claimed to be jews or to adopt the appearances of being Jews (perhaps some did convert out of belief and live like Jews) but this is not the historical meaning of this verse.

For example :

Rabbi Shaye J.D. Cohen of Harvard and also professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary New York (professor/rabbi/Jew who taught Jewish history as well as Hebrew literature and philosophy) tells us that the Hebrew term “mityahadim” reflects a particular violent expression of Jewish power.

He relates that ’Professed to be Jews’ is the meaning of the Hebrew mityahadim.

He tells us that historically “The simple meaning of the Hebrew…is not that many non-Jews converted to Judaism but that they pretended to be Jews: they professed themselves to be something they were not. They did so because they feared for their lives; the Jews had just been given carte blanche by the king to kill their enemies, and therefore many gentiles pretended to be Jews in order to protect themselves” ( from the book “The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties”. Location 2022 of 6465).

The Jewish Journal itself (April 2016 - cut and past below) also describes the Mityahadim as Gentiles “who professed to be Jews”. This does not mean they actually converted or lived their lives as Jews. It also describes the meaning of the word "Jew" just as I claimed. It originally meant a member of the tribe of Judah, later it was used to designate those of the kingdom of Judah.

There has almost been some mixing of nationalities among Israel just as there is nowadays. For examples :

Lev 17:8 : And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice,…

Lev 17:10 : And whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

Lev 17:13 : And whatsoever man [there be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.

Lev 19:34 [But] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God.

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; (i.e. NOT a follower of a Jewish religion...) he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Lev 25:45 : Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that [are] with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Deut 10:19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Lev 17:10 And whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

Lev 19:34 [But] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God.

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Deut 24:14 Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant [that is] poor and needy, [whether he be] of thy brethren, or of thy strangers that [are] in thy land within thy gates:

Deut 31:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go [to be] among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them. (This verse has more to do with the claim that challenges whether an israelite is mentioned "who was not following the code of law which the later religion called "Judaism" claimed it followed)

2 Chron 2:17 And Solomon numbered all the strangers that [were] in the land of Israel, after the numbering wherewith David his father had numbered them; and they were found an hundred and fifty thousand and three thousand and six hundred.

2 Chron 15:9 And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Manasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance, when they saw that the LORD his God [was] with him.

2 Chron 30:25 And all the congregation of Judah, with the priests and the Levites, and all the congregation that came out of Israel, and the strangers that came out of the land of Israel, and that dwelt in Judah, rejoiced.

Isaiah 2:6 Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and [are] soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.

Isaiah 14:1 For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

Jer 3:13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD.

Eze 44:7 In that ye have brought [into my sanctuary] strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, [even] my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant because of all your abominations.

Eze 47:22 And it shall come to pass, [that] ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.


Is there some reason why you do not want to admit that Israel and the Kingdom of Judah had non-Jews and strangers and gentiles professing to be Jews (or to live Jewish laws) among them?



2) REGARDING IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS NOT FOLLOWING THE CODE GIVEN THEM BY GOD (i.e. their religious code)

Rosends Challenged : "Can you show any textual evidence of this? Is there any mention of an Israelite who was not following the code of law which would later be known as "Judaism"? (post #183)

Clear responded : Judges 2:11 And the Israelites did evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals.

Rosends claims : The prophet speaks to the Jews who don't follow their own laws. The text reads "Children of Israel" (not "Israelites") and this refers to those bound in the Mosaic covenant under the laws which would eventually be known as Judaism. So this verse says nothing about non-Jews living among the Jewish people

Yes, it speaks of the sons/children of Israel (i.e. the Israelites) who were doing evil (disobedient) by not following the code of Law given them by God. This was the challenge you put before me. This specific challenge has nothing to do with whether non-Jews lived among Jews.

If you are going to try to obscure or change the subject between sentences, or play with semantics, this will make our conversation much more difficult and more confusing for readers.

I will look up references for the atrocities committee by the Jewish population upon ancient non Jews since you asked for examples.

Clear

 

[rosends]

@clear

It doesn't really matter what country the pagan/strangers living among the israelites came from (though prisoner lists were said to contain many greek names).

The point is that they were NOT in Israel so there is no question of their being “Israelites.” They were among JEWS in Persia and they adopted the religion. So the claim that they lived among Jews but not as Jews is wrong. Now, the commentators do discuss the sincerity and completeness of their conversion, but the word is used to indicate a shift in identification in terms of religion. They were still Persians. And this was not because of an inquisition.

The point is that pagan, non-Jews were almost always in the mix in Jewish states and many did NOT adopt either the prophetic religion (nor the later Judaic religions). Simply living among Jews does not make one a Jew.

Except that the non-Jews here were not in a “Jewish state” and were not called “Yehudim” until they did become Jews so on both fronts, your claim fails.

I do not understand why you want to support the claim that no pagans or individuals from other nations mixed into the Jewish States anciently.

There is no question that non-Jews lived among Jews in many places. I don’t know why you claim that they were therefore CALLED anything which identified Jews. You have yet to show any proof that the people in Israel were called “Israelites” if they were not Jewish. The use of “mityahadim” proves that non-Jews were only known as such AFTER they converted.

The verse in Ester says that “many people of other nationalities” became Jews because of the fear of the Jews had seized them. The verse does NOT show they lived like Jews, simply that they either claimed to be jews or to adopt the appearances of being Jews (perhaps some did convert out of belief and live like Jews) but this is not the historical meaning of this verse.

It IS the historical meaning of the verse. You can claim, like some commentators that they didn’t formally convert but adopted the appearance, or the monotheism, or professed love for the Jews, but the use of the word indicates that that they got some sort of label after a change, not before.

Rabbi Shaye J.D. Cohen of Harvard and also professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary New York (professor/rabbi/Jew who taught Jewish history as well as Hebrew literature and philosophy) tells us that the Hebrew term “mityahadim” reflects a particular violent expression of Jewish power.

Don’t worry – I know who Shaye is. He was friends with my family and I recall, as a young man, eating meals at his house, with his (then) wife and daughter.

He tells us that historically “The simple meaning of the Hebrew…is not that many non-Jews converted to Judaism but that they pretended to be Jews: they professed themselves to be something they were not. They did so because they feared for their lives; the Jews had just been given carte blanche by the king to kill their enemies, and therefore many gentiles pretended to be Jews in order to protect themselves” ( from the book “The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties”. Location 2022 of 6465).

What he is doing is referencing specific commentators who connect the word “mityahadim” to the claim of fear. Emanuel of Rome says that because of fear many attested to loving Jews and the Torah even if they didn’t fully convert, while Ibn Yahya says that this refers specifically to descendants of Amalek because they knew they were targeted. The Ohr Chadash says that they (specifically, the weak commoners) affiliated themselves with Jews, not necessarily converted. But this would mean that the word “Yehudi” would be applied to allies who live amongst the Jewish people without converting, thus undercutting your statement that one doesn’t become a “Jew” just by living among them. Other, older commentators (Rashi) say that the transition was through complete conversion while some (Ralbag) quote both opinions. The Talmud discusses the status of someone who converts out of fear – some opinions say that the convert is accepted, some say he isn’t.

The Jewish Journal article, if you notice, puts quotes around the “professing to be Jews” section but provides no citation for that interpretation. As I said, it can be found among some commentators, but not others.

There has almost been some mixing of nationalities among Israel just as there is nowadays. For examples :

You have 2 problems here – one is that, yes, there were non-Jews among Jews, but they were never called Israelites, Judeans or Jews. The other is that the translation you are using has “stranger” for the Hebrew word ger. In the biblical (Pentateuchal) text, the word ger has a variety of meanings. In these cases, most commentators see it as meaning “convert” so that would render your claim empty.

As for the Chronicles quotes, they indicate the presence of people in the kingdom of Judah from other tribes. It also shows the presence of converts (see the Metzudat David on the Ch II 30:25 – “אשר נתגיירו מן האומות”

Is there some reason why you do not want to admit that Israel and the Kingdom of Judah had non-Jews and strangers and gentiles professing to be Jews (or to live Jewish laws) among them?

Is there some reason that you want to insist that those who were not Jews were called by the same national name? All you have done is shown that non-Jews converted which would explain any reference to them as Jews.

2) REGARDING IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF AN ISRAELITE WHO WAS NOT FOLLOWING THE CODE GIVEN THEM BY GOD (i.e. their religious code)

You do not serve yourself by misrepresenting what I said. Either that or you have completely missed the point. You claimed

Thus, while all ethnic Jews are Israelites, not all Israelites are Jews. This is why the historical claim that “Hebrews=Israelites=Jews” is, historically, incorrect.

So I asked whether you could give any proof of anyone who is textually called an Israelite but who is not a follower of the laws that would be considered “Judaism.” This does not ask whether there were Jews who didn’t follow their own laws, but whether you can find a label of “Israelite” who, in the text, isn’t also a Jew. You then tried to defend your position by quoting

Clear responded : Judges 2:11 And the Israelites did evil in the sight of the LORD and served the Baals.

And I explained that this is not about non-Jews called “Israelites” but about Jews (children of Israel) who don’t follow their own laws. So this doesn’t support your contention.

This specific challenge has nothing to do with whether non-Jews lived among Jews.

Yes, it does, because that is the essence of your claim: that there were people called Israelites who were not Jews. If you are going to forget what it was you were trying to prove, or rely on translations that change what the Hebrew says, then you aren’t going to convince anyone of anything.

 

[Hawkins]

I commonly read Christians posting on here saying something like: 'The Jews expected a warrior messiah who would be a king..' etc. etc. So I ask the Christians now: why do you think the Jews expected and/or expect this? Could you cite any verses in the Tanakh to this effect? If the Jews were near uniformly expecting such a messiah this belief must be backed up with something. What is that something?

The reasoning starts with something failed to convey. Christianity is about how God has a message for all mankind and the message is tied to the death or life of humankind. Judaism doesn't convey such a message. It's thus optional for humans to choose to believe or reject God. In today's world there are only 20 mil. Jews and with only 2 mil orthodoxical jews still upholding the Mosaic Law. Aparantly in accordance to today's Judaism, God doesn't have a salvation message of humankind as Judaism is limited to 2 mil. Jews and saves no one.

On the other hand, Christianity has an explicit command of "preaching the good news of salvation to all nations" for humans to be saved through the narrow gate (not as narrow as 2 mil Jews though). So either you choose to believe God is a dummy as today's Judaism trying to portray, or God does have a salvation message He commanded to convey to all nations through Christiantiy. If the former is true, God is a dummy for you to ignore. You don't need to do anything specifically. If the latter is true, then the Jews must have missed out the true Messiah while we humans (both Jews and gentiles) need to do something filfulling God's requirement specified in the New Covenant in order to be saved.

So it boils down to either you choose to prepare for the best (i.e., God is a dummy), or you choose to prepare for the worst where God has a crucial message for humankind tieing to our salvation. Symbolically the Jews are no longer authenticated ever since the Temple is taken out from them in the AD70 siege. The continuity of God's effort on human salvation has been swtiched to Christianity (from Temple to Church).

 

[Rival]

The reasoning starts with something failed to convey. Christianity is about how God has a message for all mankind and the message is tied to the death or life of humankind. Judaism doesn't convey such a message. It's thus optional for humans to choose to believe or reject God. In today's world there are only 20 mil. Jews and with only 2 mil orthodoxical jews still upholding the Mosaic Law. Aparantly in accordance to today's Judaism, God doesn't have a salvation message of humankind as Judaism is limited to 2 mil. Jews and saves no one.

On the other hand, Christianity has an explicit command of "preach the good news of salvation to all nations" for humans to be saved through the narrow gate (not as narrow as 2 mil Jews though). So either you choose to believe God is a dummy as today's Judaism trying to portray, or God does have a salvation message He commanded to convey to all nations through Christiantiy. So if the former is true, God is a dummy for you to ignore. You don't need to do anything specifically. If the latter is true, then the Jews must have missed out the true Messiah while we humans (both Jews and gentiles) need to do something filfulling God's requirement specified in the New Covenant in order to be saved.

So it boils down to either you choose to prepare for the best (i.e., God is a dummy), or you choose to prepare for the worst where God has a crucial message for humankind tieing to our salvation. Symbolically the Jews are no longer authenticated ever since the Temple is taken out from them in the AD70 siege. The continuity of God's effort on human salvation has been swtiched to Christianity (from Temple to Church).

This doesn't answer my question at all.

 

[Hawkins]

This doesn't answer my question at all.

That answers exactly your question. Further reasoning on why the Jews have missed out the true Messiah is the possibility that they have the wrong expectation. That said, history cannot be proved. So your ask could possibly the same as what evidence shows the Biden won the election but not Trump. Humans don't keep evidence and they don't rely on evidence to confirm a historical truth either.

 

[Clear]

1) Regarding the Claim that the Kingdom of Judah was an ethically “Pure” state having not a single gentile in it

Clear said : “It doesn't really matter what country the pagan/strangers living among the israelites came from (though prisoner lists were said to contain many greek names).” (post #188) The point here simply concerns "non-Jews" of ANY nationality amongst the Jews.

Rosends responded : “The point is that they were NOT in Israel so there is no question of their being “Israelites.” They were among JEWS in Persia and they adopted the religion.” (post #189)

You are misinterpreting and thus misconstruing my statement regarding the names on prisoner lists. The lists are of prisoners taken captive WITH the Jews from Judah,. The pagan names among the prisoner lists are of those taken prisoner from the Kingdom of Judah. Thus, your attempt to spin Judah as an ethically pure state by misinterpreting my statement does not work.

These non-jews are among the Jews.



2) Regarding Rosends admission that there were Mitayahadim (non-Jews) among the Jews

While you claim they all adopted the Jewish religion, The scripture in Ester agrees with historians, including rabbi historians that tell us this is not so.

Even your own introduction of the Mityahadim (non-jews) which YOU admitted were in Israel were not actual converts to Judaism but merely ’Professed to be Jews’ as the historian Rabbi Shaye tells us..

Rabbi tells us that historically “… not that many non-Jews converted to Judaism but that they pretended to be Jews: they professed themselves to be something they were not. They did so because they feared for their lives; the Jews had just been given carte blanche by the king to kill their enemies, and therefore many gentiles pretended to be Jews in order to protect themselves” ( from the book “The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties”. Location 2022 of 6465).

You claim to know Rabbi Shaye. Good for you. It is irrelevant since he disagrees with your theory of Jewish Purity in Judah.



3) Regarding Rosends theory that there were non Jews (Mitayahadim) among Jews, but this still doesn't mean there were non-Jews (Mitayahadim or otherwise) among the Jews
Not only do you admit that there were non-Jews (Mitayahadim) among the Jews but We have evidence from historical records of Non-Jews among the Jews anciently, and before the state of israel, after the state of israel, intermarriage before and during the Babylonian captivity, Samaritans who intermarried, etc. You admitted the Mityahadim were among the Jews. Historians tell us you are wrong regarding their complete conversion. Later Jewish coins had both Greek and Hebrew imprinted on them (indicating the main non-Jewish source of commerce at specific times in Israels history). Judah becames part of the Greek empire with alexander.

So, we have pagans among Jews anciently, not so anciently, and, as you pointed out, the Mityahadim in Judah, intermarriage with non-Jews before and during the Babylonian captivity, intermarriage and non-jews among the Jews after returning from captivity.

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE FOR ROSENDS THEORY OF JEWISH PURITY IN THE JEWISH KINGDOM?

If your theory is that during the specific period when Judah was a Kingdom, all non-jews left Judah, what evidence do you have that the Jews cleaned out their cities of all non-Jews during the specific period when the Kingdom of Judah existed?



4) ANOTHER ADMISSION BY ROSENDS THAT THERE WERE NON-JEWS AMONGST ISRAEL THAT REMAINED NON-JEWS.
REGARDING IRRATIONAL CONCLUSIONS

Rosends, read your own statement: You say these non-jewish individuals “live amongst the Jewish people without converting”. This supports my point that non-Jews lived amongst the Jewish people “WITHOUT CONVERTING”.

Here is your statement :

Rosends said : “The Ohr Chadash says that they (specifically, the weak commoners) affiliated themselves with Jews, not necessarily converted. But this would mean that the word “Yehudi” would be applied to allies who live amongst the Jewish people without converting, thus undercutting your statement that one doesn’t become a “Jew” just by living among them.” (POST #189)

Even your own statement says non-Jews lived amongst the Jews “without converting”.
You then come to the bizarre conclusion that this somehow (on some planet) means one becomes a Jew by living among them.

I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE MITAYAHADIM (NON-JEWS) AMONG ISRAEL.
I STRONSTLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE NON-JEWISH ALLIES WHO LIVED AMONGST THE JEWISH PEOPLE WITHOUT CONVERTING.

Thus, the conclusion is clear. There were "non-Jews" who lived amongst the Jewish people without converting.


Clear

 

[rosends]

Aparantly in accordance to today's Judaism, God doesn't have a salvation message of humankind as Judaism is limited to 2 mil. Jews and saves no one.

That bespeaks a lack of understanding about Judaism. The notion of "saving" is what is alien. God has a message for all and a plan for all and a role for all. It just has nothing to do with that phantom notion of "saving".

 

[Hawkins]

TThe notion of "saving" is what is alien.

So you agree with me that today's Judaism has dummified God so that humans have no reason to believe God as God has nothing to do with "save".

 

[rosends]

1) Regarding the Claim that the Kingdom of Judah was an ethically “Pure” state having not a single gentile in it

As I never said that, responding to it is silly.

You are misinterpreting and thus misconstruing my statement regarding the names on prisoner lists. The lists are of prisoners taken captive WITH the Jews from Judah,. The pagan names among the prisoner lists are of those taken prisoner from the Kingdom of Judah. Thus, your attempt to spin Judah as an ethically pure state by misinterpreting my statement does not work.

But I never said that. If you read what I wrote, I actually said the exact opposite. What I said is that there is no textual proof that the non-Jews living in Judea were called either Israelites or Judeans. Additionally, intuiting ethnicity from names is rife with problems.

While you claim they all adopted the Jewish religion, The scripture in Ester agrees with historians, including rabbi historians that tell us this is not so.

This is not what I said. I really wish you would characterize my statements accurately. I said that there were commentators that said they converted fully and some that said they didn't convert fully. I even discussed a few varying degrees of the possible conversion and mentioned the talmudic response to that.

You claim to know Rabbi Shaye. Good for you. It is irrelevant since he disagrees with your theory of Jewish Purity in Judah.

Since I never used the phrase "Jewish Purity in Judah" attributing it to my position is dishonest and irresponsible. I explained (had you read, you would have seen) that R. Cohen was reflecting one specific classic commentator about this one situation.

3) Regarding Rosends theory that there were non Jews (Mitayahadim) among Jews, but this still doesn't mean there were non-Jews (Mitayahadim or otherwise) among the Jews

"Mityahadim" does not mean "non-Jews." It means "becoming Jews". If you don't know what a word means, you shouldn't use that word.

Not only do you admit that there were non-Jews (Mitayahadim) among the Jews but We have evidence from historical records of Non-Jews among the Jews anciently, and before the state of israel, after the state of israel, intermarriage before and during the Babylonian captivity, Samaritans who intermarried, etc. You admitted the Mityahadim were among the Jews. Historians tell us you are wrong regarding their complete conversion. Later Jewish coins had both Greek and Hebrew imprinted on them (indicating the main non-Jewish source of commerce at specific times in Israels history). Judah becames part of the Greek empire with alexander.

And yet none of this means that non-Jews were called Jews, Judeans or Israelites, which was your claim.

IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE FOR ROSENDS THEORY OF JEWISH PURITY IN THE JEWISH KINGDOM?

You are asking (in all caps, for some reason) for evidence for something I never said. Why do you do that? Why not read what I wrote and approach it with intellectual honesty and integrity?

If your theory is that during the specific period when Judah was a Kingdom, all non-jews left Judah, what evidence do you have that the Jews cleaned out their cities of all non-Jews during the specific period when the Kingdom of Judah existed?

But since that isn't my theory, all you have done is set up a straw man because you can't support what you are supposedly, actually arguing.

You then come to the bizarre conclusion that this somehow (on some planet) means one becomes a Jew by living among them.

It is bizarre when the text says "mityahadim" but there is apossibility that they did NOT convert? They received the title simply by living amongst and publicly affiliating themselves.

You have yet to say anything that would, even remotely, support your claim that there were non-Jews/Judeans living among the Jews/Judeans or non-Israelites living among "Israelites" who were called by those names.

You should really work on following through with your own claims and supporting your own position with evidence. Thus far you have moved away from what you stated and just misrepresented what I wrote.

 

[rosends]

So you agree with me that today's Judaism has dummified God so that humans have no reason to believe God as God has nothing to do with "save".

No, I understand that the idea of "salvation" is a Christian one which has nothing to do with God and Judaism. Inventing an idea and then saying "Jews didn't focus on this" is a desperate attempt to delegitimize Judaism by inventing a new idea and claiming that it should matter to anyone else.

 

[Clear]

Hi @rosends

Summary of the discussion so far :

Post #173 IndigoChild5559 claimed the words “Hebrews”, “Israelites” and “Jews” were interchangeable.

Post #174 Clear disagreed, saying historically, “Israelite" referred to the 12 tribes while "Jews" referred first to the tribe of Judah and later to members of the kingdom of JUDAH. All tribes at that time were "isaelites" but not all were jews.

Post #175 IndigoChild5559 Claimed that because some of the 10 “lost tribes” of the north fled to Judah, they then were “Jews” because some of them fled to and then lived in Judah.

Post #179 Clear claimed that living among Jews did not make anyone a “Jew”, neither another tribe nor a non-Jew.

This is the original issue. Did simply living among Jews make one a “Jew”. This is important because in the last two posts, Rosends will say in a bizarre twist that my claim that a non-Jew could be called an "Israelite" or a "Jew".



Post #183 : Rosends admits there were mityahadin (non-Jews who either adopted Judaism or “professed” Judaism without necessarily adopting it)

After admitting there were Mityahadin among the Jews, Rosends asked if I had evidence of non-Jews (pagans) who lived among Jews in Judah. However, the Mityahadin WERE, by definition, non-jews before they professed Judaism.

(Ester 8:17 says “ And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.” (NIV).

Many, but NOT ALL professed to believe in Judaism. Thus, some remained non-Jews.



Rosends said regarding the term “Jew” : This was a catch-all term for people who lived among the children of Israel.

This is important because my point was that despite using the “Catch-all” term “Jew” for those who lived among the children of Israel, were not, in fact, “Jews” just as not all individuals who live in Russia are Russian. For example, I lived in Germany for years but was not german and living there did not make me a german.



Post #186 Clear responds Many individuals lived in the Kingdom of Judah that were not Jews, such as the mityahadim (Before they were Jews) may have been called “Jews” but in fact, were not “Jews”. It was, as you said, a “catch-all” term.

Post #187 Rosends says : if they were mityahadim, becoming Jews then you can't say that they lived among but were not Jews.”

I'm not sure what historical inquisitions you have in mind in which Jews killed people for not becoming Jews. Can you provide some sources for this?

I will look up the atrocities the Jews committed against non-Jews for details and references since Rosends requested them. - Clear



Post #188 Clear responded regarding the Mityahadin and Ester 8:17 And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.” (NIV :

The point is that pagan, non-Jews were almost always in the mix in Jewish states and many did NOT adopt either the prophetic religion (nor the later Judaic religions). Simply living among Jews does not make one a Jew.

THE DEFINITION OF MITYAHADIN

Rabbi Shaye J.D. Cohen of Harvard and also professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary New York (professor/rabbi/Jew who taught Jewish history as well as Hebrew literature and philosophy) tells us that the Hebrew term “mityahadim” reflects a particular violent expression of Jewish power.

He relates that ’Professed to be Jews’ is the meaning of the Hebrew mityahadim.

He tells us that historically “The simple meaning of the Hebrew…is not that many non-Jews converted to Judaism but that they pretended to be Jews: they professed themselves to be something they were not. They did so because they feared for their lives; the Jews had just been given carte blanche by the king to kill their enemies, and therefore many gentiles pretended to be Jews in order to protect themselves” ( from the book “The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties”. Location 2022 of 6465).

The Jewish Journal itself (April 2016 - cut and past below) also describes the Mityahadim as Gentiles “who professed to be Jews”. This does not mean they actually converted or lived their lives as Jews. It also describes the meaning of the word "Jew" just as I claimed. It originally meant a member of the tribe of Judah, later it was used to designate those of the kingdom of Judah.

Post #189 Rosends admits : “There is no question that non-Jews lived among Jews in many places.”

This is what I have been claiming all along. If you are now admitting this, then we are in agreement.



Rosends said : You have yet to show any proof that the people in Israel were called “Israelites” if they were not Jewish.

The Other eleven were children of Israel their Father, but they were not originally "Jews" or of Judah. It is only in later history that the term "Jew" becomes, (as you, yourself said), a "catch-all" term.



ROSEND MAKES TWO CONFLICTING STATEMENTS IN THIS SINGLE POST.
THE FIRST SAYS "JEW" (YEHUDI) WAS APPLIED TO THOSE WHO LIVE AMONGST THE JEWS AND THE SECOND FOLLOWING STATEMENT CLAIMS THEY WERE NEVER CALLED JEWS :

FIRST Rosends said : The Ohr Chadash says that they (specifically, the weak commoners) affiliated themselves with Jews, not necessarily converted. But this would mean that the word “Yehudi” would be applied to allies who live amongst the Jewish people without converting, thus undercutting your statement that one doesn’t become a “Jew” just by living among them.

My claim remains confirmed by your own statement. You need to read what you wrote.
In the case you relate, the non-jew is simply being “called” a Jew but in fact is not a “Jew”. One does not become a “Jew” simply by living among jews.

When I lived in Germany, I was called a German. I remained American regardless of what I was called. If someone calls me a “cat” or a “horse”, the name does not change the reality.

However, your claim above that one can become a “Jew” because the name “Yehudi” (“Jew”) was applied to them is the opposite of your claim below.

THEN Rosends said : yes, there were non-Jews among Jews, but they were never called Israelites, Judeans or Jews.

So, which is it. Were the non-jews “never called Israelites, Judeans or Jews” as you claimed or was “the word ‘Yehudi” …applied to non-jewish allies who lived among the people without converting.



Rosends said : Is there some reason that you want to insist that those who were not Jews were called by the same national name?

You are either not reading my posts or you do not understand English or for some other reason you are confused.
My claim has ALWAYS BEEN that non-jews are NOT Jews and cannot BECOME Jews by simply living among Jews and it is historically incorrect to call them Jews. Your reversal of my claim is bizarre.



Rosends said : Yes, it does, because that is the essence of your claim: that there were people called Israelites who were not Jews.

This sort of response is why we are told NOT to drink and drive.
See my response above regarding your very bizarre reversal of my position.



Post #193 Clear said :
I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE MITAYAHADIM (NON-JEWS WHO CONVERTED) AMONG ISRAEL.
I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE NON-JEWISH ALLIES WHO LIVED AMONGST THE JEWISH PEOPLE WITHOUT CONVERTING.





Post #196 rosends said : What I said is that there is no textual proof that the non-Jews living in Judea were called either Israelites or Judeans.

We have always been in agreement on this point. My claim was that one did not become a “Jew” simply by living among the Jews.

If one is not a Jew, they should not be called a Jew.

However, historically, originally, if they were from another tribe in the Kingdom of Israel such as Benjamin, or Asher, or Ephraim, etc, then they were certainly one of the children of Israel and thus an “Israelite”, but they would not be a “Jew” (i.e. from the tribe of Judah).



Post #196 rosends said : "Mityahadim" does not mean "non-Jews." It means "becoming Jews". If you don't know what a word means, you shouldn't use that word.

I agree that you should not use a word if you do not know what it means. Here is the meaning of Mityahadim that I already gave you in post #188.

Post #196 rosends said : And yet none of this means that non-Jews were called Jews, Judeans or Israelites, which was your claim.

Your flipped conclusion is very bizarre for me and readers both.

My claim has always been that one is not a Jew simply by living among Jews. You and I agree on this point. Are you not reading my posts? Non Jews should not be called Jews.
If you are not going to read my posts or cannot understand my claims, ask me for clarification. What did I say that allowed you to come to this bizarre conclusion?


Post #196 rosends said : You have yet to say anything that would, even remotely, support your claim that there were non-Jews/Judeans living among the Jews/Judeans or non-Israelites living among "Israelites" who were called by those names.

Again, this is simply a restatement of a very, very bizarre claim. Non-Jews should not be called a “Jew” despite your admission that “Jew” was a “catch-all” term. You need to read your own posts. In post #183 YOU admitted “This was a catch-all term for people who lived among the children of Israel.”

Whether it is a “catch-all” term or not, It is improper to call a non-Jew a Jew and no one is a Jew simply by living among Jews.



Your change in position and sudden mischaracterization of my position is bizarre and strange.

Clear

 

[rosends]

Clear wrote: This is the original issue. Did simply living among Jews make one a “Jew”. This is important because in the last two posts, Rosends will say in a bizarre twist that my claim that a non-Jew could be called an "Israelite" or a "Jew".

Clear cited a historical event and wrote "[Greeks and Pagans] may have all been referred to as “Jews” but Historically, this is incorrect."

It is incorrect but I have yet to see where it ever happened. I have asked for any evidence that they were called Jews (rightly or wrongly) but none has been presented.

Clear wrote: “A "Jew" is, historically, from the single tribe of Judah and it came to signify the kingdom of Judah. A "Jew" may also be an adherent to the "Jewish" religion. These are two different things.”

I pointed out that this is wrong. Historically, “Jew” meant someone from the kingdom of Judah regardless of tribal affiliation and that there was no distinction between the national affiliation and the religion. I also stated that the religion was what developed for the entirety of the 12 tribes so the Kingdom of Israel (when its population followed religious law) was following what would later be known as “Judaism” so they were, in that sense, “Jews” even if their existence predated the specific term.

Clear characterized my statement, "After admitting there were Mityahadin among the Jews,"

Admitting? I was the one who brought it up.

Clear wrote: Rosends asked if I had evidence of non-Jews (pagans) who lived among Jews in Judah. However, the Mityahadin WERE, by definition, non-jews before they professed Judaism.

But not in the kingdom of Judah, and not before they did anything like converting. There is no evidence that they were called “Judean”, “Jew” or “Israelite” either in Judah or before they converted in Persia..

Clear wrote: This is important because my point was that despite using the “Catch-all” term “Jew” for those who lived among the children of Israel, were not, in fact, “Jews” just as not all individuals who live in Russia are Russian. For example, I lived in Germany for years but was not german and living there did not make me a german.

Your claim was “not all Israelites are Jews” but you have yet to show any proof of this. And you mispresent what I wrote (more on this at the end).

Clear wrote: Many individuals lived in the Kingdom of Judah that were not Jews, such as the mityahadim (Before they were Jews) may have been called “Jews” but in fact, were not “Jews”. It was, as you said, a “catch-all” term.

I never said it was a catch all for non-Jews. There is no evidence that a non-Jew was called a Jew. And the "mityahadim" refers to events in Persia so no proof can be adduced regarding events in Judah.

Reposting all the same stuff from earlier posts that I responded to does not make the content any more useful to your argument.

According to your cited Wikipedia entry, non-Jews who lived among the kingdoms were not called Israelites, so your argument that the term applied to non-Jews fails.

Clear wrote: The Other eleven were children of Israel their Father, but they were not originally "Jews" or of Judah. It is only in later history that the term "Jew" becomes, (as you, yourself said), a "catch-all" term.

It becomes a descriptor of the kingdom and the religion of the kingdom. Since that religion is that of the children of Israel, those tribes from the kingdom of Israel are reckoned as Jews as well. The claim that not all Israelites are Jews fails on all but the most narrow and semantic level. If that’s where you limit your argument, then have fun.

Note this quote "Issachar, one of the 12 tribes of Israel that in biblical times constituted the people of Israel who later became the Jewish people. "

So Britannica uses the term "Jewish" to refer to the people from the 12 tribes, not the 1, 2 or 3 tribes.

Or this statement, "Israel and Judah co-existed for about two centuries, although they often fought each other. Israel also fought against a non-Jewish kingdom called Moab"

The inference is clear -- the kingdom of Israel was "Jewish" (otherwise it would make no sense to point out that it fought a "non-Jewish" kingdom).

Clear wrote: ROSEND MAKES TWO CONFLICTING STATEMENTS IN THIS SINGLE POST.
THE FIRST SAYS "JEW" (YEHUDI) WAS APPLIED TO THOSE WHO LIVE AMONGST THE JEWS AND THE SECOND FOLLOWING STATEMENT CLAIMS THEY WERE NEVER CALLED JEWS :

Actually, I pointed out 2 different understandings by commentators and showed how either

1. those living among the Jews were called Yehudim because they converted (so no argument can be made that the term was applied to non-Jews before they converted)

Or

2. those living among the Jews (not converting) WERE called “Jews” so your statement that simply living among a group does not confer the name of the group is wrong.

You have yet to show any Israelites who were not Jews, except by the strict chronological development of the term.

Remember, this was your statement “Thus, while all ethnic Jews are Israelites, not all Israelites are Jews”

You have yet to show me anyone who was an Israelite who was not a Jew unless your entire point is that the term is anachronistic even if it is theologically accurate.

If that is the limit of your argument then just say so. It isn’t an especially innovative or useful one, but if it is yours, own it.

Clear wrote: However, historically, originally, if they were from another tribe in the Kingdom of Israel such as Benjamin, or Asher, or Ephraim, etc, then they were certainly one of the children of Israel and thus an “Israelite”, but they would not be a “Jew” (i.e. from the tribe of Judah).

This, again, limits itself to a time based claim as those of the Children of Israel were all subscribed to the same religious tenets (for more on this, see here), the ones which would later be labeled “Jew”. As shown, calling them Jews might not fit your particular limited, semantic argument, but it certainly isn't inaccurate. Here is another quote to consider, "Moses is born during the Jewish enslavement in Egypt," Notice the labeling of the slaves in Egypt (well before the kingdom) as "Jewish."

Clear wrote: I agree that you should not use a word if you do not know what it means. Here is the meaning of Mityahadim that I already gave you in post #188.

You don’t actually present the meaning of the word. You present understandings of the context in which the word was used and what behavior it labeled.

Clear wrote: In post #183 YOU admitted

“This was a catch-all term for people who lived among the children of Israel.”

Reread post 183. I wrote
---------
“"And the son of a Yisra᾽elite woman, whose father was a Miżrian man, went out among the children of Yisra᾽el: and this son of the Yisra᾽elite woman and a man of Yisra᾽el strove together in the camp;"

There was no geography, nor was there a separate nation of Judah yet. This was a catch-all term for people who lived among the children of Israel.”
---------
The ”this” refers to the term Israelite. It applied to all who were of the 12 tribes (and converts to the nation in biblical times). It did not apply to anyone else (unless you can show me that textually it did). If you want to keep referring to something I wrote, pay attention to what I actually wrote.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi @rosends

Summary of the discussion so far :

Post #173 IndigoChild5559 claimed the words “Hebrews”, “Israelites” and “Jews” were interchangeable.

Post #174 Clear disagreed, saying historically, “Israelite" referred to the 12 tribes while "Jews" referred first to the tribe of Judah and later to members of the kingdom of JUDAH. All tribes at that time were "isaelites" but not all were jews.

Post #175 IndigoChild5559 Claimed that because some of the 10 “lost tribes” of the north fled to Judah, they then were “Jews” because some of them fled to and then lived in Judah.

Post #179 Clear claimed that living among Jews did not make anyone a “Jew”, neither another tribe nor a non-Jew.

This is the original issue. Did simply living among Jews make one a “Jew”. This is important because in the last two posts, Rosends will say in a bizarre twist that my claim that a non-Jew could be called an "Israelite" or a "Jew".



Post #183 : Rosends admits there were mityahadin (non-Jews who either adopted Judaism or “professed” Judaism without necessarily adopting it)

After admitting there were Mityahadin among the Jews, Rosends asked if I had evidence of non-Jews (pagans) who lived among Jews in Judah. However, the Mityahadin WERE, by definition, non-jews before they professed Judaism.

(Ester 8:17 says “ And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.” (NIV).

Many, but NOT ALL professed to believe in Judaism. Thus, some remained non-Jews.



Rosends said regarding the term “Jew” : This was a catch-all term for people who lived among the children of Israel.

This is important because my point was that despite using the “Catch-all” term “Jew” for those who lived among the children of Israel, were not, in fact, “Jews” just as not all individuals who live in Russia are Russian. For example, I lived in Germany for years but was not german and living there did not make me a german.



Post #186 Clear responds Many individuals lived in the Kingdom of Judah that were not Jews, such as the mityahadim (Before they were Jews) may have been called “Jews” but in fact, were not “Jews”. It was, as you said, a “catch-all” term.

Post #187 Rosends says : if they were mityahadim, becoming Jews then you can't say that they lived among but were not Jews.”

I'm not sure what historical inquisitions you have in mind in which Jews killed people for not becoming Jews. Can you provide some sources for this?

I will look up the atrocities the Jews committed against non-Jews for details and references since Rosends requested them. - Clear



Post #188 Clear responded regarding the Mityahadin and Ester 8:17 And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.” (NIV :

The point is that pagan, non-Jews were almost always in the mix in Jewish states and many did NOT adopt either the prophetic religion (nor the later Judaic religions). Simply living among Jews does not make one a Jew.

THE DEFINITION OF MITYAHADIN

Rabbi Shaye J.D. Cohen of Harvard and also professor at the Jewish Theological Seminary New York (professor/rabbi/Jew who taught Jewish history as well as Hebrew literature and philosophy) tells us that the Hebrew term “mityahadim” reflects a particular violent expression of Jewish power.

He relates that ’Professed to be Jews’ is the meaning of the Hebrew mityahadim.

He tells us that historically “The simple meaning of the Hebrew…is not that many non-Jews converted to Judaism but that they pretended to be Jews: they professed themselves to be something they were not. They did so because they feared for their lives; the Jews had just been given carte blanche by the king to kill their enemies, and therefore many gentiles pretended to be Jews in order to protect themselves” ( from the book “The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties”. Location 2022 of 6465).

The Jewish Journal itself (April 2016 - cut and past below) also describes the Mityahadim as Gentiles “who professed to be Jews”. This does not mean they actually converted or lived their lives as Jews. It also describes the meaning of the word "Jew" just as I claimed. It originally meant a member of the tribe of Judah, later it was used to designate those of the kingdom of Judah.


View attachment 80709
View attachment 80710
View attachment 80711
View attachment 80712


Post #189 Rosends admits : “There is no question that non-Jews lived among Jews in many places.”

This is what I have been claiming all along. If you are now admitting this, then we are in agreement.



Rosends said : You have yet to show any proof that the people in Israel were called “Israelites” if they were not Jewish.

The Other eleven were children of Israel their Father, but they were not originally "Jews" or of Judah. It is only in later history that the term "Jew" becomes, (as you, yourself said), a "catch-all" term.



ROSEND MAKES TWO CONFLICTING STATEMENTS IN THIS SINGLE POST.
THE FIRST SAYS "JEW" (YEHUDI) WAS APPLIED TO THOSE WHO LIVE AMONGST THE JEWS AND THE SECOND FOLLOWING STATEMENT CLAIMS THEY WERE NEVER CALLED JEWS :

FIRST Rosends said : The Ohr Chadash says that they (specifically, the weak commoners) affiliated themselves with Jews, not necessarily converted. But this would mean that the word “Yehudi” would be applied to allies who live amongst the Jewish people without converting, thus undercutting your statement that one doesn’t become a “Jew” just by living among them.

My claim remains confirmed by your own statement. You need to read what you wrote.
In the case you relate, the non-jew is simply being “called” a Jew but in fact is not a “Jew”. One does not become a “Jew” simply by living among jews.

When I lived in Germany, I was called a German. I remained American regardless of what I was called. If someone calls me a “cat” or a “horse”, the name does not change the reality.

However, your claim above that one can become a “Jew” because the name “Yehudi” (“Jew”) was applied to them is the opposite of your claim below.

THEN Rosends said : yes, there were non-Jews among Jews, but they were never called Israelites, Judeans or Jews.

So, which is it. Were the non-jews “never called Israelites, Judeans or Jews” as you claimed or was “the word ‘Yehudi” …applied to non-jewish allies who lived among the people without converting.



Rosends said : Is there some reason that you want to insist that those who were not Jews were called by the same national name?

You are either not reading my posts or you do not understand English or for some other reason you are confused.
My claim has ALWAYS BEEN that non-jews are NOT Jews and cannot BECOME Jews by simply living among Jews and it is historically incorrect to call them Jews. Your reversal of my claim is bizarre.



Rosends said : Yes, it does, because that is the essence of your claim: that there were people called Israelites who were not Jews.

This sort of response is why we are told NOT to drink and drive.
See my response above regarding your very bizarre reversal of my position.



Post #193 Clear said :
I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE MITAYAHADIM (NON-JEWS WHO CONVERTED) AMONG ISRAEL.
I STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ADMITTING THAT THERE WERE NON-JEWISH ALLIES WHO LIVED AMONGST THE JEWISH PEOPLE WITHOUT CONVERTING.





Post #196 rosends said : What I said is that there is no textual proof that the non-Jews living in Judea were called either Israelites or Judeans.

We have always been in agreement on this point. My claim was that one did not become a “Jew” simply by living among the Jews.

If one is not a Jew, they should not be called a Jew.

However, historically, originally, if they were from another tribe in the Kingdom of Israel such as Benjamin, or Asher, or Ephraim, etc, then they were certainly one of the children of Israel and thus an “Israelite”, but they would not be a “Jew” (i.e. from the tribe of Judah).



Post #196 rosends said : "Mityahadim" does not mean "non-Jews." It means "becoming Jews". If you don't know what a word means, you shouldn't use that word.

I agree that you should not use a word if you do not know what it means. Here is the meaning of Mityahadim that I already gave you in post #188.


View attachment 80713


Post #196 rosends said : And yet none of this means that non-Jews were called Jews, Judeans or Israelites, which was your claim.

Your flipped conclusion is very bizarre for me and readers both.

My claim has always been that one is not a Jew simply by living among Jews. You and I agree on this point. Are you not reading my posts? Non Jews should not be called Jews.
If you are not going to read my posts or cannot understand my claims, ask me for clarification. What did I say that allowed you to come to this bizarre conclusion?


Post #196 rosends said : You have yet to say anything that would, even remotely, support your claim that there were non-Jews/Judeans living among the Jews/Judeans or non-Israelites living among "Israelites" who were called by those names.

Again, this is simply a restatement of a very, very bizarre claim. Non-Jews should not be called a “Jew” despite your admission that “Jew” was a “catch-all” term. You need to read your own posts. In post #183 YOU admitted “This was a catch-all term for people who lived among the children of Israel.”

Whether it is a “catch-all” term or not, It is improper to call a non-Jew a Jew and no one is a Jew simply by living among Jews.



Your change in position and sudden mischaracterization of my position is bizarre and strange.

Clear

A good summary.

Regards