1) Regarding IndigoChild5559s’ personal theory that Hebrew=Israelite=Jews
IndigoChild5559 said : “I don't give a flying leap what the Didache says. I care what the Tanakh says. (post #175)
You are confused. No one referred to the Didache.
That is simply the name of the link where you introduced your personal theory where you claimed : "
Hebrews=Israelite=Jews". (IndigoChild5559 in post #32)
We are talking about your personal interpretation of what you read. The point is that your interpretation is, historically, incorrect.
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.
3) The "Ten lost tribes" (i.e. the "Kingdom of Isreal") are not "Jews" but are yet "Israelites"
As you become more familiar with the Tanakh and Jewish history, you will notice that the ten “lost” tribes that made up the Kingdom of Israel were not part of the kingdom of Judah (Jews),
yet they are of Israel.
Their descendants can certainly be from any other of the twelve tribes (and thus be an "israelite" and be a Christian, or Hindu, or athiest, etc. Thus, the majority of "Israelites" nowadays (if one can still be from one of the other eleven tribes....) may not be "Jewish" at all. Yet they remain an “Israelite” in origin. Without more data, one simply cannot know.
The pictures below are simply one version of the distribution of tribes and kingdoms
4) Mis-labeling or stereotyping does not create factual change of the nature of persons or things
You are mis-using the term “Jew” in this case.
For example, when the Kingdom of Judah was taken captive into Babylon, The Jews, the Ephraimites, Asherites, Gadites, Manasseh-ites, the greeks and pagans and other individuals taken captive with them may have all been referred to as “Jews” but Historically, this is incorrect. The pagans and Greek prisoners still remained pagans and greeks and not Jews.
While generalizations or improper use of cultural and racial terms happens all the time such as referring to all individuals living in Russian as "Russians" or referring to all individuals with brown skin as "Mexicans", still, this does not make a German living in russia, a "russian" nor does it make a Guatemalan, a "Mexican" simply by calling him one. Even derogatory usage of terms such as calling a "cheap" person a "Jew" simply because they are careful with their money is still as incorrect as it is improper. The Babylonia may have called all of their captives "Jews" in a non- specific and demeaning use of the term "jew".
I can call my Cat a "Jew" or a "Goldfish", but it still doesn't
make cat a "jew" or a "Goldfish" simply by using incorrect terms.
5) Personal interpretations of the Old Testament (Tanakh) do not create historical realities
While you may interpret the Old Testament (Tanakh) any way you want, your interpretation must remain in the world of personal opinion and personal dogma and it cannot survive in the religious historians world. You will simply have to accept that religious historians disagree with your theory and use words differently than you do.
Creating new historical theories is difficult and requires logic and supporting data (which your personal theory lacks). Because your theory lacks logic and supporting data, I can't imagine religious historians or linguists will ever have any interest in your theory or your personal interpretation on this specific point.
Re-defining historical definitions is difficult and fraught with problems when the theory underlying your redefinition lacks logic and sufficient historical data to support it.
Clear