Maternal Lineage (Judaism)

[dantech]

Shermana,

Did my kabbalistic explanation satisfy you? You haven't debated my answers to you. Nor do you have to. But I would like to know where you stand on my explanation

 

[Shermana]

A person born to a Jewish mother is a real Jew and a person converted is a real Jew.

A baby adopted and converted is a real Jew.

What is so difficult to understand???

Judaism is inherited, it is not a race, those born are Jews those converted are Jews.

What do you not understand???

No, What's so difficult to understand about my question?

I think I've made it clear 10x by now that I understand that a convert is considered a Real Jew, the child of a convert is considered a real Jew, and an adopted Newborn is NOT considered a real Jew until they are converted. (At least according to Rabbinical Judaism). I can't tell if you don't understand what I'm asking or what, but it does seem odd that several here have repeatedly dodged the question by merely repeating the same claim which I'm asking the REASON for.

The problem here may be a difficulty in coming to terms with what exactly "race" means and its difference between the "Biological foundation". And this is itself is an issue worthy of its own thread. At what point does a person's offspring not count as their "race".

The question is, why does a Bloodborn newborn of a Convert not need to be converted but an adopted child needs to be converted? There's clearly a Biological segregation between one bloodborn newborn of a Jew (Converted or not) and an adopted newborn. That is the issue at stake. The question is....WHY.

Like others, instead of answering the question, you've merely repeated the same claim that I'm asking for an explanation for.

However, the question has already been answered by Harmonious as "we don't know, it just is".

With that said, it's quite clear that Levites and Cohens must come from a direct descendent of Levi and Cohen. Now if that's not a "racial" element, by all means, what is?

 

[Shermana]

All the souls, today, are existing souls who are in need of a Tikkun (fixing). This comes from our notion of Gilgulim and Tikkun Olam. The souls we inherit have existed for thousands of years and are returned to earth, multiple times, until they are able to repair and annul all the sins they committed during a previous life.

That's pretty much what I believe, Dantech. The souls that we are, inside these vehicles of flesh we call "Bodies", are thousands and thousands of years old (not millions though), and we are reincarnated multiple times, this is not too far removed from Hassidic and Kaballic thought on the matter, and I believe it's what the early Nazarene Jews and Essenes (at least some of them) did too. Those born as Israelites were selected for such, but there's also a certain "Hierarchy" even within that. To be born as an Israelite, in my belief, is a sign that your soul has been elevated for whatever reason. And this elevation can go even higher or it can be lost, Levites and Cohens would be the highest of this hierarchy in my belief. However, as Harmonious pointed out, Moses was a Levite, so your answer about non-Levites being possibly able to go higher than a Levite wouldn't apply according to that logic.

It's pretty much almost what the Eastern beliefs teach about Samsara, that we must relive and relive until we have purified and glorified our souls to the highest possible level, and if we fail, we descend on the ladder. The difference however, is that Torah is the Ultimate Rubric of how we do this.

Perhaps you can help show some of the exact Kabbalic writings that specify this so I can have some ammo for this in discussion.

According to Kabballah, when one dies, and knows all that is "tweaking" his soul away from being pure, he cries out to God to give him a second chance and send him back.

Exactly, when we depart these vehicles of flesh, and we see our account and how impure we've become, we seek to be reborn to correct ourselves...but there's much more to it than this, I believe we are reborn according to our "Karma" or the amount of honor and impurity we have achieved. Some may be quite content to be impure and are reborn as such.

An example, in our case, would be about someone who purposely left Judaism in another life. In this life, he might come back as a goy who, to make his Tikkun, needs to convert to Judaism.

I most certainly believe that one who abandons TORAH may be reborn as a goy, and a goy who adopts Torah may be incarnated as an Israelite, no question there.

So we're pretty much 100% in agreement here, Achi. Perhaps just a difference of opinion on who gets incarnated as what.

 

[jazzymom]

The question is, why does a Bloodborn newborn of a Convert not need to be converted but an adopted child needs to be converted? There's clearly a Biological segregation between one bloodborn newborn of a Jew (Converted or not) and an adopted newborn. That is the issue at stake. The question is....WHY.

A person born to a Jewish mother is a Jew and an adopted child was born to a person probably not Jewish so is not Jewish. When the child is adopted into a Jewish family they undergo conversion to become Jewish and thus become part of the Jewish family and the larger Jewish community.

I believe it is not race it is the spark or soul each Jewish person has. When a person becomes Jewish and they come out of the mikveh they have a Jewish soul.

Many believe that those who have such a longing to be Jewish already have a Jewish soul and the conversion brings them back to their family.

I believe that it is not about race but about the essence of our souls.

For me it just is and it is not hard to understand.

Judaism is not a race because we are of many races and we live all over the world.

But we are connected in our Jewishness.

 

[dantech]

That's pretty much what I believe, Dantech. The souls that we are, inside these vehicles of flesh we call "Bodies", are thousands and thousands of years old (not millions though), and we are reincarnated multiple times, this is not too far removed from Hassidic and Kaballic thought on the matter, and I believe it's what the early Nazarene Jews and Essenes (at least some of them) did too. Those born as Israelites were selected for such, but there's also a certain "Hierarchy" even within that. To be born as an Israelite, in my belief, is a sign that your soul has been elevated for whatever reason. And this elevation can go even higher or it can be lost, Levites and Cohens would be the highest of this hierarchy in my belief. However, as Harmonious pointed out, Moses was a Levite, so your answer about non-Levites being possibly able to go higher than a Levite wouldn't apply according to that logic.

It's pretty much almost what the Eastern beliefs teach about Samsara, that we must relive and relive until we have purified and glorified our souls to the highest possible level, and if we fail, we descend on the ladder. The difference however, is that Torah is the Ultimate Rubric of how we do this.

Perhaps you can help show some of the exact Kabbalic writings that specify this so I can have some ammo for this in discussion.



Exactly, when we depart these vehicles of flesh, and we see our account and how impure we've become, we seek to be reborn to correct ourselves...but there's much more to it than this, I believe we are reborn according to our "Karma" or the amount of honor and impurity we have achieved. Some may be quite content to be impure and are reborn as such.



I most certainly believe that one who abandons TORAH may be reborn as a goy, and a goy who adopts Torah may be incarnated as an Israelite, no question there.

So we're pretty much 100% in agreement here, Achi. Perhaps just a difference of opinion on who gets incarnated as what.

One really annoying problem I have, is that I find myself very rarely taking notes, and often rely on my memory. For that reason, I often find myself forgetting the source of what I learned. I could look it up for you. I am pretty certain that this specific subject is explained in the Tanya, but it's not 100%. I will be looking it up as soon as I have a moment and let you know.

I should really keep a notebook...

 

[dantech]

And of course, the fact that Levites and Cohenites cannot be made from converts, there's absolutely NO "racial" factor involved with the religion. None. Because "biological" and "race" mean something different....somehow....somewhere.

Biological, and race do mean different things. They may have variables that match, but are definitely not the same thing. When we say Biological, we think of the characteristics of the organisms that constitute the body. Sure, people from the same race, will more often than not share some of these characteristics. However, two people from different races might share some of these characteristics as well... Does that automatically make them of the same race? The simple fact that Judaism allows converts, shows that Judaism is not a race. You could say Hebrews are a race, but not Jews.

Fortunately this thread is being taken to the debates so you all won't be getting away this soon.

I have no intention to go anywhere. If I am able to, I will answer all your questions, as long as a certain respect is kept, as well as this argument staying civil.

 

[Shermana]

I have no intention to go anywhere. If I am able to, I will answer all your questions, as long as a certain respect is kept, as well as this argument staying civil.

You've been friendly and directly answering with reasonable answers, Dan. When I posted that, as you can see, I was getting constant dodges, non-answers and repeats of the same claims I was asking the reason for.

The simple fact that Judaism allows converts, shows that Judaism is not a race. You could say Hebrews are a race, but not Jews.

The last sentence throws a nice curve ball into the equation. There is indeed a HEBREW race factor that can be applied to Levites and Cohens. I will agree that with converts included, the Rabbinical concept of "Judaism" is not so much a race but an ethnicity as they used the term earlier, however, to deny the HEBREW racial factor that still applies to priests, and the fact that only a Maternal bloodborn newborn counts as a Real Jew without conversion, is to deny reality and thus it's not COMPLETELY "just an ethnicity". At some point, we have to be able to call a "Biological connection" some form of a "racial connection". If a Japanese person converts to Judaism and has a baby, it's considered a "Real Jew", no problem there. But if the Japanese convert adopts a newborn, it's not until it converts later in life. At what point do we make the dividing line then between a "biological connection" within the "ethnicity" (i.e. if there was no factor, an adopted newborn would be considered a "Real Jew" as well) and the defacto racial connection?

 

[dantech]

At some point, we have to be able to call a "Biological connection" some form of a "racial connection".

It's more like a spiritual connection, if we are talking about Jews. If we are talking about Hebrews, then it is a racial/biological connection.

If a Japanese person converts to Judaism and has a baby, it's considered a "Real Jew", no problem there.

Exactly, and by agreeing with this point, you are agreeing that race doesn't play a role in the question of Jew or Non-Jew.

But if the Japanese convert adopts a newborn, it's not until it converts later in life. At what point do we make the dividing line then between a "biological connection" within the "ethnicity" (i.e. if there was no factor, an adopted newborn would be considered a "Real Jew" as well) and the defacto racial connection?

The reason why it is not considered a Jew is simply because it hasn't inherited the essence of royalty (Malchut) that is within a Jewish mother. Just like I explained in an earlier post, if we understand the reason behind the reason why the mother is the carrier of the "Jewish Gene", we understand that it's really a spiritual thing and not a physical thing that can be translated into Race or Ethnicity.

I think the problem we are having in this thread is that we all have different definitions to the word Jew.

Many people confuse the meaning of Jew with the meaning of Hebrew.
Many think that a Jew is someone who practices the Jewish Law. Many others will think that people are Jewish if they are born from a Jewish mother. Many people will also think that if you are born of a Jewish father, and Non-Jewish mother, that you are a half Jew. The meaning of the word, in general, is too vague.

According to Judaism, a Jew is quite simply someone who has taken upon himself, or has inherited the responsibility of following the 613 Jewish laws. This brings into play the ones who are born from a Jewish mother and the converts. That's it, that's all. Now, just because the majority of the Jews, according to Judaism, will end up being descendants of Hebrews doesn't mean that they are of Jewish race. All it means is that they are of Hebrew race, and Jewish according to Jewish law. I personally disagree with a Jewish race even existing. That's like saying that if I were to convert to Islam, that I am arab.

 

[Shermana]

It's more like a spiritual connection, if we are talking about Jews. If we are talking about Hebrews, then it is a racial/biological connection.

So at what point did we no longer become "Hebrews" but Jews exactly? If we're talking about Levites and Cohens, then there is indeed a 100% undeniable Hebrew race factor.

Exactly, and by agreeing with this point, you are agreeing that race doesn't play a role in the question of Jew or Non-Jew.

Sorta. Only religiously speaking in Rabbinical terms for those of the "Jewish religion". However, again, because Levites and Cohens are such a crucial element, there is at least a semblance and trace of this. In addition, there's no reason to assume that the Foreign wives in Ezra 10 refused to convert. There's no reason to assume that Canaanites were not allowed to convert.

Now with that said, as long as the natural-born newborn is considered a "Real Jew" while the Adopted newborn isn't, there still is a biological-racial factor, even if the person isn't a "Racial Hebrew". So long as there is segregation between natural born Newborns and Adopted ones, the word "Race" may apply nonetheless in some form, because of this biological consideration. Regardless if the Mother was of the same "Race" as us Hebrews.

The reason why it is not considered a Jew is simply because it hasn't inherited the essence of royalty (Malchut) that is within a Jewish mother.

That's a possibly solid explanation, but it still means that there is now a "Royal blood" factor. Even if they have a "Spiritual factor", there's still a Biological issue with who is of "Royal Blood" and who isn't. Hence, "race".

Just like I explained in an earlier post, if we understand the reason behind the reason why the mother is the carrier of the "Jewish Gene", we understand that it's really a spiritual thing and not a physical thing that can be translated into Race or Ethnicity.

But it's still physical, even with the "Spiritual implication". Royal blood vs Adopted blood. Regardless whether the mother is of the Hebrew race.

I think the problem we are having in this thread is that we all have different definitions to the word Jew.

Indeed. Perhaps I should call myself Hebrew instead from now on to avoid this landmine that the word has become.

Many people confuse the meaning of Jew with the meaning of Hebrew.

I think you're on to something here.

Many think that a Jew is someone who practices the Jewish Law. Many others will think that people are Jewish if they are born from a Jewish mother. Many people will also think that if you are born of a Jewish father, and Non-Jewish mother, that you are a half Jew. The meaning of the word, in general, is too vague.

Exactly.

According to Judaism, a Jew is quite simply someone who has taken upon himself, or has inherited the responsibility of following the 613 Jewish laws.

Which is why I emphasized that this is mainly a Rabbinical interpretation, not necessarily scriptural. There's ways one could interpret scripture to mean that converts may be part of the "Assembly" but not the actual "Tribe".

This brings into play the ones who are born from a Jewish mother and the converts. That's it, that's all Now, just because the majority of the Jews, according to Judaism, will end up being descendants of Hebrews doesn't mean that they are of Jewish race.

Well, if 99% of Jews are Hebrews, it's fair to say that the majority of Jews belong to the Hebrew race, and thus the "Jewish race" can technically be synonomous with "Hebrew race", with the idea that "a Jew" is not necessarily a Hebrew. With that said, there needs to be a concerted effort to avoid using the word "Jew" for any reason other than religious terms and to never, ever use it for anything involving race. But with that said, the issue of the "Royal blood", even in Spiritual terms, still remains.

All it means is that they are of Hebrew race, and Jewish according to Jewish law.

Okay, that I can see you on.

I personally disagree with a Jewish race even existing.

Then from now on, the word "Jewish" should never, ever, ever be used to identify an Atheist Jew, right? Or do natural born Jews retain being "Jews" even if they discard the Torah and belief in Hashem?

That's like saying that if I were to convert to Islam, that I am arab.

Only if we use the term "Jewish" to apply purely to Religion. So again, we should, by this conclusion, NEVER use the word "Jewish" to ever refer to our "bloodline" or ethnic makeup again. It should be HEBREW from now on, can we agree to that?

 

[dantech]

So at what point did we no longer become "Hebrews" but Jews exactly?

Well, the first time, in Jewish texts, that we see Hebrews named as Jews is in the Megilat Esther, which took place in 357 BCE.

If we're talking about Levites and Cohens, then there is indeed a 100% undeniable Hebrew race factor.

There is definitely a race factor, but let me say this. The race is not the reason why these people end up being Cohanim or Levites. The race is simply a coincidence to the fact that these people were born with their father having a Levite's or a Cohen's soul.

Sorta. Only religiously speaking in Rabbinical terms for those of the "Jewish religion". However, again, because Levites and Cohens are such a crucial element, there is at least a semblance and trace of this. In addition, there's no reason to assume that the Foreign wives in Ezra 10 refused to convert. There's no reason to assume that Canaanites were not allowed to convert.

Now with that said, as long as the natural-born newborn is considered a "Real Jew" while the Adopted newborn isn't, there still is a biological-racial factor, even if the person isn't a "Racial Hebrew". So long as there is segregation between natural born Newborns and Adopted ones, the word "Race" may apply nonetheless in some form, because of this biological consideration. Regardless if the Mother was of the same "Race" as us Hebrews.

Again, this all depends on your meaning of Jew. If we define "Jew" as the rabbinical term, then this again has nothing to do with racial or biological characteristics.

That's a possibly solid explanation, but it still means that there is now a "Royal blood" factor. Even if they have a "Spiritual factor", there's still a Biological issue with who is of "Royal Blood" and who isn't. Hence, "race".

Again, I know I am being repetitive, but this is completely a Spiritual factor. It might fit the definition of race but it is only a coincidence. However, what I am saying is only true if we understand the word "Jew" for its Rabbinical explanation.

But it's still physical, even with the "Spiritual implication". Royal blood vs Adopted blood. Regardless whether the mother is of the Hebrew race.

There will be a physical factor that will apply to the vast majority, but this factor plays absolutely no role in Judaism, it is strictly spiritual.

Indeed. Perhaps I should call myself Hebrew instead from now on to avoid this landmine that the word has become.

That's your call! However, even though I think it is very important to know the difference between the two, I still think we should all keep the title of Jewish in regards to the rest of the world, simply because it is important for our livelihood that we keep our unity, regardless of how we go about serving God.

I think you're on to something here.

Good, at least we're getting somewhere.

Which is why I emphasized that this is mainly a Rabbinical interpretation, not necessarily scriptural. There's ways one could interpret scripture to mean that converts may be part of the "Assembly" but not the actual "Tribe".

Definitely Rabbinical.

Well, if 99% of Jews are Hebrews, it's fair to say that the majority of Jews belong to the Hebrew race, and thus the "Jewish race" can technically be synonomous with "Hebrew race", with the idea that "a Jew" is not necessarily a Hebrew.

I think that because of the exception that not all Jews are Hebrews, that it is actually NOT synonymous. That's like saying that because all bulldogs are dogs, that all dogs are bulldogs... except for the ones that aren't... (not the greatest example, but I couldn't think of another one. This one will have to do )

With that said, there needs to be a concerted effort to avoid using the word "Jew" for any reason other than religious terms and to never, ever use it for anything involving race. But with that said, the issue of the "Royal blood", even in Spiritual terms, still remains.

I think I made pretty clear, how I feel about this. If you don't believe I am right, then we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Okay, that I can see you on.

Great

Then from now on, the word "Jewish" should never, ever, ever be used to identify an Atheist Jew, right? Or do natural born Jews retain being "Jews" even if they discard the Torah and belief in Hashem?

It is not in their rights to discard the Torah. They could choose to not apply any of it, but It still applies to them. For example, anyone could run red lights, speed, and not stop at stop signs. However, when the police officer arrests you, be prepared to lose points, money, and possibly your car. This is regardless of if that person believed or didn't that police officers and the law of the city existed.

Only if we use the term "Jewish" to apply purely to Religion. So again, we should, by this conclusion, NEVER use the word "Jewish" to ever refer to our "bloodline" or ethnic makeup again. It should be HEBREW from now on, can we agree to that?

Definitely.

 

[Harmonious]

Dan, Jews have been called Hebrews in Chumash (Pentateuch). Consider Eved Ivri. Jonah called himself Ivri.

Calling Jews "Jews", or Yehudim, regardless of tribe (or lack thereof) of origin, was in Megillat Esther.

 

[dantech]

Dan, Jews have been called Hebrews in Chumash (Pentateuch). Consider Eved Ivri. Jonah called himself Ivri.

Calling Jews "Jews", or Yehudim, regardless of tribe (or lack thereof) of origin, was in Megillat Esther.

Isn't that what I said?

Well, the first time, in Jewish texts, that we see Hebrews named as Jews is in the Megilat Esther, which took place in 357 BCE.

He didn't ask when they were called Hebrews, he asked when they were called "Jews" or "Yehudim".

Maybe I'm just not getting what you are trying to point out...

 

[Shermana]

I understand that we see the word "Jew" first used in Esther. And Esther is also dated to the 3nd century B.C. by many, and some say that the word means "Judean" rather than "Jew".

My question was however when this started happening. I would imagine it started before Esther was written. And if it does in fact mean "Judean" (one from Judea rather than "Jew") this throws the whole thing upside down. It would be similar to referring to someone from 'The Kingdom of Judah".

 

[Harmonious]

Isn't that what I said?

He didn't ask when they were called Hebrews, he asked when they were called "Jews" or "Yehudim".

Maybe I'm just not getting what you are trying to point out...

It's been a stressful couple of days. I misunderstood what I read.

I'll try not to post again until after a restful Shabbat.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's been a stressful couple of days. I misunderstood what I read.

I hope you're OK. Shabbat shalom ...

 

[Harmonious]

I hope you're OK. Shabbat shalom ...

Thank you. Shabbat Shalom m'vorach.

 

[dantech]

I understand that we see the word "Jew" first used in Esther. And Esther is also dated to the 3nd century B.C. by many, and some say that the word means "Judean" rather than "Jew".

My question was however when this started happening. I would imagine it started before Esther was written. And if it does in fact mean "Judean" (one from Judea rather than "Jew") this throws the whole thing upside down. It would be similar to referring to someone from 'The Kingdom of Judah".

I honestly don't know. I will have to look it up to be able to give you an answer. I would assume it was shortly after Matan Torah, and therefore the beginning of Judaism as a Religion, but I'm probably wrong as I am only guessing at this point.

 

[Levite]

It seems to me that we could avoid a lot of friction by avoiding loaded language like "race" and "racial," and by not trying to constrain the phenomenon of Judaism into boxes which it does not fit. The problem with trying to compartmentalize Judaism into either a national idenity, or an ethnic identity, or a religious-philosophical identity is that it just won't fit neatly into any of those boxes: it spans all three in various elements, and for this reason must be addressed flexibly, as a comparatively unique identity structure.

It cannot be questioned that there is a concern in Judaism about descent and bloodlines. We count our identity matrilineally as Jews, we count tribal affiliation (Levi'im, Kohanim, etc.) patrilineally. And we have generally been crystal clear that, when a non-Jew converts to Judaism, we account their bloodline (that is, their own identity, and, if they are female, the identity of any children they may produce after having converted) as Jewish-- not just Jewish by legal formality, but just as Jewish as if they had been born to Jewish parents down all the generations.

(It's also worth noting that, while technically, a non-Jewish child converted to Judaism prior to their legal majority is given a right of recanting the conversion upon attaining their majority, in practice, we do not use this technicality. The "window" for such an individual recanting is considered to be a split instant, essentially rendering it impossible for someone to really make use of the technical window of opportunity for recanting conversion. This is precisely because it has more or less universally been deemed that such a "window" for recanting is a loophole that undesirably creates the misperception amongst people that a child converted prior to the age of legal majority is somehow less than fully Jewish. But the halachah is quite clear that in all cases, once a conversion has been executed properly according to the law, it is absolute and utterly valid and binding. It cannot ever be considered anything but valid and effective, which means that we cannot permit recanting; the same principle is also why the abhorrent practice now increasingly seen in the Haredi communities of retroactively invalidating the conversions of converts who converted Haredi but then left the Haredi community into which they converted is halachically invalid, and a gross perversion of the law.)

But I think we have also been fairly constant in understanding that the concerns of bloodline and identity are purely in service of the cohesion and persistence of the Jewish People, to prevent assimilation into other cultures and adopting of non-Jewish practices, and to ensure that no one is held to unfair expectations. After all, non-Jews are not obligated to keep the mitzvot, and Jews are obligated to keep the mitzvot: it serves everyone's interest to be clear on who everyone is, so that we know what to expect of them.

And in general, save for a few more fanatical nutters, we have been pretty good about recognizing that these boundaries of identity are there for reasons of socioreligious integrity and halachic clarity. They are not there to highlight differences, or to assert claims of superiority, or to serve as foundations upon which to build irrational polemics against non-Jews.

 

[dantech]

My question was however when this started happening. I would imagine it started before Esther was written. And if it does in fact mean "Judean" (one from Judea rather than "Jew") this throws the whole thing upside down. It would be similar to referring to someone from 'The Kingdom of Judah".

Well, Yehudi was used, originally, only for the ones from the Tribe of Judah. After the death of King Solomon, the Children of Israel were split up into two kingdoms. The Kingdom of Judah consisted of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, as well as scattered Hebrews from other tribes.
This all happened soon after King Solomon's death in 931 BCE. in 722 BCE,the Assyrians conquered and deported the northern kingdom. The southern kingdom start being called Yehudim sometime between 931 BCE, and 722 BCE. The ten lost tribes of the northern kingdom were never called Yehudim.

As you can see, even in that time, Yehudim only consisted of a small part of the descendants of Jacob(Israel). Also, Jewish scholars date the first conversion back to Yitro, who lived in the time of Moses(He was his father in law). There were many more converts before the word Yehudi even existed because Hebrews were all under the covenant of Moses and the Torah, or Jewish (in the religion sense). Later, the word "Yehudim" came to distinguish the population of the kingdom of Judah. Yehudim consisted of both descendants of Jacob and descendants of converts, as well as recent converts as well - all who accepted the Mosaic Law. This shows us that Judaism is not a race since people of different backgrounds have been joining it, and adding bloodlines to it, which can't be done in a race.

I have come to the conclusion that Judaism is a "Goy" (not in our modern sense, but in the ancient sense that means: A group of people with a common history, a common destiny, and a sense that we are all connected to each other.)

History: When someone converts to Judaism, he joins the Jewish people in their history as if it were their own. A convert is required to call himself Ben Avraham Avinu (Son of Abraham, our father) A man wouldn't call Abraham his father if he didn't agree to "change" his ancestry, and therefore, history.

Destiny The destiny of a convert, as well as a born Jew, is to accomplish God's will and get as close to him as we possibly can, as well as their return to the land that God promised them. (many different views on our destiny, but all will agree that the destiny is shared between converts and blood born Jews)

Connection to each other Our connection is the Torah. Our commandments are what connect us to each other. Even though someone might not be religious at all and may almost never follow the commandments, it is still these very commandments that connect us. Look at it this way...

If a Non-Jew is to transgress Shabbat, he has done nothing wrong because he hasn't the obligation to follow our laws. But for a Jew, the mitzvot of Shabbat are a component of his relationship with God: by observing them he is realizing this relationship and extending it to his daily life; if he violates them, God forbid, he is transgressing. He is acting contrary to the commitment which defines his identity. Therefore, in a certain sense, the fact of a Jew's transgression is no less an expression (albeit a negative one) of his relationship with God than his observance of a Mitzvah.

 

[Shermana]

Well, Yehudi was used, originally, only for the ones from the Tribe of Judah. After the death of King Solomon, the Children of Israel were split up into two kingdoms. The Kingdom of Judah consisted of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, as well as scattered Hebrews from other tribes.

Yes, originally, and as you say below it came to mean anyone from the Southern Kingdom. However, it appears that after the Split of the Kingdoms the word did in fact come to be used for "Judean" as in a member of the Kingdom and region, not the people itself. This would include non-converts as well, and so the word "Jew" didn't necessarily solely refer to members of the Religion and society but ANYONE in Judea.

We Don't Worship Human Beings: Part 1

An individual member of our people is called a “Yehudi” (Judean);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

After the splitting of the united Kingdom of Israel, the name Yehudi was used for the southern kingdom of Judah, Originally the name referred to the territory allotted to the tribe descended from Judah the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob (Numbers).

So we see that it's primary use was not for the people itself but their geography alone.

This all happened soon after King Solomon's death in 931 BCE. in 722 BCE,the Assyrians conquered and deported the northern kingdom. The southern kingdom start being called Yehudim sometime between 931 BCE, and 722 BCE. The ten lost tribes of the northern kingdom were never called Yehudim.

So yes, however it didn't apply to the members of the Tribe being called "Jews", it most likely meant Judeans. The fact that the 10 northern tribes were never called Yehudim proves this decisively that it wasn't a catch all word for Hebrews and converts, but merely a geographical designation.

As you can see, even in that time, Yehudim only consisted of a small part of the descendants of Jacob(Israel).

Yes, but later it seems the word could be used to apply to a Moabite who was just living in the Southern Kingdom who wasn't even necessarily a Noahide let alone a convert.

Also, Jewish scholars date the first conversion back to Yitro, who lived in the time of Moses(He was his father in law). There were many more converts before the word Yehudi even existed because Hebrews were all under the covenant of Moses and the Torah, or Jewish (in the religion sense).

I'd like to see this conversation and a link for this date.

Later, the word "Yehudim" came to distinguish the population of the kingdom of Judah.

Right.

Yehudim consisted of both descendants of Jacob and descendants of converts, as well as recent converts as well - all who accepted the Mosaic Law.

Apparently as well as NON converts. It became just a designation for residents of the Kingdom in general.

This shows us that Judaism is not a race since people of different backgrounds have been joining it, and adding bloodlines to it, which can't be done in a race.

Except for the Levites and Cohens of course.

I have come to the conclusion that Judaism is a "Goy" (not in our modern sense, but in the ancient sense that means: A group of people with a common history, a common destiny, and a sense that we are all connected to each other.)

That's one way of looking at it. However, even in the "ancient" sense, I don't think the word meant that, and that this is a modern Rabbinical definition. Back then, there would have been no word for the Jewish religion, it would simply be "The religion of the Hebrews" or something that still had a "Racial" designation. For instance, "Islam" would be called "The religion of the Arabs" in this regard. Only LATER did Judaism become "The religion founded by the Hebrews".