Tweet

Welcome

Monday, September 30, 2013

ORIGIN OF THE WORD "JEW" by The Overlords of Chaos web site


"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all," The Jewish Almanac (1980)

Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a "Jew," moreover, that he was "King of the Jews." Thus, by inference, that the "Jews" were the "Chosen People" of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ's Mission and Passion no such people existed called "Jews" nor indeed did the word "Jew." In short: Jesus was NOT a "Jew" nor was he "King of the Jews."

In fact, Jesus is referred as a "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century; in the revised 18th century English language editions of the 14th century first English translations of the New Testament. The etymology of the word "Jew" is quit clear. Although "Jew" is a modern conception its roots lie in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is the 18th century contraction and corruption of the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome'sVulgate Edition and derived from the Greek word "Ioudaios." The evolution of this can easily be seen in the extant manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century, which illustrate not only the origin of the word "Jew" found in the Latin word "Iudaeus" but also its current use in the English language. Littered throughout these manuscripts are the many earlier English equivalents used by various chroniclers between the 4th and the 18th century. Thus, from the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" the evolution of these English forms is: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then, finally, the 18th century, "Jew." Similarly, the evolution of the English equivalents for "Jews" is: "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then, finally, in the 18th century, "Jews."

For example: two of the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are theRheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition and both contain the word word "Jew."Yet, when the English language version of the Rheims (Douai) New Testament was first printed in 1582 the word "Jew" did NOT appear in it. Similarly the King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English (begun in 1604) and first published in 1611, here too the word "Jew" did NOT appear. That is, the word "Jew" first appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions. The combination of the Protestant Reformation, the publication of the revised English language 18th century editions and the printing press (allowing unlimited quantities of the New Testament to be printed) meant the wide distribution of these English language Bibles throughout the English speaking world. That is, among people who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language but who were now in possession of one in their native tongue. And, although these 18th century editions first introduced the word "Jew" to the English language the word as it was used in these has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language.

Numerous copies of these revised 18th century English editions ( especially the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament) were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. And so, the new readers of these 18th century editions were introduced to a new word both to them and the English language, the word "Jew." For, these readers did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" and accepted it as the legitimate modern form of the ancient Greek "Ioudaios" and the Latin "Iudaeus." Thus, these new readers did not understand or care to question the meaning and use of the word "Jew" since it was a new English word to them. Consequently, the use of the word "Jew" was not only stabilised by these 18th century editions but also its anachronistic application to people and places fully established.

The original chroniclers used the Greek "Ioudaios" to denote people who lived in Judaea, that is, in English, for "Judaeans." Thus: "Ioudaia" in Greek is, in English, "Judaea" ( or "Judea") while "Ioudaios"in Greek is, in English, "Judaeans" (or "Judeans") Moreover, when the word "Jew" was first introduced by the redactors into the English language in the 18th century they intended its one and only application was to denote "Judaeans" (or "Judeans"). That is, they deemed them cognates (conveying identical implications, inferences and innuendoes) and so interchangeable. Thus, they meant that it makes no difference which of these two words is used when referring to the inhabitants of Judea during the time of Christ's Mission. However, since this time the implications, inferences, and innuendoes conveyed by these two words have radically changed and are now as different as black is from white. In short: today, the word "Jew" is never regarded as a synonym for "Judaean" (or"Judean") nor is "Judaean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew." The word has taken on a far different meaning, one wholly divorced from the original conception of the 18th century redactors.

This is its "secondary meaning" that has been carefully nurtured among the English speaking peoples of the world by a secret power intent upon exploiting its ancient power of association. This so-called"secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" has been assiduously cultivated during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries and bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word"Jew." It has succeeded to such a degree, that now most people in the English-speaking world can not comprehend the true nature of the word "Jew," its literal sense, and do not regard a "Jew" as a"Judaean." That is, understand the correct and only meaning of the word known to the 18th century redactors of the New Testament. In short: the word "Jew" in modern usage is a misrepresentation. The etymology of the word "Jew," first used in the revised 18th century English language editions of the New Testament, is uncomplicated: the original Greek word "Ioudaios" was derived from the Aramaic "Jehudhai," which referred to Judaeans, the residents of the Babylonian province of Judaea, and not as a reference to members of the tribe of Judah. That is, the modern English word "Jew" is a transliteration of an abbreviation or slang word coined by Babylonian conquerors for the enslaved Judaeans without any due regard to the race or religion of the captives. This indiscriminate use of the word "Jew" to refer to the diverse mass of races and religions then resident in Judaea is the application of an incorrect, modern colloquial idiom without regard or recognition of the true and Biblical meaning of the original words.

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto Him shall the gathering of the people be." (Gen. 49:10)

The meaning of the word "Jew" in the Bible is not the same as the commonly held modern view. In the Bible the word "Jew" is meant to refer to a resident of the land of Judaea. Moreover, it is a reference regardless of tribe, race or religion. Anyone who was an inhabitant of Judaea was a "Jew" and need not be a member of the tribe of Judah (Judahite) or one who followed the Judaic religion. Thus,"Jews" and "Jewry" in the Bible not only refer Judah (i.e. Jehudah or Juttah) but also a part of (or place in) Palestine and any other peoples who dwelt there. In the modern, colloquial idiom "Jews" are descendants of Judah while in the Bible it means anyone dwelling in Judaea regardless of lineage or ethnicity. Now, Judah was the largest and the most influential of the Twelve Tribes of Israel with the governing right whose sons where to provide the rightful kings of Israel. That is, they were the inheritors of the Bible Covenants but especially the Davidic Covenant. In short; the Chosen People of Yahweh. However, Jacob prophesied (Gen. 49:10) the tribe would only maintain its pre-eminence until"Shiloh," came who would then assume headship and receive the allegiance of true spiritual Israel as Isaiah 9:6-7 foretold. That is, when the Messiah arrived. This is why Jesus' lineage was established in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 to David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. So that when He took the sceptre from Judah all who receive Him as Messiah give Him their allegiance.

At the time of Christ's Mission, in the days of His flesh, few of the citizens of Judaea were Judahites, that is, direct descendants of Judah and so the "Chosen People"; the true recipients of the Bible Covenants. Following the destruction of David's Kingdom (its dismemberment first by Babylonians and then by Assyrian's) the forced depopulation of Israel and its people in Exile and bondage, their release by Cyrus the Great and their return and restoration of the Temple, the population of Palestine was very mixed. Although some did indeed belonged to the tribe of Judah and others to one of the other tribes of Israel, many others were descendants of other patriarchs, but, especially, of Esau. These were the Edomites who had been conquered and now assimilated and become co-religionists with the Judahites and remnants of the other tribes of Israel. Moreover, this mixed race were melded together by a hybrid religion developed during the captivity in Babylon. This is the religion of the Pharisee .... Pharisaism ... the man-made religion of the Talmud that is today called Judaism. This man-centred, man-made religion was the religion vehemently condemned by Christ since it is the antithesis of the Mosaic Law and the prophets and makes the Word of God of no effect (Matt. 15:1-9).

"After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for He would not walk in JEWRY, because the JEWS sought to kill Him."(John 7:1)

Here, the English word "Jewry" was translated from the Greek word "Ioudaia", which denoted the land of Judaea. This was acknowledged by modern redactors who chose not to use the word "Jewry" but the correct translation "Judaea." For example, in the New American Standard Bible:
"And after these things Jesus was walking in Galilee; for He was unwilling to walk in JUDAEA, because the JEWS were seeking to kill Him."(John 7:1)

Thus, Christ was unwilling to walk in Judaea – Jewry - because the Jews - the Judaeans - were seeking to kill Him. That is: Judaea = Jewry and Jews = Judaeans. A Jew is properly a Judaean and Jewry properly Judaea.

A modern misconception is that "the Jews" are direct descendants of Jacob and so the people of Israel, the true, biblical Israelites. However, by the time of Jesus, because of wars, enslavement, migrations and miscegenation, a Jew may or may not have descended from Jacob. He could have been descended from a number of patriarchs, especially Esau, since Edomites were then dominant in the racial mix. However, although a disparate racial mix the Jews by this time all recognised Pharisaism as their personal and state religion and NOT the Law of Moses. And so, a point of uttermost importance: someone who is called a "Jew" in the Bible is not necessarily a member of the tribe of Judah, a true Israelite, or even a Semite nor are they an essential part of the Yahweh's Chosen People, a follower of Moses and the prophets. In the Bible, a Jew is simply a resident of Judaea .... he is simply a Judaean ... with or without the special status arising from blood of the Covenant People. Yet, this fact of historical identity has been subverted by a secret force whose aim is to use the ancient yet special status of the true biblical Covenant People, the true Chosen People of Yahweh, for their own very dark designs. That is why this incredibly well organised and well-financed secret force created a "secondary meaning" for the new word "Jew," which is not the understanding intended by the 18th century redactors of the New Testament. That is, those who today call themselves Jews and arrogate the special status as God's Chosen People and all its privileges by claiming to be direct descendants of the tribes of Israel and of David, Judah, Jacob and Abraham. Millions claim this yet few of them are "Jews" in the proper sense as they are not "Judaeans" or residents of Judaea. That is: the so-called modern day Jews - the Modern Tribe of Jews - are not "the Jews" of the Bible. In other words, the Modern Tribe of Jews claiming the territory in Palestine that was Once the Holy Land are not the biblical Jews, they are not the true biblical Covenant People: they are not "returning" to their "Promised Land" because they were never there in the first place ...

Introduction to the word JEW in the Hebrew Bible

When, in 1604, James VI, King of Scotland became King James I of England, the first ruler of Great Britain and Ireland, he ruled a nation in religious and political turmoil. And, when a leading Puritan spokesman, Dr John Reynolds, proposed that a new English Bible be issued in honour of the new king, James, saw this as an opportunity to bring about a unity with the church service in Presbyterian Scotland and Episcopal England. The redaction began in 1604 and was completed and published in 1611 and this the new English Bible became known as the "Authorised Version" because its making was authorised by King James. This "Authorised Version" became the "Official Bible of England" and the only Bible of the Anglican church. There have been several revisions of the King James Bible in 1615, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769 with the most substantive changes occurring in the eighteenth century. Then, Dr Thomas Paris (1762) published an extensive revision at Cambridge while Dr Benjamin Blayney did the same at Oxford (1769). Blayney's redactions included much modernisation of spelling, punctuation, and expression, but, in which the exact words in the 1611 Bible first edition are used. It is this 1769 update by Blayney that is the basis of the modern King James Bible. Also, since 1885, 14 books representing the Apocrypha were "officially" removed from it. These Apocryphal books were included at the insistence of the king and, unlike the Rheims-Douai and other Roman Catholic Bibles that scattered them throughout the Old Testament, were placed between the Testaments.

Consequently, any modern, so-called "1611 Authorised King James Version" available today is NOT a facsimile of the original 1611 "Authorised Version" but a copy of the 1769 revision. Even those editions that may even proclaim "1611" in the frontispiece to promote sales are deceptions, for, they too are simply modern print runs of the Blayney's 1769 edition. These are editions in which the original text and words of the "1611 Authorised King James Version" have been altered with spellings revised and some words changed in almost every printing done since 1769 and, also, with fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features removed from almost every printing done since 1885. To get an original, un-redacted "1611 Authorised King James Version" is more problematic and far more expensive. Originals are rare and eminently collectible and fetch huge prices while facsimiles and exact photographic facsimile edition are less exorbitant but still expensive.

There are 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and not now nor was there ever an equivalent letter "J"; nor is there any Hebrew letter that carries even an approximate sound of the consonant letter "J." Furthermore, there is not a letter "J" in the Greek alphabet. In fact, although the letter "J" is firmly established as the tenth letter and seventh consonant in the English alphabet it is a recent addition to the English script. It was inserted in the alphabet after "I," from which it was developed and credited to Petrus Ramus (1515-1572) who first distinguish "I" and "J" as representing separate sounds. John 19:19 refers to the inscription Pontius Pilate had posted over Jesus' cross that in the Greek is "Ieous Nazoraios Basilius Ioudaios," which in modern Bibles is rendered: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" In the fourth century, Jerome translated the Bible from the Greek into Latin and his treatment of this verse in the Latin Vulgate was: "Iesus Nazerenus Rex Iudaeorum." The acronym of this verse used on Catholic statues, icons and imagery is "INRI" .... because there was no "J." TheWiclif, Wickliff or Wycliffe Edition published in 1380 is the earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition and in it Jesus is there mentioned as One of the "iewes." That is, the 14th century middle English version of the Latin "Iudaeus" pronounced "hew-weeze," in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular.

It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the use of "J" as an initial found common usage in English books. As such, all writers before this time were wholly ignorant of the letter "J." For instance, William Shakespeare never ever saw the word "Jew" never mind used the word in any of his works. In the Merchant of Venice first published in about 1600, Shakespeare wrote: "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?" Even the great lexicographer, Samuel Johnson, was unusually ambivalent in his use of the "J" letter, for, in his seminal English Dictionary of 1755 and 1756 words beginning with ancient "I" and the new letter "J" are interspersed. Moreover, although he defines "To Judaize" as "To conform to the manner of the Jews" in both editions he finds no room to list the word "Jew." The 1933 edition of The Oxford English Dictionary is helpful in this respect and lists the first published usage of the word "Jew." In 1653, by Greaves in his "Seraglio," 150. "In the King's Seraglio, the sultanas are permitted to employ divers Jewes-women about their ordinary occasions." By Sheridan in 1775 in his play "The Rivals," Act II, Scene I: "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew." And in 1700 by Bishop Patrick in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 28:37: "Better we cannot express the most cut-throat dealing, than thus, you use me like a Jew".

The 1841 English Hexapla is a compendium of six English translations of the New Testament, which are: the Wycliffe version of 1380 (the first English Scripture, hand-copied prior to Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1455), The Tyndale version of 1534-1536 (the first English printed Scripture), and Cranmer's Great Bible of 1539 (the first Authorized English Bible); The Geneva "1557"(the English Bible of the Protestant Reformation); the Rheims (the first Roman Catholic English version of 1582); and the King James First Edition of 1611. In the Wycliffe version John 19.19 reads:"ihesus of Nazareth kyng of the iewes." Similarly, in the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the "Iewes." Likewise, in the Cranmer Edition Jesus was again described as One of the "Iewes;" in the Geneva Edition Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes." In the Rheims Edition Jesus was described as One of the "Ievves"; and in the King James Edition, also known as the Authorised Version, Jesus was described again as one of the "Iewes." That is, the word "Jew" does not appear in any of these Bibles. First references to Jesus as a so-called "Jew" (which He was most definitely not) are found in the 18th century redactions of the 14th century English editions of the New Testament. The first Bible in which the word "Jew"first appears is the 1729 Daniel Mace New Testament in Romans 2:13 – 3:21. Afterwards in 1750 in the Douai, the Catholic English Bible newly revised and corrected by Richard Challoner using the 1609 translation of the Latin Vulgate. In 1755 by John Wesley in his "New Testament with Explanatory Notes." Benjamin Blayney's 1769 modernised version of the 1611 edition of the Authorised King James Bible. And, in John Worsley's 1770 "New Testament or New Covenant of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" with notes as translated from the Greek.

The evolution of the Holy Bible – the story of how the Bible arrived to us in its present form – is testament to the working of Higher Hidden Hands in the historical process. How the revealed Word of God was preserved in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek and transmitted into the modern world via Latin from which it was released into common possession by its translation into the English language by John Wycliffe and others during the Great Reformation.

First time the word Jew was used in the Bible:

"At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day" 2 Kings 16:6

The word "Jew" is a relatively modern invention used, seemingly indiscriminately and interchangeably, by 18th century redactors to describe Israelites, Judahites and Judaeans. It first appeared in these eighteenth century Bibles and it first appears within these redactions in 2 Kings 16:6 .... in an episode that describes a war between Israel and Judah: when Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of Israel went to war with wicked Ahaz, king of Judah. The Syrians "drave the Jews from Elath" who were in possession of it and so here is the first time that the inhabitants of the kingdom of Judah are called "Jews" when more properly they should be called Judahites. However, the point here is this: the very first time the word "Jew" is found in the modern Bible, they are at war with Israel.



"And Jehovah said to her [Rebekah] Two nations are in your womb, and two kinds of people shall be separated from your bowels. And the one people shall be stronger than the other people, the older [Esau] shall serve the younger [Jacob]" (Gen. 25:23)

"They [the Edomites] were hereafter no other than [non-Israelite] Jews." Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews Book XIII, Chapter IX, Verse 1, p. 279

They [the non-Israelite Edomites] were then incorporated with the Jewish nation" Article entitled "EDOM, IDUMEA," The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. V, p. 41(1904)

"In the days of John Hyrcanus [end of the second century BC] … the [non-Israelite] Edomites became a section of the Jewish people." Article entitled "EDOM," Encyclopaedia Judaica Vol. 6, p. 378 (1971)

"From then on they [the non-Israelite Edomites] constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod [King of Judea] being one of their descendants" Article entitled "EDOM (Idumea)," The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia p. 589 (1977)

The Edomites are descendants of Esau ("hairy, rough"), the eldest son of Isaac, and twin brother of Jacob, whose singular appearance at birth originated the name (Gen 25:25). Also, he was given the name of Edom ("red") from his conduct in connection with the red lentil "pottage" for which he sold his birthright (Gen. 25:30, Gen. 25:31).

Esau was much loved by his father and was, because he was first-born, his heir but was tricked into selling his birthright to his younger brother, Jacob, with the help of his mother, for a meal of red lentil pottage. Esau lost his father's birthright and his paternal blessing due to Jacob's subterfuge and thus raised the anger of Esau, who vows vengeance (Gen. 25:29-34; 27:1-41). Yahweh thereafter called Esau, "Edom" and the country subsequently settled by Esau/Edom and his brood was"the country of Edom" (Gen 32:3). Jacob, the grandson of Abraham and Sarah, the son of Isaac and Rebecca, is the ancestor of the Israelites. Later, Yahweh told Jacob that his name was no longer Jacob, but henceforth, Israel (Gen. 32:22-32; Gen. 35:10). Jacob's twelve sons were the ancestors of the Twelve Tribes of Israel and their descendants are described as the Twelve Tribes of Israel originally identified by the names of the twelve sons of Jacob: the Patriarchs Joseph, Judah, Issachar, Benjamin, Levi, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Simeon, Dan, Zebulun, Reuben. Later, Joseph's two sons, his eldest, Manasseh and his second son, Ephraim, were adopted by Jacob as his own and so those two tribes replaced Joseph and Levi among the Twelve of Israel. The patriarch Judah was the fourth son born to Jacob (Gen 29:35).

The Edomites were thus the progeny of Esau, whose name was Edom, so called from the red lentil pottage he sold his birthright for to his brother Jacob (later, at Yahweh's behest, called Israel). These Edomites were also separate from the Twelve Tribes of Israel  and so were not true Israelites. They lived separately in a different land nurturing an enmity originating with their patriarch, Esau/Edom for Jacob/Israel and his descendants: a hatred born of a deep sense of injustice and betrayal that birthright and grace had been arrogated by trickery. Edom's violence against Israel (Jacob) was so intense not only due to a sense of betrayal but also because they both came from the same parents (Isaac and Rebekah); in fact, this great and enduring enmity began in Rebekah's womb, continued as the boys grew to manhood and endured until today in the phenomenon of the struggle of nations. Moreover, because of this enduring bitterness and jealousy, Esau would have destroyed Jacob had Yahweh not intervened

Ezekiel 35:1-15 describes Yahweh's judgement on, and devastation of, Edom who exulted over Israel's humiliation, who was their most bitter foe, and who "had a perpetual hatred to them, to the very name of an Israelite." Esau/Edom in his hate and anger pursued "his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever." (Amos 1:11). Hence, the Edomites' "perpetual hatred" and "wrath forever" toward Israelites. That is, this seminal struggle of nations, which began in Rebekah's womb, endures today in the modern-day descendants of Israel (Jacob) and Edom (Esau) .... a great struggle between the Israelites and the Edomites.

The Edomites lived and prospered in a land separate from Israel but were later attacked and defeated by Saul (1 Sam. 14:47) and some forty years later, by David (2 Sam. 8:13-14). Later, in the reign of Jehosaphat, (c 914 BC), the Edomites attempted to invade Israel, but failed (2 Chron. 20:22). They later joined with Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Chaldea, in his invasion of Judaea, the Judaean kingdom of the Two Tribes, and helped in his destruction of Jerusalem as well as the subsequent deportation of the Judaeans to Babylonia (c 630-562 BC). The terrible cruelty displayed by the Edomites at this time provoked fearful denunciations by the later prophets (Isa 34:5-8; Isa 63:1-4; Jer 49:17). Afterwards, the Edomites invaded and held possession of the south of Palestine but they eventually fell under the growing Chaldean power (Jer 27:3, Jer 27:6). The Edomites were thus Semites since they are closely related in blood and in language to the Israelites but they had no claim on the unique Bible Covenant and Birthright Promises gifted by Yahweh to Abraham, then to Jacob/Israel and then to his descendants. However, for more than four centuries, the Edomites continued to prosper but during the warlike rule of the Maccabeans, they were again completely subdued, and even forced to conform to Jewish laws and rites, and submit to the government of Jewish prefects. Here, at this time, the Edomites become incorporated within the resurgent Judaean kingdom.

Edomites are therefore descended from Edom (Esau) whose descendants later intermarried with the Turks to produce aTurco-Edomite mixture which later became known as Khazars. That is, most of today's Jews are descendants of this interbreeding that produced a race called Khazars who had once governed an empire called Khazaria. Furthermore, this hybrid race Edomite/Turk/Khazar who created the Khazar kingdom and who between the seventh and ninth centuries AD, adopted the religion of Judaism. And, it is these Khazar Jews who are the ancestors of the vast majority of today's Jewish people. That is, Edomite/Turk /Khazars are the ancestors of the modern "Jews" including the Torah-true and Zionist Jews who spuriously claim right to the land of Palestine claiming it is theirs by biblical demands and ancestral rights.

Consequently, the majority of today's Jewish people are known as "Jews" not because they are Judahites and descended from Jacob/Israel but because their Edomite/Turk/Khazar ancestors in their Kingdom of Khazaria adopted the religion of Judaism, called themselves "Jews" and arrogated the Birthright Promises and Bible Covenants belonging to the Israelites, but especially those belonging to the Judahites.

Thus, "Jews" are not Israelites and certainly they are not Judahites. Hence, modern Jews are not heir to the Bible Covenants nor to the ancient Nation of Israel given by Yahweh to the Israelites and the Judahites and so have no Divine Right or biblical mandate to the modern Land of Palestine.

Similarly, Jesus of Nazareth was not a "Jew" he was a Judahite, and Jesus Christ was not "King of the Jews."

Friday, September 20, 2013

Reverend Morgan Edward's Rapture View!

One of the amazing (and disconcerting aspects) about those who debate the Rapture to Heaven myth, is that most proponents of the Rapture keep posting material which they believe proves that a Rapture was spoken and written about hundreds of years before John Nelson Darby promoted this erroneous concept back in the mid 1800's. One of those materials centers around the Reverend Morgan Edwards, who supposedly (according to pretribber apologist Dr. Thomas Ice) claimed the Rapture concept began as far back as 1778. Obviously, most of these folks do not do their own research but merely repeat the errors others (like Dr. Ice) present to their respective flock.

Here, at The End Times Passover, we do our research! The following is a rebuttal to this claim that Edwards promoted a Pre-Tribulation Rapture:

Morgan Edwards' Rapture View
          by George Wilson

     In 1995, in a 24-page booklet on 18th century pastor Morgan Edwards, evangelist John Bray claimed that Edwards taught a pretrib rapture in his 1788 book titled "Two Academical Exercises...." 
     Those echoing Bray include Thomas Ice who wrote "Morgan Edwards: Another Pre-Darby Rapturist." Edwards' 1788 work can be found on the Internet.
     In order to claim that Edwards held to pretrib, candidates for the I-can-find-pretrib-earlier-in-church-history-than-you-can medal - including Bray, Ice, Church, LaHaye, Frank Marotta etc. - have intentionally covered up Edwards' "historicism," his belief that the tribulation had already been going on for hundreds of years. (How can anyone in the tribulation go back in time and look for a pretrib rapture?)
     Here's proof of Edwards' historicism and its companion "day-year" theory which can view the 1260 tribulation "days" as "years."
     On p. 14 Edwards described the Ottoman Empire (which was then already 400 years old) as the Rev. 13:11 "beast." On p. 20 he defined "Antichrist" as the already 1000-year-old "popery" and the "succession of persons" known as "Popes" - his other Rev. 13 "beast." He necessarily viewed Rev. 13's 1260-day period as 1260 literal years in order to provide enough time for his two "beasts."
     On p. 19, while discussing "the ministry of the witnesses" of Rev. 11, he allotted "about 204 years" for their "years to perform" - years impossible to fit into a 3.5-year period!
     What about Edwards' rapture? On pp. 21-23 he wrote about "the appearing of the son of man in the clouds, coming to raise the dead saints and change the living, and to catch them up to himself....The signs of Christ's appearing in the clouds will be extraordinary 'wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes and famines,' &. (Matth. xxiv. 6-8.)....The signs of his coming, in the heavens will be 'the trump of God [I Thess. 4:16], vapor and smoke, which will darken the sun and moon [Matt. 24:29],'...and also cause those meteors called 'falling stars'....
     Right after his combined rapture/advent (!), Edwards said: "And therefore, now, Antichrist...will...counterfeit the preceding wonders in heaven...causing 'fire to come down from heaven'....And that godhead he will now assume, after killing the two witnesses....Now the great persecution of the Jews will begin...for time, times, and half a time...."
     Thomas Ice's article on Edwards (listed at start) quoted only the first 27 words in the above quotation which end with "to himself" - and you can see why pretrib defender Ice stopped quoting there! (For an Ice-covered piece, Google "Pretrib Rapture Pride.")
     Not only had most of Edwards' historicist tribulation occurred before his combined rapture/advent, but incredibly his Antichrist kept raging for 3.5 years even after the Matt. 24 signs! No wonder his tutor advised him to correct his thesis!
     To read Edwards' complete work, Google "[PDF] Two Academical Exercises...www.breadoflifebiblestudy.com."
     For more info on Edwards, Google "Deceiving and Being Deceived" by journalist/historian Dave MacPherson, also MacPherson's bestselling book "The Rapture Plot" which can be obtained by calling 800.643.4645.

Friday, September 13, 2013

Don’t wait for a Death Bed Moment to Say “I’m Sorry.” You May Miss The Opportunity!





 
One of the most tragic events anyone can experience is the unexpected death of a friend or loved one. When this happens, grief sets in immediately and most people often will say, “I just wished I would have had the opportunity to speak with that person one last time.”
It’s a different situation when a loved one is on their death bed and you have the opportunity to visit them in a hospital, be by their side, for hours, maybe for days or longer. But not so when they are taken within a matter of seconds, and when we least expect it.
“Oh, Johnny will live forever, and Mary will too!” I’ll call them up next week. I’m too busy with my life right now!” Then suddenly, your phone rings and you are given the bad news!
“Oh No, Dear God, No!”
What would you say to someone if you were alone with them and knew for certain they would be dead in 5 minutes? Think about it!

Would you tell them how much you loved them? How much they meant to you all of these years? Would you ask them to forgive you for any negative things that may have happened between you, such as mean or indifferent attitudes you may have had towards them; regrets you may have for not always responding to their needs, for neglecting them, or for any other events between them such as lying to them, talking about them behind their back, and even harboring resentment for one reason or another?

I’m certain that there are many people in this world with whom we have had negative experiences with, many grave ones, some minor; but wish we would have had a chance to make amends. Maybe it's a relative, aunt, uncle, cousin or even step-brothers and sisters, step daughters and step fathers, someone who shared a special portion of your life. Someone, who by circumstances beyond your control, were taken out of our respective lives.

One of the great and magical things about the Internet (especially Facebook) is that it has made it possible for folks we have not been in contact for years to reconnect. I personally have reconnected with many old friends and schoolmates I had not spoken to in years. One of these great connections is with a brother-in-law who I had not seen for over 40 years, who I had heard had died in Viet Nam; but he was actually alive and has been living a few miles down the road. I have even connected with former friends, colleagues old military buddies and many relatives I never had the chance to really get to know nor ever spent any time with. Even former high school friends (sweethearts) whom we dated but lost contact along the busy road of this long journey we call life. What a great thrill to reconnect, and to get the chance to say, "How have you been, or at least say I'm sorry we never got the chance to say good-by, and to let them know the special role they played in our life many years ago!"

Cleaning the slate is crucial for many; this is why the 9th step of Alcoholics Anonymous - Make direct amends to such people
wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others
- is crucial for the healing process to ensue between people.
Unfortunately, unexpected deaths - especially after recently reconnecting after so many years - deny us of this privilege and opportunity. This is why it is crucial to our heart and soul to do it now, while we are still alive.
Many have heard the expression that “confession is good for the soul” never realizing the deep power of healing that act has not only on the confessor, but to the one being confessed to. Far too often we go through life harboring guilt or resentment towards another person never realizing it can probably be more harmful to ourselves. Quite often, after confessing your feelings to another person it can actually open up their heart, they never realizing you had these feelings, thereby affording them the opportunity to express their own sorrow and need for forgiveness as well. Maybe, both realize that failure to stay in touch was not for any personal reasons, but life's circumstances which were caused by situations we had no control over, that prevented both from reaching out to each other.
One of the saddest parts of this scenario is where that special person was told by someone else that the reason they were no longer in your life was because they abandoned you for some obscure reason that was not true. It could have been a mutual friend or relative who told you that he or she did not care for you. Or worse, told you an outright lie to get you to turn against them because that person hated or resented that person you lost contact with. Yes! People can be that mean-spirited. Sadly, an ex-spouse often uses this tactic to get back at their former mate, especially where children are involved. It happens all the time! That old saying, "Hell has no fury like a scorned spouse" was not coined for any obscure reason.

Nevertheless, 'forgiveness' is still the greatest cure in the world for past pain. However, if no one establishes communication between the alleged victim or the alleged accuser, the pain will last forever for both.
It is so sad in this day and age when we are so consumed with our own lives that we fail to take a few moments from our busy schedule to reach out and let those folks know how you actually feel. Now that we have instant messaging, emails and texting, there is no excuse for not reaching out to others; it’s never too late to express your love, affection and appreciation, and especially for saying, I'm sorry to a person who may be taken out of your life (again) within a matter of seconds.
 
 ~ to see your face, again, to hear your sweet voice whisper,
just one more time, to see that twinkle in your eye, 
 
knowing that whatever happened in our past, is history,
 
“I always Loved you, when last we said Good Bye ~
 
 
Don't wait for a death bed moment to say, " I'm sorry, please forgive me, or, I forgive you, or more importantly, to say I missed you, I have always loved you! You may miss out on the only opportunity you will ever get!




For more information about the author’s books, The End Times Passover and Why Christians Will Suffer Great Tribulation, and to access his web sites and blogs, please click on>>Joe Ortiz.