Jewed

[CherubRam]

Short answer: It sucks.

The word "Jew" does not appear in the primary source text you chose
to build your idea.



Why would God be mysterious about the intent here in this passage?

The Holy Scriptures have no problem spelling out "Jew" and/or "Israel"
many many times.

Word "Jew" is found in 17 verse(s), 10 chapter(s) and 8 book(s).

Esther (8x) - used to identify the Babylonian captives from Southern Kingdom of Judaea. (no curse, but a rescue).


Jeremiah 34:9 That every man should let his manservant, and every man his maidservant, being an Hebrew or an Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of them, to wit, of a Jew his brother.
(i.e., that Jews should be free and equals of their bretheren, not remain slaves.)

Zechariah 8:23
In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you.
(suggesting that Jews would someday be recognized internationally as wise and guides of Godly wisdom).
(both contemporaries of Isaiah)

On the other hand, the NT usage of "Jew" is also very telling:

John 4:9, - identifies Jesus as a "Jew", not a new name (e.g., "Christian")
John 18:35 - identifies Jesus' nation as "Jews".

You would argue that the name got changed sometime in the period of Acts,
post - resurrection, and outside Judaea/Jeruslaem:



But PAUL's usage of "Jew" projects an image and status
that is quite different than the one you read into Isaiah:

Romans 10:12 - 'For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek...'
1st Corinthians 9:20 - 'And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews;' (no talk of them being 'cursed' here).



Galatians 2:14 ' If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?'

(Nothing to indicate anything other than a continuing identify for each group,
with differences, but no curses.)
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

(a description of a new era in which Jews and Gentiles will be EQUAL,
not one in which "Jews" are cursed.)

In regards to Isaiah 65:15. The word "Jew" and "Christian" is an interpretation of that verse.

Everyone knows that the Hebrews were called Jews by the people of the world. Everyone knows that Jews and Gentiles converts became know as Christians.

In regards to Zechariah 8:23. That verse is about Yahshua the Messiah whom was called a Jew.

In regards to Romans 10:12. That is about equality among all peoples of the world.

There are many Old Testament scriptures that state Yahwah would curse the Jews for their disobedients to His laws.

Deuteronomy 31:26
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

 

[Nazaroo]

In regards to Isaiah 65:15. The word "Jew" and "Christian" is an interpretation of that verse.

yes, an interpretation, and an incorrect one at that,
in which the word "Jew" has been thrust into the text.

Everyone knows that the Hebrews were called Jews by the people of the world.

Since you're avoiding any time reference
this is a worthless blanket statement,
that has no context or checkability.

Everyone knows that Jews and Gentiles converts became know as Christians.

And everyone knows this took place precisely between 30 and 70 A.D.,
and therefore if it fulfilled any prophecies,
these prophecies would be certainly and
irrevocably bound to a key point in time.

In regards to Zechariah 8:23. That verse is about Yahshua the Messiah whom was called a Jew.

This was not a messicanic prophecy, and that is another spin,
apparently to AVOID the plaintext meaning of "Jew" in this historical prophecy.

...
There are many Old Testament scriptures that state Yahwah would curse the Jews for their disobedients [sic!] to His laws.

The one you quote below in Deut. is not about "the Jews" which is ambiguous at best,
given that there are six Biblical meanings for "Jew" and at least 4 modern
secular meanings for "Jew", none of which are congruent or substantially overlap.

But rather, its about "the Israelites", a much larger and older group,
who entered the Mosaic Covenant. The "Jews" at the time of Moses
were merely a tribal family among many Israelites.


In modern times, "Jew" is a useless word, even as a translation of
ancient texts.

Deuteronomy 31:26
Take this book of the law,
and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God,
that it may be there fora witness against thee.

By the very text you've quoted,
the book was to be a witness
by being inside the ark.

Since the ark is lost,
it can no longer function as purposed,
and therefore it is not a witness
for the current era.

And again, it was a witness against "the Israelites",
not "the Jews".

 

[wonderingjew]

Why the Hate?

Why the Hate?

Even so, I am not the one who wrote the scriptures. What do you think of my interpretation?


Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse;(Jew) the Sovereign LORD will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

After reading your comments I felt it prudent to examine what you wrote in the context it was written. I believe the reference was to any person (including Christians) and replacement theologists who worship idols, do abominations, lie, cheat, steal but more importantly; refuse to obey the Torah and the prophets. Take a look at verse five and you may understand how you came across with the muslim mantra of death to the Jews! Sounded a little hateful.
Isaiah 65:5

 

[CherubRam]

yes, an interpretation, and an incorrect one at that,
in which the word "Jew" has been thrust into the text.

Since you're avoiding any time reference
this is a worthless blanket statement,
that has no context or checkability.

And everyone knows this took place precisely between 30 and 70 A.D.,
and therefore if it fulfilled any prophecies,
these prophecies would be certainly and
irrevocably bound to a key point in time.

This was not a messicanic prophecy, and that is another spin,
apparently to AVOID the plaintext meaning of "Jew" in this historical prophecy.

The one you quote below in Deut. is not about "the Jews" which is ambiguous at best,
given that there are six Biblical meanings for "Jew" and at least 4 modern
secular meanings for "Jew", none of which are congruent or substantially overlap.

But rather, its about "the Israelites", a much larger and older group,
who entered the Mosaic Covenant. The "Jews" at the time of Moses
were merely a tribal family among many Israelites.


In modern times, "Jew" is a useless word, even as a translation of
ancient texts.

By the very text you've quoted,
the book was to be a witness
by being inside the ark.

Since the ark is lost,
it can no longer function as purposed,
and therefore it is not a witness
for the current era.

And again, it was a witness against "the Israelites",
not "the Jews".

The Israelites along with other peoples became known as the Jews. My interpretation is correct. Yahwah does not take away His promise to bless the offspring of Abraham. All who are of the faith are the seed of Abraham. The Jews who came under the curse were the Hellenist Jews, they were the wealthy, they were the Mystics, they were Alexandrian philosophers. The covenant has changed.

Deuteronomy 27:26
“Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.” Then all the people shall say, “Amen!”



Deuteronomy 28:15
[ Curses for Disobedience ] However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:

 

[CherubRam]

After reading your comments I felt it prudent to examine what you wrote in the context it was written. I believe the reference was to any person (including Christians) and replacement theologists who worship idols, do abominations, lie, cheat, steal but more importantly; refuse to obey the Torah and the prophets. Take a look at verse five and you may understand how you came across with the muslim mantra of death to the Jews! Sounded a little hateful.
Isaiah 65:5

I do not understand what it is that you are saying.

Isaiah 65:5 New International Version
who say, 'Keep away; don't come near me, for I am too sacred for you!' Such people are smoke in my nostrils, a fire that keeps burning all day.

 

[Ben Masada]

Each man individually has the opportunity and responsibility for their own individual response to Gods Grace and salvation. God wills and desires that all men would be saved. not just the gentiles.
romans 1:16 (because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.)

Very good! Now, I have a question for you: If what you say above is true, why would Jesus forbid his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles? It is in Mat. 10:5,6. And he did not say "first" to the Jews but to the Jews only. (Mat. 15:24) I do wonder why because as a Jew, he should have known much better that Israel had been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6)

 

[Nazaroo]

The Israelites along with other peoples became known as the Jews. My interpretation is correct.

Wrong again.

Once again you seem unable to comprehend your own words.

If the Israelites (then plainly known as Israelites: "Jacob", "Israel")
were to later become known by another name, as the prophecy indicates,
then the prophecy is fulfilled by their becoming....brace yourself:

JEWS.

If the prophecy you cited means rather that "Jews" (or rather believing Jews)
would become "Christians", then where is the FIRST prophecy,
that says "Israelites" will become "Jews"??!?!?!?

Are you actually claiming that God Almighty, the LORD of the Universe,
would have prophesied that "Jews" would become "Christians",
but he FORGOT to prophesy that "Israelites" would become "Jews"???!?

What a schmuck God is, in your version of prophecy.

Or maybe you just can't understand the text,
like the Etheopian Eunich that Philip ran into on the road.

Perhaps I can help you with that.

 

[Ben Masada]

Wrong again.

Once again you seem unable to comprehend your own words.

If the Israelites (then plainly known as Israelites: "Jacob", "Israel")
were to later become known by another name, as the prophecy indicates,
then the prophecy is fulfilled by their becoming....brace yourself:

JEWS.

If the prophecy you cited means rather that "Jews" (or rather believing Jews)
would become "Christians", then where is the FIRST prophecy,
that says "Israelites" will become "Jews"??!?!?!?

Are you actually claiming that God Almighty, the LORD of the Universe,
would have prophesied that "Jews" would become "Christians",
but he FORGOT to prophesy that "Israelites" would become "Jews"???!?

What a schmuck God is, in your version of prophecy.

Or maybe you just can't understand the text,
like the Etheopian Eunich that Philip ran into on the road.

Perhaps I can help you with that.

If you read the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and the two books of the Maccabees, after the exile in Babylon there were no longer Israelites but only Jews. About 10% of the Israelites who had escaped Assyria and joined Judah in the South, had all become and the same under the single denomination of Jews. (Ezek. 37:22)

 

[CherubRam]

yes, an interpretation, and an incorrect one at that,
in which the word "Jew" has been thrust into the text.

Since you're avoiding any time reference
this is a worthless blanket statement,
that has no context or checkability.

And everyone knows this took place precisely between 30 and 70 A.D.,
and therefore if it fulfilled any prophecies,
these prophecies would be certainly and
irrevocably bound to a key point in time.

This was not a messicanic prophecy, and that is another spin,
apparently to AVOID the plaintext meaning of "Jew" in this historical prophecy.

The one you quote below in Deut. is not about "the Jews" which is ambiguous at best,
given that there are six Biblical meanings for "Jew" and at least 4 modern
secular meanings for "Jew", none of which are congruent or substantially overlap.

But rather, its about "the Israelites", a much larger and older group,
who entered the Mosaic Covenant. The "Jews" at the time of Moses
were merely a tribal family among many Israelites.


In modern times, "Jew" is a useless word, even as a translation of
ancient texts.

By the very text you've quoted,
the book was to be a witness
by being inside the ark.

Since the ark is lost,
it can no longer function as purposed,
and therefore it is not a witness
for the current era.

And again, it was a witness against "the Israelites",
not "the Jews".

Parables need not always be in context.
It is said that Trito-Isaiah / Third Isaiah (chapters 55–66): Is a collection of oracles by unknown prophets in the years immediately after the return from Babylon.
The word Jew was in use in that day, not that it matters. It is you who is pulling rabbits out of the hat.

 

[CherubRam]

Very good! Now, I have a question for you: If what you say above is true, why would Jesus forbid his disciples to take the gospel of salvation to the Gentiles? It is in Mat. 10:5,6. And he did not say "first" to the Jews but to the Jews only. (Mat. 15:24) I do wonder why because as a Jew, he should have known much better that Israel had been assigned as light unto the Gentiles. (Isa. 42:6)

The disciples were instruct not to go to the Gentiles but to the Jews FIRST. After the rejection of the message, they then took the message to the Gentiles.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.



Romans 2:10
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

 

[Nazaroo]

If you read the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and the two books of the Maccabees, after the exile in Babylon there were no longer Israelites but only Jews. About 10% of the Israelites who had escaped Assyria and joined Judah in the South, had all become and the same under the single denomination of Jews. (Ezek. 37:22)

No disagreement there.

No relevance to my point.

The historical facts indicate a change of name for the remnant of
those who followed Moses: from Israelites to Jews,
reflecting the fact that the Kingdom split in two,
with the Northern Kingdom of Israel taken by the Assyrians,
and the Souther Kingdom of Judah taken by the Babylonians.

Now the remnant of the Southern Kingdom of Judaea,
consisting of Judahites, Benjaminites, and some Levites,
under Ezra returned to build the temple and restore services,
in preparation for the coming of the Messiah.

Thus, the people following Moses became known in the area as "Jews",
or "Judaeans".

So that fulfills the prophecy of a name change for those following Moses.

That Christians appropriated the same prophecy for the new movement
of Christianity, being called "Christians",
would at best be a SECOND fulfillment of the same prophecy.

But if you can do that, then why not a THIRD fulfillment, in say,
the Mormons, or a FOURTH fulfillment in say the MOONIES.

These other 'fulfillments' involve massive changes at least in the
interpretation and application of the Laws of Moses, even the Ten Commandments.

So It is on the onus of the "Christians" to show how this prophecy
can be applied and fulfilled when Christians no longer follow Moses
or the Law, or the traditions of Israelites or Jews.

Because if this can be proven, the floodgates are open for any group
or sect to use the same prophecy, without any real connection to
either Israel or Moses.

 

[Nazaroo]

Parables need not always be in context.
It is said that Trito-Isaiah / Third Isaiah (chapters 55–66): Is a collection of oracles by unknown prophets in the years immediately after the return from Babylon.
The word Jew was in use in that day, not that it matters. It is you who is pulling rabbits out of the hat.

Parables are not prophecies, nor Oracles, unless interpreted so.

They are a different literary form and genre.

We were not talking of a parable in any case, but a plain prophecy,
in Isaiah.

So its you who is pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

I'm only interested in seeing how you can apply a prophecy
that fits better for one historical event to another.

 

[CherubRam]

The disciples were instruct not to go to the Gentiles but to the Jews FIRST. After the rejection of the message, they then took the message to the Gentiles.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.



Romans 2:10
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Isaiah 42:6
“I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles,...

Isaiah 49:6
he says: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

Acts 13:26
“Fellow children of Abraham and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent.

Acts 13:46
Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

Acts 13:47
For this is what the Lord has commanded us: “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

Acts 13:48
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

Acts 14:2
But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.

 

[CherubRam]

Parables are not prophecies, nor Oracles, unless interpreted so.

They are a different literary form and genre.

We were not talking of a parable in any case, but a plain prophecy,
in Isaiah.

So its you who is pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

I'm only interested in seeing how you can apply a prophecy
that fits better for one historical event to another.

Parables are a part of prophecy.

 

[Nazaroo]

Parables are a part of prophecy.

So you have refused to explain or answer my questions.

Lets try again:

(1) the quote in Isaiah is NOT a parable. its a simple prophecy.

(2) the quote is already fulfilled in the transition from "Israelite" to "Jew".

(3) the quote doesn't fit well recycled as a SECOND name change.

(4) there is no prophecy of a SECOND name change.

(5) the prophecy doesn't predict a revolution in the Mosaic Law and tradition.

(6) the prophecy, if interpreted concerning the name "Christian",
opens the door to unlimited multiple fulfillments in the future,
and no controls or tests.

So my question is, how and why can we make this prophecy
as a prophecy about "Jews" ---> "Christians" plausible?

 

[CherubRam]

So you have refused to explain or answer my questions.

Lets try again:

(1) the quote in Isaiah is NOT a parable. its a simple prophecy.

(2) the quote is already fulfilled in the transition from "Israelite" to "Jew".

(3) the quote doesn't fit well recycled as a SECOND name change.

(4) there is no prophecy of a SECOND name change.

(5) the prophecy doesn't predict a revolution in the Mosaic Law and tradition.

(6) the prophecy, if interpreted concerning the name "Christian",
opens the door to unlimited multiple fulfillments in the future,
and no controls or tests.

So my question is, how and why can we make this prophecy
as a prophecy about "Jews" ---> "Christians" plausible?

The word "name" is parabolic of a term not then used in Isaiah 65:15. The words Israel and Israelite has never been used as a curse word; however, the name Jew is commonly used as a curse word, even to this day. Because the scriptures reveal that the new name is associated with a New Covenant, that would by reason of history be Christians. Your assertions are not logical.

 

[Word based mystic]

The Ark is not lost. God knows exactly where it is.
Jesus Bringing the potential for men to be born again, which is a spirit birth.
The presence of God And the Spirit of God is now invested In those that have a born again spirit. We become co-laborers and partners with God on bringing the Glory through Spirit birthed and Spirit led Works. This is a synonym of How God is and will show his glory throughout the earth.

 

[Nazaroo]

The word "name" is parabolic of a term not then used in Isaiah 65:15. The words Israel and Israelite has never been used as a curse word; however, the name Jew is commonly used as a curse word, even to this day.

your version of history is flawed and apparently Eurocentric.

Go to the Middle East and in over a dozen countries,
you'll find that "ISRAEL" is indeed a curse word, in use for 1500 years.

In case you're even stupider than I think you are,
the word "Jew" wasn't even in existance until the Middle Ages.
It seems to have originated in France as a corruption or Latinization of Judah.

The word ended up in the English Bible due to Anglicization of the Hebrew
and Greek texts, for the King James Version (1611).

Even until the 19th century, people actually spelled it "Jewes",
as evidenced by both Masonic use and what in fact Jack the Ripper
scrawled on a wall in London in 1888.

Even now, Arabs and other Middle Easterners will hardly recognize
the English ('hard - J') version of "Jew", nor will they be spelling it
with Anglicized Latin alphabets.

But live in a bubble if you want to, and ignore historical facts.

Because the scriptures reveal that the new name is associated with a New Covenant, that would by reason of history be Christians. Your assertions are not logical.

The Covenant or rather revival and replacement described in Isaiah 65
is plainly an ETHNIC or Racial one, since God specifically says he'll
be using a righteous remnant of descendants of Israel for the project:

I will bring forth descendants from Jacob, and from Judah those who will possess my mountains; my chosen people will inherit them, and there will my servants live. - Isaiah 65:9

Thus the passage speaks (before the restoration of the 2nd temple)
of taking a remnant of descendants of Jacob (Israelites) and Judah,
and re-planting them in the land of Israel under a new name,
obviously "Jews" or actually "Judaeans"/"Judahites",
i.e., Babylonian Jews under Ezra who returned, rebuilt the temple,
and restored the Torah worship.

Thus the prophecy had a PRIMARY fulfillment when
"Jews" (and other Israelites) returned to Judaea,
restored the temple, and using available records,
admitted those who could prove they were real descendants of Israelite tribes.

This was not only fulfilled by the return of "the Jews" to the land,
but was necessary in order to prepare conditions for the advent of the Messiah.

For you to leave out "the Jews" as the fulfillment of this prophecy,
destroys both the legitimacy of the Messiah, and the New covenant
which included non-Israelite Gentiles.

The new name spoken of in the prophecy was "the Jews";
who returned as a loyal and righteous remnant of Israel,
to the land as promised in the prophecy,
in order to usher in the New Covenant, first for 'Jews' (and other Israelite
Galileans and Samaritans), and secondly for 'Gentiles'.

That the final group came to be known as "Christians"
doesn't fulfill this prophecy at all,
which is a land-prophecy, concerning the literal descendants of Israel.

 

[CherubRam]

The term Jew applied to all peoples of the world who worshipped the God of Abraham. The mission of the faith has always been to convert the nations to the faith.

The word "Jew" was a nickname assigned by the Babylonians to anyone who either lived in or came from the area of Judea.

A Jew is a convert to Judaism, and the Hebrews are an ethnic group of people.

Contrary to popular belief, Jews are not a race, but an assembly of people. Hebrews are a race.

A Hebrew may or may not be a Jew.

Esther 8:17
In every province and in every city, wherever the edict of the king went, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating. And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.

Zechariah 11:10
Then I took my staff called Favor and broke it, revoking the covenant I had made with all the nations.

Romans 2:28-29.
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.

Isaiah 62:2
The nations will see your vindication, and all kings your glory; you will be called by a new name that the mouth of the Lord will bestow.

Acts 11:26
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Isaiah 65:15
You will leave your name (Jew) for my chosen ones to use in their curses; the Sovereign Lord will put you to death, but to his servants he will give another name. (Christian)

 

[Ben Masada]

The disciples were instruct not to go to the Gentiles but to the Jews FIRST. After the rejection of the message, they then took the message to the Gentiles.

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 2:10
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Oh, we are talking about the gospel of Jesus which he forbade to take to the Gentiles and you bring the gospel of Paul. Those gospels were completely antagonistic to each other. Evidence of the fact is in Mat. 5:17-19 when Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the Law" and Paul referred to this statement of Jesus' by implying that Jesus did not know what he was talking about because the Law was abolished on the cross, being by that the end of the Law. (Rom. 10:4)