Editor’s Note: In various writings and videos I have put forth the same evidence, but not as completely as in the article above, which however, is not by a Catholic, and thus supports at its end various errors, such as Christians should not have a Divine Liturgy. So, understanding that, use the article with caution. But, since I am a translator, I am totally on board with the idea that the English translations of the Bible should not use the word “Jew”, for the reasons mentioned there. — However, if one wants to use the accommodated senses; then when ever the Biblical term, for Judeans, is used of faithful Hebrews, it should be translated Judeans, but when of unfaithful Hebrews, it could be rendered, Jews, because in modern times, that term generally means, in regard to Christianity, an unbeliever.
A very interesting article.
There are NO LOST TRIBES of Israel…
https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/the-hebrew-disease/
Catholics must STOP saying “Judeo-Christian” the BIGGEST DECEPTION of the serpent!
Judaism and Christianity are diametrically opposed to each other. Judaism has many gods and is based on the Talmud and the Kabbalah
Judaism’s Strange Gods –
book by Michael Hoffman – https://www.revisionisthistory.org/page8/page8.html
Free pdf – https://3f8dt8w.intech-luxor.ru/
— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGRgn-xSbkI
Jesus was NOT a Jew
— https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/jesus-was-not-a-jew/
Jesus Was Not A Jew, Either
By Religion Or By Ancestry
— https://rense.com/general96/jesusnotjew.html
Roman Catholics, STOP saying Jesus was a JEW
— https://www.bitchute.com/video/L7ft7AaA3ZSK/
— https://www.fromrome.info/2022/11/27/italy-bannon-successfully-defends-against-fraud-case-in-trisulti-monastery-lease/#comments
There is absolutely no writer in Ecclesiastical History who held that all the progeny of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were exterminated after the Romans crushed the 3 Hebrew Rebellions. As a matter of fact, the Latin word Judean appears in manuscripts from the first century to the French Revolution. St. Bonaventure in his lectures at Parish decries the unbelieving Judeans. Even the ancient Roman Rite speaks of the perfidious judeans. So your claim that Jews are in now way or have no mid eastern blood, is simply not credible. Where did the Judeans go? that all the Saints talked about?
You are falling into a common error of logic.
When we say that X is not Y, under some respect, that does not mean that X has nothing to do with Y.
For example, if I say, that Maronites are not Hebrews, I am not saying that Maronites are not Semetic or live on the other side of the earth from Palestine.
So when I agree that Jesus was not a Jew, I agree that the modern term which was invented to name a non-Christian group which claims descend from the Hebrews of old, should not be used in reference to Our Lord, Who as a man was incarnate 17 centuries before and had an absolutely certain genetic heritage from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through our Lady and Aaron.
In spite of all that’s been distorted in history by the word gangsters , whose intent to change authentic history, and omit what they don’t want you to know from books…it is time to realize that prior to the Vatican 2 Era , all Catholic books, including the Bible, had 2 expert signatures which proclaimed that they were free fom error. They were called the NIHIL OBSTAT, AND IMPRIMATER. Since V2 that guarantee has not been on any book that I’m aware of. Therefore , authentic History has been tampered with…ie.. Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ cousin…bc She was the daughter of Joseph of Arimathea. She was sister to Martha and Lazarus. Jos of Arimathea was the brother of St Ann, Mary’s uncle…St Ann’s forearm is a relic. Now that DNA is available, the DNA could be tested and compared with the Shrouds blood. Mary Magdalenes skull is a relic in France. That might also prove DNA proof. The bloodline of Jesus does continue in the British Isles. This info isn’t hard to find.
.
What should John 20:19 say for us to understand it deeper and in this context?
Here we can see the text in the Greek Text, according to the Nestle edition, 1904, side by side with the English
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/20-19.htm
The scholarly debate about this passage revolves around the apparent intratextual evidence from the writings of St. John, that he wrote at the end of his life. So scholars ask if this term Judeans was used by St. John to refer to the people of Juda, unbelievers in general, or the current enemies of Christians in Eastern Asia Minor.
As an anthropologist and translator, I find the discussion worthy of a hearing, though I think that the arguments marshalled are not convincing, if they are attempting to convince us that John was not the author, or that a Judean at the end of his life would use the term differently than its authentic meaning.
The problem is, that Jesus’s own relations were Judeans, that is of the House of Judah, but the inhabitants of Jerusalem might also be called Judeans. That is not clear. And not all the inhabitants of Judeah were Judeans, just as not all of the other tribes were extinct by that age, as Scripture testifies in the post Babylonian exile with mention of a good number of surnames from the other 10 tribes. Paul himself was of the tribe of Benjamin, but it is not clear if any of his contemporaries would call them Judeans or not. For in the time of Christ, Judea was a Roman administrative division.
So perhaps St. John uses it in that sense, and if so, then the adjective is being used as a substantive, and stands for Judean (authorities), with the noun being omitted because the fear was directed at any unknown persons such as spies or officials. And if that supposition be true, then it refers to those who said, “We have no god but Caesar”, and thus refers to Judean collaborators with the Roman officials. — I think this reading is the most consonant with the Theology of St. John, the historical situation, and what St. John means by the term elsewhere when he uses it of the enemies or opponents of Christ, and explains why it sometimes seems to be equivalent to “unbelievers”, sometimes to “adherents of the High Priests”, sometimes to “inhabitants of Jerusalem”.
Finally, we must remember that an adjective in a classical language can also be understood as “-like”, so St. John might be saying, by this term: those who are like or claim to be of the House of Judah, but only appear to be such, but are not — for an adjective signifies a characteristic without a substance.
❤️
Ok, now it’s beginning to make a lot more sense. Although the word in the original Douay-Rheims (1610ish) was Ievve (= Iewe) which is only an earlier spelling of Jew, it seems to me. But the critical thing seems to be that Jew eventually gained a second meaning, which then confused the issue. At least now I understand why people are anti-Jewish.