Synagogue of satan, Cainites, Kenites, Khazarians, Edomites, and Amalekits are now six different things.
Those descended from or naturalized into the family of Judah ("Jews", "Judeans") had dealings with all the above but that doesn't mean the modern self-proclaimed Jews lost title to the name related to Judah at some historical event. Nobody has shown me a historical event where that happened.
Jesus was a son of Judah by both birth and adoption. Both he and Paul refer to the Jews as their brothers, but like earlier prophets point out that they are not doing what their father did. So he affirms the historical continuity and he ought to know.
The Pharisees were one party of the multipolar Judeans that had a known historical lineage from Ezra and Nehemiah through a number of teachers known as Zugoth, the last of which were Hillel and Shammai, who would have been present among those that Jesus met at age 12. Jesus also cites Hillel. From there the rabbinical Jews have a heritage through Johanan ben Zakkai and a continuous series of leaders since then. There is no point at which another race subjugated these people even though there are significant intermarriages that do not lose rights in the name of Judah as if there are no descendants of Judah or as if somebody else has better birth rights. (The church has spiritual rights to be called "Jews" but they are never to hold this as being birth rights.)
So when you propose that all these historically different groups are the same and allow non-Jews to deny the name "Jews" to those who claim that name, that's othering (exonymy) and is just as bad as, say, Jews claiming to decide who is "white".
That's why I keep asking for evidence, and I think I know why I keep getting denied.
Jesus was a son of Judah by both birth and adoption. Both he and Paul refer to the Jews as their brothers, but like earlier prophets point out that they are not doing what their father did. So he affirms the historical continuity and he ought to know.
Modern day "Jews" are not related to Judah at all, they are Kenites the sons of Cain who claim to be Israelites.
They are what they claim their enemies to be, Edomites and Amalekites!
Also, Kenites are not sons of Cain or Cainites. They are close, but are distinguished both in meaning (Cain, acquisition; Kenite, smith) and in genetics (if Cainites continued, the theory is they came through Ham; the Kenites were identified among the Semitic-Abrahamic Midianites, Num. 10:49).
Exploring The Mark of Cain Connection To The Mark of The Beast - David Ross Goben (2017) https://www.scribd.com/document/357584217/Exploring-the-Mark-of-Cain-Connection-to-the-Mark-of-the-Beast
Cain and The Kenites: The Sin in The Garden https://www.scribd.com/document/64443925/16400987-Kenites
TUBALCAIN: The Legendary Descendance of the Freemasons https://www.scribd.com/document/892758978/Tubal-Cain
CAINITE GNOSIS AND THE SABBATIC TRADITION by occult witch Daniel A. Schulke https://pdfcoffee.com/cainite-gnosisa-pdf-free.html
Serpent Seed - pastor Arnold Murray (1985) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvxBXA760wU
Cain and Abel eh, back to the root
Using the wrong language. Your title refers to four different things. Want to give us a summary so we can unmix the strands of history?
Synagogue of Satan refers to the Kenites aka modern day fake "Jews" who are the descendants of the pharisees (enemies of God).
Cain is the serpent seed hybrid son of Satan/Lucifer .
Khazarian-Edomites-Kenites-Amalekites are the sons of Cain.
Synagogue of satan, Cainites, Kenites, Khazarians, Edomites, and Amalekits are now six different things.
Those descended from or naturalized into the family of Judah ("Jews", "Judeans") had dealings with all the above but that doesn't mean the modern self-proclaimed Jews lost title to the name related to Judah at some historical event. Nobody has shown me a historical event where that happened.
Jesus was a son of Judah by both birth and adoption. Both he and Paul refer to the Jews as their brothers, but like earlier prophets point out that they are not doing what their father did. So he affirms the historical continuity and he ought to know.
The Pharisees were one party of the multipolar Judeans that had a known historical lineage from Ezra and Nehemiah through a number of teachers known as Zugoth, the last of which were Hillel and Shammai, who would have been present among those that Jesus met at age 12. Jesus also cites Hillel. From there the rabbinical Jews have a heritage through Johanan ben Zakkai and a continuous series of leaders since then. There is no point at which another race subjugated these people even though there are significant intermarriages that do not lose rights in the name of Judah as if there are no descendants of Judah or as if somebody else has better birth rights. (The church has spiritual rights to be called "Jews" but they are never to hold this as being birth rights.)
So when you propose that all these historically different groups are the same and allow non-Jews to deny the name "Jews" to those who claim that name, that's othering (exonymy) and is just as bad as, say, Jews claiming to decide who is "white".
That's why I keep asking for evidence, and I think I know why I keep getting denied.
Modern day "Jews" are not related to Judah at all, they are Kenites the sons of Cain who claim to be Israelites.
They are what they claim their enemies to be, Edomites and Amalekites!
Waiting for evidence. I gave mine.
Also, Kenites are not sons of Cain or Cainites. They are close, but are distinguished both in meaning (Cain, acquisition; Kenite, smith) and in genetics (if Cainites continued, the theory is they came through Ham; the Kenites were identified among the Semitic-Abrahamic Midianites, Num. 10:49).