Took a turn for the better
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (36)
sorted by:
Sounds like you're pathetically rewriting what 17 translations call "King of the Jews" as if that's the correct English translation for it.
Yes, Paul was in Judea and turned to Christ and rejected Judaism/Ioudaismos (Gal. 1:13-14) and yet was still a Jew/Ioudaios (Acts 21:39, 22:3). So were a million others in the first century. So are a million others today (according to a survey by Lifeway). Paul knew the difference between Judaic ancestry and Judaic religion (ism). There is a difference between Jewishness and Judaism (religious), but there is not a difference between Jewishness and Judeanness (national).
The burden of proof is on you that "Jew" means something other than Ioudaios or Judaeus or Ju, its earlier forms in a direct etymological chain. You seem to assume a break in the chain that you don't instantiate.
Yes there is. One is a Judean, the other is jewish, rabbi. This isn't difficult to grasp.
In the first century, the word Ioudaios described both Jewish and Judean because all Jewish people were of the Judean nation and all Judean citizens were Jewish. Nowadays we don't use the word Judean anymore because of the political changes, but there's no evidence that Jewish people aren't descended from a chain of Judeans by births and naturalizations. You're the one proposing a distinction without specifying a difference.
Shalom