disproves your entire idea that j EVVs and J ews (Heb rews!) are the same

Haven't read everything yet, but have you explained why you reject the rights conferred by holders of the continuous chain of transmission of the name Jew, previously Ju in French, previously Judaeus in Latin, previously Ioudaios in Greek? Even when a people-group merges in another under its continuous polity, it retains the right to the former name. Or do we have the right to name them while they don't?

Lack of temple was compensated for by two different groups of Jews, Messianics (who became Christians) and Pharisees (who became Talmudists). Both claim continuity in different ways with the original covenant polity headquartered among the Israelites. So lack of temple doesn't disqualify either group from retaining its rights to names.

The exact same is true for how the Hebrew Scriptures are followed, both claim continuity.

Thank you for calling out Frank and Loomer.

It was in effect from when people offered sacrifices and observed 613 laws to after Jesus rose.

This too is brought forward to say the Jewish religion changed irreconcilably. However, sacrifice before and after the cross was identical while the temple stood. Following Mosaic law for the Jewish-born people and Noachite law for the Gentile-born people was the agreed practice of both Christians and Jews alike. The refinement of the meaning of Mosaic law until its derivation was tied to exactly 613 separate passages of the Torah was an organic process. So there's not a point at which Jews lost title to the name "Jews" that I can see.

With all the horrendous outcomes that influential jEVVs produce, how can you possibly believe they are Heb rews?

Because they are accepted as Hebrews by those who continue to have rights in the genetic identification as Jews. Christians long recognized and admitted they had only adoptive (spiritual) identification as sons of Judah, not genetic identification. To prove rabbinical Jews are not Hebrews would require some robust theory of total replacement without continuity, and the two primary candidates for this replacement (Edomite and Khazar) don't do the job historically. Proof by behavior doesn't complete the proof: even in John 8 Jesus admits the Jewish objectors were Abraham's seed and Abraham was their father, but said their behavior as children of the devil would belie that identification. But removing them from being Jewish is a formal process of anathematization that he didn't engage. So, your reasoning for taking the process upon yourself as judge, jury, and executioner?

impostors