YoungOneJosh

Follower of Christ. Boer. Gen Z.

You have made us for Yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in You, O Lord.

[Classicist. ✝️ @Classicist9999]

@jakeshieldsajj >They killed Charlie Kirk because he refused to support the war in Iran

✅Fact check: 109% accurate

⛔️🇮🇷In fact, Charlie opposed the war with Iran for 'Israel's benefit so jews kirked™ him

🚨 @TuckerCarlson be careful because jews want to kirk™ you too

[Classicist. ✝️ @Classicist9999]

@RupertLowe10 >Restore Britain’s policy of banning both halal and kosher slaughter.

✅A good start.

🚫✡️➕☪️Next, ban jews and Muslims from White Christian Britain. Make Britain Great Again.

Say NO to Judeo-Islamism©.

✅➡️Follow @Classicist9999

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

@CathsAgainstJws Lol these guys are so on the nose about it.

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

@retardmode Uh... you know that Marvel and DC were largely Jewish creations, right? Spider-Man, Peter Parker, too.

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

@WrathOfAnarchy @heiligefawn

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

Is it German to invent and globalise an ideology that treats nations as temporary shopping centres, blood as a social construct, and tradition as a hate crime?

Is it German to extract European genius, then use its fruit to reduce the highest cultures of Europe to client states, then export pornography, debt, and racial dissolution as the new unievrsal values?

I don't know, man. Seems very Anglo/WASP-coded to me.

I think I understand the sentiment (trying to save America from the Jews,) but, we all should realize by now that the global order and Judeo-Masonic empire is not simply something that America does, it IS America.

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

All Jews are not Israelites. The term, "Jew," is slang for "Judean."

This term is derived from the name Judah, yes. However it is in no way equivalent to the term "Israelite" or "Judahite." Those two are very strictly ethnic and tribal terms respectively.

Jew/Judean (I will simply say Judean from now on) on the other hand, was never an ethnic term. It is a post-Babylonian exile identity that was initially based on geography (the land of Judea, coming from the native Kingdom of Judah which was exiled,) then gradually evolved to be very fluid. At any point it could have any combination of meanings, from ethnic, geographic, cultural, to religious. It was mostly subject to context.

This is spelled out pretty clearly in ancient sources:

---

This was the course of events at that time in Palestine; for this is the name that has been given from of old to the whole country extending from Phoenicia to Egypt along the inner sea. They have also another name that they have acquired: the country has been named Judaea, and the people themselves Judeans. I do not know how this title came to be given to them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exists even among the Romans, and though often repressed has increased to a very great extent and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances.
- Cassius Dio, Roman History, 37.16.5-17.1

Hyrcanus took also Dora, and Marissa, cities of Idumea; and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Judeans. And they were so desirous of living in the countrey of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Judean ways of living. At which time therefore this befel them, that they were hereafter no other than Judeans.
- Josephus, Antiquities, 20.9.1

---

So no, "Concerned Patriot," all Judeans are not Israelites. That was never, ever true.

As for the destinies of the people of both kingdoms, well, they have already been united into one kingdom, Christendom, and the times of the nations has been fulfilled: when the Gospel came to the nations of Europe - which the scattered children of Israel became, and mixed with - and all Israel was saved. So you're wrong on that count too.

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

@Concern94277042 @StellarChrist22 @Brenda773880683 @DEI4WhiteGuys @JoelWebbon Are all "Mexicans" Spaniards?

Are all "Americans" British, German, Dutch and French?

Were all "Jews" in the Roman province of Judea, Israelites?

No, no and no!

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

@jsjshsh127161 @cirnosad 🙈

[Pax Tube @PaxTubeOfficial]

I’ve noticed the new Jewish rightoid anti-Hitler talking point is “Hitler killed other White people”.

Let’s set the record straight. America and Britain did everything in their power to make WW2 happen. They sabotaged every attempt for a peaceful settlement between Germany and Poland. Then when conflict inevitably broke out, they worked to expand the war to as many countries as possible.

All of Europe besides Britain united behind Germany in 1941, even France. The war could’ve ended there and then. Hitler offered peace many times. Rudolf Hess even flew to Britain, and their response was to lock him in prison for the rest of his life. The Jews in Britain and America couldn’t handle a Europe that wasn’t under their control, so the war continued and expanded.

Now Jewish right wingers try to blame Hitler for fighting to pull the continent out of the chains of Jewish slavery. Nonsense.

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

@MxxMMaestro My goodness 💀

It is going to take me a while to read and comprehend all this, then come up with some kind of response, or change my mind on the doctrine.

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

I don't usually like engaging in these debates, but, I feel compelled to go for it this time around.

Jesus is truly divine, obviously, but, collapsing Jesus into the Father is a mistake.

Scripture teaches two truths, that Jesus is God and shares fully in the one divine nature, and that Jesus is not the Father, but the eternal Son, personally distinct from the Father.

The bridegroom imagery does not prove that Jesus is the same divine Person as the Father. The terms God/Yahweh identify the one God, not exclusively the Person of the Father. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three gods; they are three distinct Persons who possess the one undivided divine being.

So, when the Old Covenant writings identify God as Israel's husband and the New Covenant writings identify Jesus as the Bridegroom, the proper conclusion is that Jesus shares the divine identity of God (refuting Arianism and similar,) not that the Son is "marrying His Father's wife," because the Father and the Son are not separate gods competing over Israel. The covenant people belong to the one triune God.

<1> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
- John 1:1

The Word was God, establishing His deity. Yet the Word was also "with God," establishing a real personal distinction. The Son is not the Father, but He possesses the same divine nature as the Father.

There are more examples of this personal distinction.

Jesus speaks of the glory He had "with" the Father before the world existed in John 17:5. He says that the Father sent Him in John 5:37. He prays to the Father in John 17:1. He promises that He will ask the Father to send "another Helper," the Holy Spirit, in John 14:16-17. These are not different roles played by one Person. They are relationships between distinct divine persons.

At Jesus's baptism in Matthew 3: the Son is in the water, the Spirit descends onto Him, and the Father speaks from heaven. All three are present simultaneously. Likewise, disciples are baptized in the singular "name" of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19.) One divine name, three distinct Persons.

The cross also reveals the Trinity. The Son did not pretend to pray to Himself, send Himself, love Himself as another Person, or offer Himself to Himself under another title. The eternal Son became truly human and offered Himself to the Father through the eternal Spirit.

<14> How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
- Hebrews 9:14

The Father sends, the Son becomes incarnate and offers Himself, and the Spirit empowers the offering. This is one divine act of the one God, carried out according to the distinct personal relations of Father, Son, and Spirit.

It is also wrong to say that the cross has value simply because "Yahweh died." That sounds like Muslim apologetics, to be honest. The divine nature cannot cease to live. The eternal Son assumed a genuine human nature and truly suffered and died according to that human nature. The Person who died is the divine Son, which gives His sacrifice immeasurable worth, but His deity itself did not perish.

So yes: Jesus is not a created bieng. He is the eternal Word through whom all things were created (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). He is rightly called God (John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8). He bears the divine name and receives divine worship.

But Jesus is not the Father.

The biblical confession is not merely, "Jesus is God." It is:

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son.
The Son is not the Spirit.
The Spirit is not the Father.
Yet there is only one God.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is Trinitarian: one God eternally existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

@SaintServiamXIV Bugger off, bloody doughnut.

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

@hecate40 @DanBurmawy Mm-hmm. Hath thou declared it? Is this in the Bible? Did a council of bishops declare that? Is there some kind of train of thought which leads you to this conclusion infallibly?

[Classicist. ✝️ @Classicist9999]

@DEI4WhiteGuys This.

[DEI 4 White Guys @DEI4WhiteGuys]

Moses, David, Noah, Abraham, and the prophets weren’t “Jews practicing Judaism”. They lived under the Old Covenant promise of Christ (Genesis 3:15, Genesis 12:2-3, John 1:1-14, John 5:46-47, Matthew 5:17, Galatians 3) centuries before Judaism. The term “Jew” first appears in 2 Kings 16:16 after King David and Solomon already died, and the term “Judaism” first appears in 2 Maccabees 2:21 after the Maccabean revolt in the 2nd century BC. Judaism rejects Christ who fulfills God’s promises to Israel as the Messiah. Jesus is God and an Israelite of the tribe of Judah through David. The apostles were Israelites. Christ explicitly says He is the vine/root/tree and believers are the branches, and Christ-rejecters (Israelites included) are dead branches that are cast off and burned (John 15:1-6). Paul affirms that not even the natural branches are spared in Romans 11:20-22. Salvation is of Christ alone, promised through Israelites of the tribe of Judah through David (John 4:22), not through modern day Christ-rejecting “Jews”. All Israel was saved when the gospel was brought to the nations that Israel and Judah became or blended into after Assyrian captivity.

This is what happens when you surround yourself with Christ-rejecters and let your theology be shaped by antichrists instead of Scripture.

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

No, at that point, it had everything to do with the current form of Judaism. See John 8 and Galatians 1:13-14.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, the prophets, they all followed The Way of the Lord. Abraham saw Christ's day and was glad. They were Christians and worshiped the pre-incarnate Christ.

We know this, because Jesus cursed the religion of the Pharisees as being satanic and anti-Abrahamic, as well as Paul, who followed The Way of the Lord, contrasting his religion with what he called The Way of the Jews, Judaism. The two are in direct opposition to each other.

<13> For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it, <14> and progressed in Judaism above many of my equals in my own heritage, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
Galatians 1:13-14

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

Are all "Mexicans" Spaniards?

Are all "Americans" British, German, Dutch and French?

Were all "Jews" in the Roman province of Judea, Israelites?

No, no and no!

You conflate Judah with Jews. They are not the same, no, not at all, Dave.

If someone is of Judah, it means they are a Judahite, one of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. When the Kingdom split, this expanded to include the Benjaminites and Levites who joined the soutehrn Kingdom of Judah. No Jews in sight yet.

By the time the Judahites returned from exile - by the way, those Judahites which we follow in the story of the Old Covenant, were only a tiny remnant of the full people of the children of Israel, the vast majority of both Israel and Judah were carried away by Assyria, with only Jerusalem being spared - the land was called Judea, based on the previous native kingdom of Judah.

Initially, a Judean was a resident of Judea, that is it. To spare time and space, I'll avoid the details, but eventually it evolved, as Cassius Dio perfectly describes:

The country has been named Judaea, and the people themselves Judaeans. I do not know how this title came to be given to them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exists even among the Romans.
- Cassius Dio, Roman History 37

So it is VERY CLEARLY NOT an ethnic term, and not to be conflated with "Israelite"! Even Latins and Edomites could be considered fully Jewish/Judean.

Lastly, even if I were to accept the false premise that there is a Jewish ethnicity, that idea in and of itself is inconsistent. Jews are multinational, a mixed people, and 52% of their DNA comes from the ancient Canaanites.

It is you, sir, who are ignorant.

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

Well, first of all, you are conflating many different things and concepts. See the post attached if you are any interested in facts and history.

https://t.co/nLJlTmZXNW

As for who are the real Israelites, are you truly interested in the answer? If so, can you tell me what term the Assyrians used to refer to Israel after carrying them away in 2 Kings 17:6? If you don't know, tell me that, and I will tell you.

[YoungOneJosh @YoungOneJosh1]

Well, "original Jews" is a misnomer, as Jew is slang for Judean, which was never an ethnic term. It is a post-Babylonian exile identity that was initially based on geography (the land of Judea, coming from the native Kingdom of Judah which was exile,) then gradually evolved to be very fluid. At any point it could have any combination of meanings, from ethnic, geographic, cultural, to religious, it was mostly subject to context.

Two ancient witnesses to corroborate:

---

This was the course of events at that time in Palestine; for this is the name that has been given from of old to the whole country extending from Phoenicia to Egypt along the inner sea. They have also another name that they have acquired: the country has been named Judaea, and the people themselves Judeans. I do not know how this title came to be given to them, but it applies also to all the rest of mankind, although of alien race, who affect their customs. This class exists even among the Romans, and though often repressed has increased to a very great extent and has won its way to the right of freedom in its observances.
- Cassius Dio, Roman History, 37.16.5-17.1

Hyrcanus took also Dora, and Marissa, cities of Idumea; and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that countrey, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Judeans. And they were so desirous of living in the countrey of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Judean ways of living. At which time therefore this befel them, that they were hereafter no other than Judeans.
- Josephus, Antiquities, 20.9.1

---

To answer your (corrected) question, "What happened to the original Israelites, at what point in their history did they disappear, and why?"

The truth is that a vast majority of the children of Israel "disappeared" in the 8th century B.C., when the Assyrians carried away the northern Kingdom of Israel:

---

<5> Then the king of Assyria went throughout all the land, went up to Samaria, and besieged it for three years. <6> In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria seized Samaria and exiled Israel to Assyria. He put them in Halah, in Habor by the River of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes. (...) <18> Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them from His presence. None remained except the tribe of Judah. (...) <24> Then the king of Assyria brought people from Babylon, Kuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim and put them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel. They possessed Samaria and lived in its cities.
- 2 Kings 17:5-6, 18, 24

---

The same happened to a vast majority of the southern Kingdom of Judah as well, except for the city of Jerusalem, which was spared through divine intervention:

---

<13> In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them.
- 2 Kings 18:13

<32> “Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the king of Assyria: He will not enter this city [Jerusalem], shoot an arrow there, approach it with shield, or heap up a siege ramp against it. <33> By the way that he came, he will return; he will not enter this city, declares the Lord. <34> For I will protect this city to save it, for My own sake and for the sake of David My servant.” <35> On that night the angel of the Lord went out and struck one hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. When others woke up early in the morning, these were all dead bodies. <36> So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and stayed in Nineveh. <37> As he was worshipping in the house of Nisrok his god, Adrammelek and Sharezer his sons struck him with the sword, and they escaped into the land of Ararat. Esarhaddon his son reigned in his place.
- 2 Kings 19:32-37

<1> After these things and these acts of faithfulness, Sennacherib king of Assyria came to Judah and encamped against the fortified cities thinking that he would break through them for himself. (...) <21> So the Lord sent an angel and destroyed the mighty army, leaders, and officials in the camp of the king of Assyria. So the king returned in shame to his own land. When he entered the temple of his god, some of his sons fell on him there with the sword. <22> So the Lord saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib king of Assyria, and from the hand of all others, and gave them rest on every side.
- 2 Chronicles 32:1, 21-22

<1> Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them.
- Isaiah 36:1

<33> “Therefore, thus says the Lord concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shields, nor build a siege ramp against it. <34> By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and shall not come into this city, says the Lord. <35> For I will defend this city to save it for My own sake and for the sake of My servant David.” <36> Then the angel of the Lord went out and struck one hundred eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. When others woke up early in the morning, these were all dead bodies. <37> So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed and returned home and lived in Nineveh. <38> It came to pass as he was worshipping in the house of Nisrok, his god, that Adrammelek and Sharezer, his sons, struck him with the sword, and they escaped into the land of Ararat. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead.
- Isaiah 37:33-38

---

So you see that even before the Babylonian exile, a vast majority of the children of Israel were already carried away and otherwise missing/unaccounted for, their last known location being south of the Caucasus Mountains. You're a Jew, so you are likely not interested in knowing what happened to them, so I will not go deeper into that.

As for the Jews at the time of Christ, they were a multinational mixed people already. Babylon had carried away the remaining Judahites (who themselves were only from that small remnant spared in Jerusalem,) and other peoples had settled in Judea in that time.

When the Judahites returned, well, to avoid making this comment even longer than it already is, I'll spare the details. Through the time of this multinational zone called Judea, until 70 A.D. when God judged the Judeans and had them scattered - many of the pure Judahites had mixed themselves with the other people.

Among them, the Edomites, Nabateans, many Canaanites, et cetera, which is why they were so spiritually corrupted, and why Jesus called them anti-Abrahamic, satanic, and cursed in John 8.

This got so bad to the point that King Herod the Great, who was the king of the Judeans/Jews, was a mixed Nabatean/Edomite. His people had also infiltrated much of the political and religious elite class.

This had to happen, to fulfill Isaiah 7, as another nation was sitting on the throne of David, which is why a virgin conceived and bore a Son, whose name was God With Us.

In short: a vast majority of the original Israelites were missing by the time of Christ, and even the Jews of that time were a mixed multitude and not entirely comprised of Israelites.