How did modern Jews come to claim the Covenant.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

 

Here is the historical breakdown

---

1. The Covenant was with Abraham → Isaac → Jacob → the 12 tribes

The covenant is about BLOODLINE, not a later religion.

Abraham was NOT a “Jew” — the word did not exist
Isaac was not a Jew
Jacob (Israel) was not a Jew
The 12 tribes were not Jews; they were Israelites
Only ONE tribe later became known as “Yehudim / Jews”:
the Tribe of Judah

So the covenant belongs to the entire House of Israel — not to a single tribe and certainly not to Rabbinic Judaism.

---

2. Judaism as a religion did not exist until ~500 BCE

After the Babylonian Exile (6th century BCE):

▪️ The priestly elite (Ezra, Nehemiah) rewrote/edited scriptures
▪️ New laws, new interpretations, new identity
▪️ The “House of Judah” became known as “Yehudim” → Jews
▪️ Later all Israelites began to be retroactively called “Jews”

This is how a regional tribal identity became:

a national identity →
then a religious identity →
then a global identity

But it is not the same as the ancient Israelites.

---

3. 10 tribes disappeared — only Judah survived

The Assyrians destroyed the Northern Kingdom (10 tribes).
Only Judah + Benjamin + some Levites remained.

These survivors became:

“Jews” — people of Judah (Yehudah)

The rest of Israel was gone or absorbed into other nations.

So the word “Jew” NEVER meant all the descendants of Israel.

---

4. Rabbinic Judaism arose EVEN LATER (~200 CE)

Modern Judaism is based on:

• Mishnah (200 CE)

• Talmud (400–500 CE)

• Rabbi interpretations

• New laws, new theology

This is 1000+ years after Moses.

So Rabbinic Judaism ≠ Mosaic religion
And Rabbinic Jews ≠ ancient Israelites

---

5. How did the Covenant get “claimed”?

By redefining the word “Israelite” to mean “Jew”

After the exile, the elites of Judah began calling themselves:

“We are the whole nation of Israel”
(even though Israel had 12 tribes)

This linguistic shift allowed:

 the Tribe of Judah
to claim
 the Covenant meant for the entire House of Israel

---

6. The Real Reason for the Confusion

Language manipulation

“Israelite” (all 12 tribes) becomes
→ “Jew” (1 tribal group)

Scriptural editing

Post-exile scribes rewrote history to center Judah.

Religious evolution

Rabbinic Judaism replaced ancient Israelite religion.

Modern politics

Today’s claims rely on the rewritten identity, not on original scripture or history.

---

Final Answer (simple):

The Covenant was not given to “the Jews” or “Rabbinic Judaism”.
It was given to Abraham → Isaac → Jacob → all 12 tribes of Israel.
The word “Jew” originally referred only to people from Judah — not to all Israelites.
Modern Judaism inherited the covenant claim through historical rebranding, not through original scripture.  IT WAS PLAIN STEALING.  THEFT.  JUST LIKE ANYTHING RELATED TO JEWS.  

[Northwest]

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

1. “Judah acquired prominence because other tribes became idolaters.”

❌ Distortion

This is a self-serving narrative from Judah’s scribes, not an objective historical fact.

Tanakh was written, edited and canonized by Judahite priests long after the Northern Kingdom fell. They portrayed:

• Judah = faithful

• Israel (10 tribes) = idolaters

But archaeology shows:

✔ Both kingdoms practiced similar religion
✔ Both worshipped Yahweh + regional deities
✔ Even Judah worshipped idols inside the Temple (2 Kings 23)

So the idea that Judah was “more righteous” is a literary reconstruction — not history.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

2. “Only Judah remained faithful so only Judah was fit to continue the covenant.”

❌ Not in the Tanakh at all

The Tanakh states:

The covenant was with ALL 12 tribes — forever.
Even when they sinned, God calls them back.

Nowhere does Tanakh say:

❌ “Judah inherits the covenant alone.”
❌ “Other tribes forfeited ancestry or identity.”
❌ “Judah now represents all Israel.”

This is a post-exilic ideological claim, not scripture.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

3. “After the exile Judah wasn’t interested in recovering the lost tribes.”

❌ This proves the point against their argument

If Judah:

• lost 10 tribes

• didn’t search for them

• but still claimed the covenant

Then this is precisely the appropriation you originally described:

A single surviving tribe claiming the covenant designed for twelve.

The reply tries to justify the appropriation, not refute it.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

4. “No evidence connects lost Israelites to Arab tribes.”

❌ Strawman + historically false

Never claimed that.
The Qur’an does not claim Ishmaelites = Lost Tribes.

But, historically:

• Many Israelites fled south into Arabia (documented by Assyrian records)

• Jewish–Arab communities existed long before Christianity

• Israelite tribes mixed with Arab clans around Hijaz and Najran

This does not make Arabs “Israelites,” but it proves:

✔ Israelite presence
✔ Cultural and genealogical mixing

So the reply’s claim is meaningless.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

Some people just go beyond rationality to fabricate lies. Try to distort so the layman gets fooled. 

 

“The Qur’an criticizes Ezra for esoteric reasons.”

❌ Fabrication

The Qur’an does not criticize Ezra.
It criticizes a Jewish faction that said:

“Ezra is the son of God.” (Qur’an 9:30)

Even Jewish historians admit:

• Some mystical sects exalted Ezra

• Ezra wasn’t universally accepted as prophet or priest

• His scripture editing caused major disputes

Nothing “esoteric” here.
It is a known historical controversy.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

The jews normally repeats the lie until people starts to belive the lie is truth.  This is a born DNA inheritance of Jews and Christians.  
 

“The term Jew expanded naturally to include all Israelites.”

❌ Historically wrong

“Jew” (Yehudi) originally meant:

➡️ “Person from the Kingdom of Judah”
Not Israelite.

Only after:

• 10 tribes vanished

• Judah rewrote scripture

• Judah claimed to be “Israel”

did “Jew” evolve to mean an entire people.

This was a political identity reconstruction, not a natural evolution.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

The usual tactic of distraction. 

“We should not let Christian influence color interpretation.”

❌ Diversion tactic

You did not rely on Christianity.
Your argument was based on:

• Historical timeline

• Linguistics

• Archaeology

• Tanakh itself

Bringing Paul into this is irrelevant distraction.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

“Jesus validated the Rabbis and their traditions.”

❌ Completely incorrect — even from the NT

Jesus accused the Rabbis of:

• corrupting the law

• additions

• hypocrisy

• man-made traditions replacing divine law

Matthew 23 is an indictment, not validation.

And — more importantly — Jesus is irrelevant to your argument because you are discussing:

• Abraham

• Jacob

• Mosaic law

• Rabbinic Judaism (which came centuries later)

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

Yours Victim Card does not hold any value now.  The reverse psychology does not work. 

 

“To deny Judah’s exclusive inheritance is to deny the Torah.”

❌ The Torah explicitly contradicts this.

Torah says:

• Israel = 12 tribes

• All tribes are heirs

• Covenant is collective

• Judah = one tribe among many

Torah never states:

❌ “Only Judah is the true Israel.”
❌ “Judah inherits the covenant alone.”

This idea appears only after:

• Northern Israel was destroyed,

• DNA of tribes was lost,

• Judah needed to legitimize itself.

Thus, the reply is repeating Judah’s self-justifying narrative, not Torah doctrine.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

OUTRIGHT FALSE CLAIM.  *Please referain from so brazen lies. 

“Torah came by means of Judah.”

❌ False

Moses was a Levite, not from Judah.

The Torah came through:

➡️ Levi
not
➡️ Judah

So the statement is outright factually incorrect.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

The Final Point. 

 

“Jesus being from Judah validates Jewish covenant claims.”

❌ Non-sequitur

Jesus being ethnically from Judah has zero bearing on:

✔ whether Rabbinic Judaism can claim Abraham’s covenant
✔ whether “Jew” originally meant all Israelites
✔ whether Judah rewrote scripture

It is irrelevant and theologically biased.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

This is partly accurate. The original ‘covenant‘ did cover the tribes as a whole, but even before the Exile Judah acquired prominence, especially as the other tribes became ‘idolaters’ (according to the Tanakh). By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’. After the Exile only Judah was in a position to continue fulfilling the ‘covenant’ and was no longer interested in recovering the ‘lost’ tribesmen who sold themselves to idolatry (and for the record, there is little evidence to link these ‘lost’ Israelites to the Arabian groups that later adopted Islam). The Quran’s criticism of Ezra the Scribe may have had less to do with Rabbinic legalism than with a more obscure, esoteric point of interest. The same Quran does allude to the fact that there were at least some Jewish scribes who believed in the prophetic status of Muhammad.

Moreover, while the term ‘Jew’ is indeed a tribal (i.e., ‘bloodline’) reference to Judah, it also refers more broadly to the cultural and religious customs that came to be associated over time with that tribe, once the other tribes dissolved. Also, we must not let Christian influence (vis-à-vis the Pauline-edited New Testament) color our interpretation of second-Temple Judaism, much less the Rabbinic elite. In the ‘unedited’ portions of the NT Jesus does not criticize the Rabbis for their doctrines or practices, but for their failure to follow through (cf. Matthew 23:2–3, John 4:22, where ‘salvation is of the [righteous] Jews’). To claim that the only legacy is Judah or Jews is ‘theft’ would be tantamount to denying the Torah, which came by means of Judah; Jesus himself, after all, was by blood of Judah, i.e., a ‘Jew’, and his customs were those of the Rabbis, despite disagreements on a number of fine points.

I am posting a summary of the distortions in your reply. 

 

Summary of distortions in the reply

✔ Misrepresents archaeology

✔ Repeats Judahite propaganda from post-exilic scribes

✔ Misquotes Torah’s position on all tribes

✔ Confuses ethnicity, geography, and religion

✔ Injects Christian theology into a non-Christian discussion

✔ Makes outright factual errors (Moses from Judah? Impossible.)

✔ Tries to justify Judah’s appropriation of Israelite identity with circular reasoning

[Northwest]

10 hours ago, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

1. “Judah acquired prominence because other tribes became idolaters.”

❌ Distortion

This is a self-serving narrative from Judah’s scribes, not an objective historical fact.

Tanakh was written, edited and canonized by Judahite priests long after the Northern Kingdom fell. They portrayed:

• Judah = faithful

• Israel (10 tribes) = idolaters

But archaeology shows:

✔ Both kingdoms practiced similar religion
✔ Both worshipped Yahweh + regional deities
✔ Even Judah worshipped idols inside the Temple (2 Kings 23)

So the idea that Judah was “more righteous” is a literary reconstruction — not history.

@Ibrahim Rasheed I never said that all of Judah upheld the Covenant. I explicitly stated that even Judah contained sinners (by the Bible’s definition). My point was that a faithful remnant only existed within Judah, while the other tribes and even many members of Judah deviated. Here is my quote: “By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’.” The exiles who returned to rebuild were of Judah. Also, I do not really care about archaeology, because that is not decisive and does not disprove Jewish claims. Using the Bible and other Jewish sources to confirm, disprove, or qualify Jewish assertions is most effective. (Similarly, one must use Christian or Islamic sources to vet Christian or Muslim claims. Internal resources are the best.)

11 hours ago, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

3. “After the exile Judah wasn’t interested in recovering the lost tribes.”

❌ This proves the point against their argument

If Judah:

• lost 10 tribes

• didn’t search for them

• but still claimed the covenant

Then this is precisely the appropriation you originally described:

A single surviving tribe claiming the covenant designed for twelve.

The reply tries to justify the appropriation, not refute it.

I am not justifying it. I am merely stating the Bible’s point of view. Also, I doubt that Judah would want to ‘search‘ for tribesmen it regarded, rightly or wrongly, as wilful idolaters, i.e., covenant-breakers. So Judah, by its own lights, would not be ‘appropriating’ anything.

11 hours ago, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

4. “No evidence connects lost Israelites to Arab tribes.”

❌ Strawman + historically false

Never claimed that.
The Qur’an does not claim Ishmaelites = Lost Tribes.

You misinterpreted my statement. I never mentioned the Quran or claimed that Islam regarded the Arabs as lost Israelites. I was claiming that there is no evidence that ‘lost’ tribesmen eventually merged with or joined the Arab groups.

11 hours ago, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

But, historically:

• Many Israelites fled south into Arabia (documented by Assyrian records)

• Jewish–Arab communities existed long before Christianity

• Israelite tribes mixed with Arab clans around Hijaz and Najran

I know that there was a lot of interaction between the twelve tribes and their Arab neighbors, especially in Idumaea (Edom) and points south, in northwestern Arabia (i.e., along the eastern Red Sea littoral). There is even some evidence that the Biblical (‘wilderness of’) Sinai, i.e., Mount Horeb, might actually have been in that part of Arabia, near the Gulf of Aqaba, the homeland of Midian/Madyan. But as far as I know there is no hint in the Bible or Jewish sources that some of the ‘lost’ tribes fled into Arabia or mixed with the Arab tribes.

11 hours ago, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

Some people just go beyond rationality to fabricate lies. Try to distort so the layman gets fooled.

I am not fabricating anything. I might be wrong about things, but I am not going out of my way to promote someone else’s agenda. No one is paying me to promote a Jewish or other narrative.

11 hours ago, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

“The Qur’an criticizes Ezra for esoteric reasons.”

❌ Fabrication

The Qur’an does not criticize Ezra.
It criticizes a Jewish faction that said:

“Ezra is the son of God.” (Qur’an 9:30)

Even Jewish historians admit:

• Some mystical sects exalted Ezra

• Ezra wasn’t universally accepted as prophet or priest

• His scripture editing caused major disputes

^ This does not disprove my contention. The Quran’s criticism of Ezra’s disciples in itself might well be aimed at Ezra himself, given that Jewish sources viewed his methods as questionable. The Quran, viewing Ezra’s legacy as (at least somewhat) discreditable, might therefore be targeting both Ezra and his followers; neither possibility is mutually exclusive. By ‘esoteric’ reasons I was referring to disputes involving those mystical Jewish factions that idolized Ezra or in effect gave him quasi-divine status via their ‘imprimatur’. There were plenty of strange, marginal Jewish and other sects throughout history.

11 hours ago, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

The Jews normally repeats the lie until people starts to believe the lie is truth.  This is a born DNA inheritance of Jews and Christians.

If Jews and Christians are genetically conditioned to believe falsehood, then I do not see why we are even having this debate. (Moreover, if they are biologically conditioned to do so, then I do not know why one can would hold them morally responsible, given that free will would not be available to them.) Making this claim is just as racist as, say, Zionists or other people using racial (i.e., tribal) ‘arguments’ that try to prove their viewpoint rather than look at evidence. If all we do as a species is about justifying our bloodline(s), then there is no pretense of universalism or objectivity, if the very concept of truth is a biological construct, i.e., the exclusive property of a clannish bloodline.

Just look at my posts and try to find evidence that I am some kind of Zionist or Jewish apologist. (I don’t even think that Israel should be a ‘Jewish’ state.)

11 hours ago, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

“The term Jew expanded naturally to include all Israelites.”

❌ Historically wrong

“Jew” (Yehudi) originally meant:

➡️ “Person from the Kingdom of Judah”
Not Israelite.

I meant that, following the disappearance of the other tribes, both Judah and foreigners came to associate Israelite customs with Judah. I never stated that Jews or Judah existed as a term or concept at time of, say, Moses. Obviously neither did. (Here your observation is correct.) Also, the fact, following the exile of the northern tribes, that non-Jews also began labeling Israelite customs as ‘Jewish’ shows that appropriation by Judah was not the sole or even primary factor. By that time the only Israelite tribe left was that of Judah, i.e., in a distinct form. And that tribe inherited the former customs of their tribal relatives.

11 hours ago, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

The usual tactic of distraction. 
“We should not let Christian influence color interpretation.”

❌ Diversion tactic

You did not rely on Christianity.
Your argument was based on:

• Historical timeline

• Linguistics

• Archaeology

• Tanakh itself

Bringing Paul into this is irrelevant distraction.

I brought it up because I suspected that you would allude to Christian claims about Jesus opposing the Rabbinical elite (i.e., assertions that Christians make in order to ‘prove’ post-Pauline claims that Jesus abrogated the Torah). My original post also never mentioned archaeology, something that you injected into this debate (I referred to the other things you noted).

11 hours ago, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

“Jesus validated the Rabbis and their traditions.”

❌ Completely incorrect — even from the NT

Jesus accused the Rabbis of:

• corrupting the law

• additions

• hypocrisy

• man-made traditions replacing divine law

Matthew 23 is an indictment, not validation.

Matthew 23:3 is quite clear. Jesus commands his followers to obey the rulings of the ‘scribes and Pharisees’: ‘All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe...” At the same time, he commands his followers not to follow their spiritual errors. In Matthew 23 Jesus indicts the sages for their motives, i.e., seeking worldly advantage or appearance. He does not, as some Christians do, indict the Rabbis for legalism, ceremony, and so on. He castigates the Rabbis for their impure motives and aims, not their native offices or prerogatives. (This is quite evident in Matthew 23:13 and subsequent verses, where Jesus pronounces ‘woe’ upon elite hypocrisy.) Also, there is some evidence that Matthew 23 involves (post-)Pauline influence, i.e., in vv. 7–8, where Jesus espouses a kind of egalitarian vision, refusing to be addressed, or to address his fellows, as ‘Rabbi’. (Conversely, in John 1:38,49, 3:2,26, 6:25 Jesus does not object to being treated as a ‘Rabbi’ at all.)

11 hours ago, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

OUTRIGHT FALSE CLAIM.  *Please referain from so brazen lies. 
“Torah came by means of Judah.”

❌ False

Moses was a Levite, not from Judah.

The Torah came through:

➡️ Levi
not
➡️ Judah

So the statement is outright factually incorrect.

I never mentioned Moses in this context. Obviously there were no Israelite tribes then. My point is that, following the exile of the other tribes, Judah held the repository of the Mosaic Law, as well as the deposit of Israelite custom. (Presumably this is what Jesus means in addressing the Samaritan woman in John 4:22, saying that ‘salvation is of the Jews’ and commanding her to follow “Jewish’ custom.) So by the time of the Babylonian Captivity only Judah remained to carry out the fulfillment of the Covenant, which was once collective (i.e., addressed to all the tribes), as you mentioned. Once the other tribes were lost to history, Judah inherited the Israelite mantle by default (at that time).

[Northwest]

Re: Jesus’ attitude toward the Rabbis, I must state that even the Babylonian Talmud (Toledot Yeshu), a very anti-Jesus work, admits that many of the Jewish sages believed in Jesus:

Quote

Also many Israelites adhered to them, and these were men of high renown, and they strengthened the faith in Jeschu. And because they gave themselves out to be messengers of him who was hung, a great number followed them from among the Israelites.

Meanwhile, non-Jewish sources such as Eusebius admit that the earliest Christians were Torah-observant Jews whom the Romans regarded as anti-Gentile revolutionaries as late as the 130s CE:

Quote

Previously, in Historia ecclesiastica 4.5–6, Eusebius related that, until the Second Revolt, all bishops in Jerusalem had been of Hebrew descent: until the siege of the Jews, during the time of Hadrian, there were in number fifteen successions of bishops, whom they say were all by origin Hebrews, and purely received the knowledge of Christ, with the result that they were also in fact deemed worthy of the service of bishops among those able to judge such matters. For at that time the whole church was composed…of Hebrew believers, from the time of the apostles up until the siege they endured at that time, during which the Jews, having rebelled again against the Romans, were conquered after not a few battles. ...

Equally significant is Eusebius’s belief that, after the Second Revolt, the ... ethnic Jewish segment of the Christian church vanished: that is, those of Hebrew descent who had 'truly received the knowledge of Christ'. ... And because the Christians were thought principally to consist of Jews (for the church at Jerusalem did not then have a priest except of the circumcision), he [Hadrian] ordered a cohort of soldiers to keep constant guard in order to prevent all Jews from approaching to Jerusalem. This, however, rather benefited the Christian faith, because almost all then believed in Christ ... while continuing in the observance of the law.

Eusebius thus relates, indirectly, that the Jewish Christians fought alongside Simon bar Kochba against the Romans and, contrary to the Pella legend, never left Jerusalem after 70 CE.

So we have independent testimony that many of the Rabbis either tolerated or believed in Jesus’ followers until Kochba’s revolt. They did not expel all of Jesus’ followers from Jerusalem.

(Cf. Acts 5:34–9, where Gamaliel tries to protect Jesus’ followers from anti-Jesus Rabbinical factions. So the Jewish elite was neither monolithic nor united on the question of Jesus.)

Edited November 23, 2025 by Northwest

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

11 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Ibrahim Rasheed I never said that all of Judah upheld the Covenant. I explicitly stated that even Judah contained sinners (by the Bible’s definition). My point was that a faithful remnant only existed within Judah, while the other tribes and even many members of Judah deviated. Here is my quote: “By the time the Babylonians arrived only Judah—and not necessarily the whole tribe either!—remained more or less faithful to the ‘covenant’.” The exiles who returned to rebuild were of Judah. Also, I do not really care about archaeology, because that is not decisive and does not disprove Jewish claims. Using the Bible and other Jewish sources to confirm, disprove, or qualify Jewish assertions is most effective. (Similarly, one must use Christian or Islamic sources to vet Christian or Muslim claims. Internal resources are the best.)

I am not justifying it. I am merely stating the Bible’s point of view. Also, I doubt that Judah would want to ‘search‘ for tribesmen it regarded, rightly or wrongly, as wilful idolaters, i.e., covenant-breakers. So Judah, by its own lights, would not be ‘appropriating’ anything.

You misinterpreted my statement. I never mentioned the Quran or claimed that Islam regarded the Arabs as lost Israelites. I was claiming that there is no evidence that ‘lost’ tribesmen eventually merged with or joined the Arab groups.

I know that there was a lot of interaction between the twelve tribes and their Arab neighbors, especially in Idumaea (Edom) and points south, in northwestern Arabia (i.e., along the eastern Red Sea littoral). There is even some evidence that the Biblical (‘wilderness of’) Sinai, i.e., Mount Horeb, might actually have been in that part of Arabia, near the Gulf of Aqaba, the homeland of Midian/Madyan. But as far as I know there is no hint in the Bible or Jewish sources that some of the ‘lost’ tribes fled into Arabia or mixed with the Arab tribes.

I am not fabricating anything. I might be wrong about things, but I am not going out of my way to promote someone else’s agenda. No one is paying me to promote a Jewish or other narrative.

^ This does not disprove my contention. The Quran’s criticism of Ezra’s disciples in itself might well be aimed at Ezra himself, given that Jewish sources viewed his methods as questionable. The Quran, viewing Ezra’s legacy as (at least somewhat) discreditable, might therefore be targeting both Ezra and his followers; neither possibility is mutually exclusive. By ‘esoteric’ reasons I was referring to disputes involving those mystical Jewish factions that idolized Ezra or in effect gave him quasi-divine status via their ‘imprimatur’. There were plenty of strange, marginal Jewish and other sects throughout history.

If Jews and Christians are genetically conditioned to believe falsehood, then I do not see why we are even having this debate. (Moreover, if they are biologically conditioned to do so, then I do not know why one can would hold them morally responsible, given that free will would not be available to them.) Making this claim is just as racist as, say, Zionists or other people using racial (i.e., tribal) ‘arguments’ that try to prove their viewpoint rather than look at evidence. If all we do as a species is about justifying our bloodline(s), then there is no pretense of universalism or objectivity, if the very concept of truth is a biological construct, i.e., the exclusive property of a clannish bloodline.

Just look at my posts and try to find evidence that I am some kind of Zionist or Jewish apologist. (I don’t even think that Israel should be a ‘Jewish’ state.)

I meant that, following the disappearance of the other tribes, both Judah and foreigners came to associate Israelite customs with Judah. I never stated that Jews or Judah existed as a term or concept at time of, say, Moses. Obviously neither did. (Here your observation is correct.) Also, the fact, following the exile of the northern tribes, that non-Jews also began labeling Israelite customs as ‘Jewish’ shows that appropriation by Judah was not the sole or even primary factor. By that time the only Israelite tribe left was that of Judah, i.e., in a distinct form. And that tribe inherited the former customs of their tribal relatives.

I brought it up because I suspected that you would allude to Christian claims about Jesus opposing the Rabbinical elite (i.e., assertions that Christians make in order to ‘prove’ post-Pauline claims that Jesus abrogated the Torah). My original post also never mentioned archaeology, something that you injected into this debate (I referred to the other things you noted).

Matthew 23:3 is quite clear. Jesus commands his followers to obey the rulings of the ‘scribes and Pharisees’: ‘All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe...” At the same time, he commands his followers not to follow their spiritual errors. In Matthew 23 Jesus indicts the sages for their motives, i.e., seeking worldly advantage or appearance. He does not, as some Christians do, indict the Rabbis for legalism, ceremony, and so on. He castigates the Rabbis for their impure motives and aims, not their native offices or prerogatives. (This is quite evident in Matthew 23:13 and subsequent verses, where Jesus pronounces ‘woe’ upon elite hypocrisy.) Also, there is some evidence that Matthew 23 involves (post-)Pauline influence, i.e., in vv. 7–8, where Jesus espouses a kind of egalitarian vision, refusing to be addressed, or to address his fellows, as ‘Rabbi’. (Conversely, in John 1:38,49, 3:2,26, 6:25 Jesus does not object to being treated as a ‘Rabbi’ at all.)

I never mentioned Moses in this context. Obviously there were no Israelite tribes then. My point is that, following the exile of the other tribes, Judah held the repository of the Mosaic Law, as well as the deposit of Israelite custom. (Presumably this is what Jesus means in addressing the Samaritan woman in John 4:22, saying that ‘salvation is of the Jews’ and commanding her to follow “Jewish’ custom.) So by the time of the Babylonian Captivity only Judah remained to carry out the fulfillment of the Covenant, which was once collective (i.e., addressed to all the tribes), as you mentioned. Once the other tribes were lost to history, Judah inherited the Israelite mantle by default (at that time).

What you mean and what you say here all twisted logic.  You should refrain from your absured self contracting conclusions.  Please stick to facts and factual thinking.  Otherwise this is a just a waste of time.  This is not a Political debate that you can lie your way out with absudities. 

 

“Judah inherited the Israelite mantle by default”

This claim collapses for four reasons:

---

1. “Default inheritance” is NOT a Torah concept

In the Torah:

• Covenant = eternal

• Covenant = for ALL 12 tribes

• Covenant = binding even if they are scattered

No verse says:

• “If tribes disappear, Judah becomes Israel.”

• “Judah inherits covenant alone.”

YOURS is post-exilic Judahite theology, not scripture.

God NEVER cancels tribal identity because Judah survives a war.  

---

2. Judah was NOT the only surviving Israelite tribal population.  *PLEASE NOTE YOU LIED ON THIS DELIBERATELY.  

YOUR claim is historically false.

After Assyria:

• Many northern Israelites escaped south

• Thousands joined Judah

• Others fled to Egypt and Arabia

• Some remained in the north (forming early Samaritans)

Meaning:

✔ “Israel” did NOT vanish
✔ Judah did NOT stand alone
✔ Multiple Israelite populations survived

Even the Tanakh acknowledges remnants of all tribes existing after exile.

Judah did not become “Israel”—it simply renamed itself Israel.   NEITHER BY DEFAULT.  **YOU LIED HERE. 

---

3. Using Jesus vs. Samaritans proves the OPPOSITE of YOUR argument

YOU cites John 4:22 (“salvation is from the Jews”).
This BACKFIRES for three reasons:

A. Samaritans considered themselves Israelite — and they preserved the older Torah

The Samaritans:

• Follow only the Torah

• Reject all Judah’s later writings.   **THIS IS WHERE YOU GET CAUGHT. 

• Claim descent from Ephraim & Manasseh

• Have ancient manuscripts OLDER than the Masoretic Text

If anything:

✔ Samaritans are closer to pre-exilic Israel.  THE REAL ISRAELITES.
✔ Judah is the revisionist party

So quoting Jesus to erase Samaritans is historically incoherent.

B. The Gospel of John is not a historical source for tribal inheritance

It was written 60–70 years after Jesus, by Greek-speaking Christians, not by Israelites.

You cannot use it to justify Judahite political theology from centuries earlier.

C. Even if Jesus were speaking historically (unlikely), he is referencing:

• access to the Temple

• preservation of scripture (then in Judah’s custody)

Not tribal identity.

This says NOTHING about Judah inheriting all Israel’s covenant.   ONCE AGAIN PLEASE REFRAIN FROM THE USUAL JEW HASBARA PROPAGANDA ON JUDAISM.

---

4. “Repository of the Mosaic Law” ≠ “Owner of the covenant”

Judah possessing:

• Temple

• Scrolls

• Priestly class

does not make it:

• the only Israelite tribe

• the heir of all tribes

• the replacement for Israel’s entire collective identity

That is like claiming:

“Because Rome kept Greek books, Romans replaced the Greeks.”

Historical absurdity.

Custody of manuscripts ≠ replacement of an ethnic covenant.

---

YOUR logic is self-contradictory

You admits:

1. The covenant was originally for all tribes.

2. Judah only gained “mantle” because others were “lost.”.   (In your own words he inherited by default as he is the only "surviving Israelite?" Which is totally false, wrong and deliberately misleading). 

This means:

✔ Judah’s claim is political, not scriptural
✔ Judah stepped into a vacuum — it was not chosen
✔ “Default” inheritance is NOT divine mandate
✔ Being the last survivor does NOT rewrite Abraham’s covenant

It is the exact definition of historical appropriation.

Edited November 24, 2025 by Ibrahim Rasheed

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

11 hours ago, Northwest said:

Re: Jesus’ attitude toward the Rabbis, I must state that even the Babylonian Talmud (Toledot Yeshu), a very anti-Jesus work, admits that many of the Jewish sages believed in Jesus:

Meanwhile, non-Jewish sources such as Eusebius admit that the earliest Christians were Torah-observant Jews whom the Romans regarded as anti-Gentile revolutionaries as late as the 130s CE:

Eusebius thus relates, indirectly, that the Jewish Christians fought alongside Simon bar Kochba against the Romans and, contrary to the Pella legend, never left Jerusalem after 70 CE.

So we have independent testimony that many of the Rabbis either tolerated or believed in Jesus’ followers until Kochba’s revolt. They did not expel all of Jesus’ followers from Jerusalem.

(Cf. Acts 5:34–9, where Gamaliel tries to protect Jesus’ followers from anti-Jesus Rabbinical factions. So the Jewish elite was neither monolithic nor united on the question of Jesus.)

Again this has no relevance to Original Post and what is being discussed. 

 

(1) Custody of the Torah =/ inheritance of the covenant.
Holding the scrolls does not equal being the sole recipient of the covenant.
The Mosaic covenant was explicitly:

➡️ Collective
➡️ Forever
➡️ For all 12 tribes (Deut 29:10–14)

Nowhere does the Tanakh say:

❌ “If 10 tribes disappear, Judah becomes Israel by default.”
❌ “Covenant transfers automatically to surviving tribe.”

This is post-exilic Judahite theology, not scripture.

 

(2) Judah was NOT the only surviving group.
Even after Assyria:

• remnants of Ephraim, Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun etc. remained

• they merged into Judah’s population (2 Chron 30:11, 2 Chron 34:9)

• Judah absorbed other tribes for political survival

So “Judah alone remained” is historically false.
Judah became multi-tribal — yet still called Yehud.

 

(3) “John 4:22 — salvation is from the Jews” is irrelevant.
Jesus was speaking:

➡️ as a Judahite
➡️ during 1st-century sectarian division
➡️ in a Greek text compiled decades later

This cannot be used retroactively to claim:

“Judah = Israel
Judah = covenant holder
Judah = collective nation”

Jesus is not commenting on the ancient covenant.
He is commenting on Samaritan–Jewish ritual differences in his era, not on:

• Abraham’s covenant

• Jacob’s tribes

• Exilic theology
  
   

  (4) Judah “inheriting” Israel by default is not theology — it is survival narrative.

  It is like saying:

  “If all but one child died, the lone child automatically represents the entire family’s ancestors.”

  That’s an emotional narrative, not a legal or scriptural truth.

Edited November 24, 2025 by Ibrahim Rasheed

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

Simply put. Survival ≠ divine inheritance.
Judah’s survival after exile does NOT make them the theological owners of Israel’s covenant.
They became “Israel” only after rewriting the narrative — not because God reassigned it.

[Northwest]

On 11/24/2025 at 2:57 AM, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

3. Using Jesus vs. Samaritans proves the OPPOSITE of YOUR argument

YOU cites John 4:22 (“salvation is from the Jews”).
This BACKFIRES for three reasons:

A. Samaritans considered themselves Israelite — and they preserved the older Torah

The Samaritans:

• Follow only the Torah

• Reject all Judah’s later writings.   **THIS IS WHERE YOU GET CAUGHT. 

• Claim descent from Ephraim & Manasseh

• Have ancient manuscripts OLDER than the Masoretic Text

If anything:

✔ Samaritans are closer to pre-exilic Israel.  THE REAL ISRAELITES.
✔ Judah is the revisionist party

So quoting Jesus to erase Samaritans is historically incoherent.

@Ibrahim Rasheed They might have preserved an older Torah (a point of contention), but Samaritans also rejected the Jerusalem Temple, instead worshiping on Mount Gerizim. The four Gospels do not record that Jesus told his followers not to attend Temple service. The fact that John—a Hellenistic (i.e., anti-Judah) redaction—portrays Jesus as pro-Temple (or ‘anti-Samaritan’), or pro-orthodoxy (Ephraim and Manasseh are treated equivocally in the Tanakh), goes against the milieu in which it was finalized, so its portrayal of Jesus might bear historicity; Hellenist Christians, including John’s followers, would have had a motive to present Jesus as backing heterodoxy or a dissident strand of Judaism. So Jesus’ attitude toward Judah’s establishment in, e.g., Matthew 23:2–3 (‘do as they say, not as they do’) refutes the Hellenist desire that Jesus reject the Temple cult, as well as the Torah, altogether.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:57 AM, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

B. The Gospel of John is not a historical source for tribal inheritance

It was written 60–70 years after Jesus, by Greek-speaking Christians, not by Israelites.

You cannot use it to justify Judahite political theology from centuries earlier.

C. Even if Jesus were speaking historically (unlikely), he is referencing:

• access to the Temple

• preservation of scripture (then in Judah’s custody)

Not tribal identity.

Given the environment (pro-Greek, anti-Judah) in which John was compiled, its account of Jesus’ viewpoint seems to be founded in history. You are correct about ethnicity, but Jesus seems to have endorsed Judah‘s monopoly over the Temple and Scripture, while condemning lapses, including shortcomings, in the behavior of the Rabbis.

On 11/24/2025 at 2:57 AM, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

---

4. “Repository of the Mosaic Law” ≠ “Owner of the covenant”

Judah possessing:

• Temple

• Scrolls

• Priestly class

does not make it:

• the only Israelite tribe

• the heir of all tribes

• the replacement for Israel’s entire collective identity

That is like claiming:

“Because Rome kept Greek books, Romans replaced the Greeks.”

Historical absurdity.

Custody of manuscripts ≠ replacement of an ethnic covenant.

I will concede your point here, while stressing that Jesus, as in the Gospel of John, seems to have approved of Judah’s ‘custodial’ role.

[Ibrahim Rasheed]

On 1/2/2026 at 7:35 PM, Northwest said:

They might have preserved an older Torah (a point of contention), but Samaritans also rejected the Jerusalem Temple, instead worshiping on Mount Gerizim. The four Gospels do not record that Jesus told his followers not to attend Temple service. The fact that John—a Hellenistic (i.e., anti-Judah) redaction—portrays Jesus as pro-Temple (or ‘anti-Samaritan’), or pro-orthodoxy (Ephraim and Manasseh are treated equivocally in the Tanakh), goes against the milieu in which it was finalized, so its portrayal of Jesus might bear historicity; Hellenist Christians, including John’s followers, would have had a motive to present Jesus as backing heterodoxy or a dissident strand of Judaism. So Jesus’ attitude toward Judah’s establishment in, e.g., Matthew 23:2–3 (‘do as they say, not as they do’) refutes the Hellenist desire that Jesus reject the Temple cult, as well as the Torah, altogether.

Torah does NOT mandate Jerusalem
Torah never names Jerusalem as God’s chosen sanctuary.
It repeatedly says only “the place YHWH will choose” (Deut 12).

Mount Gerizim, however, is explicitly named in the Torah (Deut 11:29; 27:12).
So from a Torah-only standpoint, Samaritan worship is not un-Torahic.

---

Jerusalem is later Judahite theology, not Mosaic law
Jerusalem becomes central only in Kings/Chronicles, centuries after Moses.
Temple exclusivity is Davidic-Solomonic, NOT ORIGINAL TORAH.

---

Tanakh itself weakens Judah’s monopoly

• Jacob elevates Ephraim over Manasseh (Gen 48)

• Psalm 78 admits God rejected Joseph/Ephraim before choosing Judah

Multiple Israelite centers existed before Jerusalem.
Judah’s dominance is historical, not eternal.

---

Prophets repeatedly undermine Temple absolutism

• Jeremiah 7: Temple condemned

• Amos 5: sacrifices rejected

• Isaiah 1: ritual obedience meaningless without justice

Critique of the Temple is orthodox prophecy, not heresy.

---

Jesus never endorses Temple permanence

• Mark 11: Temple cleansing

• Matthew 24: “Not one stone will be left”

• John 2: Temple replaced by his body

This is prophetic judgment, not cultic support.

---

John’s Gospel is NOT anti-Samaritan
John 4 (longest dialogue):

“Neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father”

Jesus relativizes both Gerizim and Jerusalem. John is the least Temple-centric Gospel.

Matthew 23:2–3 is misused in the answer.  Why?
“Do what they say, not what they do” acknowledges teaching authority, not Temple legitimacy.
The same chapter ends with judgment on Jerusalem (23:37–38).

---

‘Hellenists wanted Jesus pro-Temple’ makes no sense

• John replaces Temple with Logos/Spirit

• Acts 7 (Stephen, a Hellenist) explicitly condemns the Temple

If Hellenists wanted Temple orthodoxy, John is the worst text to invent it.

[Abu Nur]

On 11/24/2025 at 4:43 AM, Ibrahim Rasheed said:

Simply put. Survival ≠ divine inheritance.
Judah’s survival after exile does NOT make them the theological owners of Israel’s covenant.
They became “Israel” only after rewriting the narrative — not because God reassigned it.

Salaam Aleikum, 

Prophet Yaqub (عليه السلام) did gave the leadership and the one who will bring the sari'ah to Judah until it returns to our Prophet Muhammad (saws) 

The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he to whom it belongs shall come and the obedience of the nations shall be his. Genesis 49:10

[Guest Psi]

On 1/6/2026 at 9:04 PM, Abu Nur said:

Salaam Aleikum, 

Prophet Yaqub (عليه السلام) did gave the leadership and the one who will bring the sari'ah to Judah until it returns to our Prophet Muhammad (saws) 

The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he to whom it belongs shall come and the obedience of the nations shall be his. Genesis 49:10

The rebuttal to your argument would be that the Torah the Jews have in their possession as well as the Torah of the Samaritans and the Greek Septuagint are not even the original Torah revealed by God to Prophet Moses (عليه السلام) according to the Quran at Surah 5:44.

So the passage you are quoting in the Torah of the Jews in their Tanakh regarding Jacob giving leadership rights to Judah and is also the one who will bring the "sari'ah" to Judah might as well be post exilic Judahite theology.

Does the Quran verify that Prophet Jacob (عليه السلام) gave leadership to Judah? Does the Quran verify that Prophet Jacob (عليه السلام) is the one will bring the sari'ah to Judah?