definitions

From The Egyptian Origins of King David and the Temple of Solomon by Ahmed Osman: The term Hebrew, in the OT is only used during and after the OT story of the 430 year bondage, as was the case with Pharaoh's daughter declaring about Moses that he is one of the Hebrew children. Neither Joseph, Isaac or Jacob or Joseph's 11 brothers were called Hebrews. (end of quote)

According to Ahmed Osman on p.76 of The Egyptian Origins of King David and the Temple of Solomon: the Hebrew verb srh means "to be a leader" (or a commander), and el is short for Elohim (God), the new name means "Elohim rules." (Compare this to his definition of Sarah in which he states that srh (Sarah with no vowels) means queen. ch.6 of The Lost City of the Exodus, (also by Osman) p.51-52: Represent the Hebrew tribe of Jacob, who later received the title of Israel. Jacob and his family migrated to Egypt to join Joseph the Patriarch when he was working as a high official in the Egyptian pharaonic palace. So, although the Israelites were Hebrews, not all the Hebrews were Israelites. Moreover, from the time Jacob's descendants were freed by Moses, they were no longer referred to as Hebrews and became known only as Children of Israel, or Israelites. Another definition is given by Osman on p.33 (3d page of ch.4) as that of Ysra meaning prince or ruler, which is the same as the sar of Sarah, which means princess or queen. And El being a short form of Elohim.Here is a conundrum in that we are told that the Israelites were monotheistic, yet the very name Israel means prince of multiple Gods. (the "im" at the end of Elohim means multiple). This is the most likely of the 2 definitions because it collaborates with Genesis 32:24-28:

Here it specifically says prince (prince of God) which corresponds with the definition given above of Ysra-El. Another possible definition is that Is-Ra-El is derived from Isis (Is) Ra (the Egyptian sun deity), and El, the Babylonian name for God (borrowed by the Jews). Interestingly these are three different deities of non-Jewish origin.

According to professor Robert Eisenman, Israel means God rules, and Ishmael means God hears. Eisenman claims also that the IS in Israel is properly pronounced "ish" as is the case with Ishmael. Compare this with the story of Jacob werestling the angel and it being declared in Gen 32:28: "And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." This definition does also have somewhat of the idea of God ruling, or Jacob (Israel) ruling (in one sense) at least in a higher position than before, this however despite the main focuss of this story being the wrestling.

Yehud is the Aramaic name for the province in the Persian empire and the people of Judah, the Judahites, will henceforth be known as Yehudim, or Jews. The "im" at the end of Yehudim designates the plural form or Yehud. Technically they cannot be called Jews before the Persian (Babylonian) captivity.

Here is a quote from p.297 of The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman: Events took place when the Successive waves of exiles returned to Jerusalem (from Babylon) are reported in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah and the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. This is also the moment in our story when we must change our terminology: the kingdoms of Judah becomes Yehud---the Aramaic name of the province in the Persian Empire and the people of Judah. The Judahites, will henceforth be known as Yehudim, or Jews. (end of quote)

Notice that in the first instance, the most correct definition of a Jew is a Babylonbian definition, and not a Jewish definition. The Jewish (of the Jewish religion) definition is a secondary definition. Hence a Jew can mean a Babylonian and/or someone of the Jewish religion who has never even been to Babylon nor has and ancestry there. This word Jew later began to take on the false meaning of a race.

On the Amen page I use the term "Christianity" with its conventional (but wrong) meaning. The term Christianity properly refers to the Jews of that era. This is because the Greek root word for Christ is Christos which means" the annointed one" and the term "Christian" therefore properly refers to the Jews who presently followed or looked forward to a Christ (human leader or man-man, not a god-man) to deliver them from the Romans. Hence it is theologically and historically impossible that a Christian can be other than a Jew who follows or anticipates a Christ (any Christ or Christs) as described above. But this situation no longer exists and therefor, strictly speaking, it is impossible for anyone today to be a Christian. Those who are called Christians today are wrongfully labelled as such, and the replacement term that I use to describe them is "turn-the-other-cheekers" to distinguish them from Christians (who no longer exist).

We have been wrongfully tot that Rome persecuted the turn-the-other-cheekers but this is not true. Rome had no reason to do so, and in fact the turn-the-other-cheekers were an assett to Rome because they were willingly compliant with all Roman laws because they accepted the doctrine that they were to submit to those who have the rule over them. They even willingly payed taxes. It was rather the Jews (Christians) who were a threat to Rome, and it was them whom Rome persecuted. The idea that Rome persecuted "Christians" (those who believed in a crucified and resurrected Jesus) is completely wrong and was used to mislead us from the truth, which is that they persecuted the Jews.