According to Exodus 19:5-6 the Mosaic Covenant is conditional as it begins with God using the word "IF"...."If therefore you will hear my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my peculiar possession above all people for all the earth is mine. And you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation. These are the words thou shall speak to the children of Israel."

Aside from the obvious modern state of Israel.......where I've heard Jews called Israelis....

Who are Israelites? The Isrealites under Moses were not called "Jews" as the word "Jew" does not appear until 2Kings 25:25 almost a thousand years after Moses.

What makes one an Israelite according to St.Paul in Romans 9:4-8? If we examine this without prejudice we'll arrive at our answer to your question.

Romans 9:4-8  "Who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption (sonship), and the glory, the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God (worship), and the promises: 5 Theirs are the fathers, and from them, according to the flesh, of whom is Christ. God who is over all things be blessed for ever. Amen.

Here in v. 4 are 7 identity markers for what made one an "Israelite". Christ is the 8th and or the beginning of a new and open-ended 7.   

You don't know who Israelites are?

First, let's look at "Jews". Jews are members of the tribe of Judah (and Simeon and Benjamin). Apart from Jews we have the members of the other tribes, like Menasseh (they hail from India), Ephraim (the Samaritans), Dan (the Ethiopian "Jews"), and Levi (the Cohens). All those tribes together plus the remaining tribes are the people of Israel.

You honestly didn't know that?

It might help you if you had paid attention a few weeks ago. Israel was celebrating Independence Day and most of the symbolism related to the twelve tribes.

Here it seems as though you are trying to use the terms Israelite (under Moses) and Jew interchangeably but how can that rightly be?

The discussion has been centered around the Old Mosaic Covenant and the Isrealites during the time of Moses.

It goes back to what we were discussing earlier, those Jews today do not possess the identity markers of the biblical Isrealites who practiced Biblical Judaism. They don't possess what the Israelites of Moses day possessed i.e. the items listed in Romans 9:4-5.

As far as the meaning of the term "JEWS" today, something tells me that for every 10 Jews I'd ask, I'd get 10 different answers.  

No, I am SPECIFICALLY and DIRECTLY telling you that the two are NOT the same.

Jews: "Jews are members of the tribe of Judah (and Simeon and Benjamin)."

Israelites: "Apart from Jews we have the members of the other tribes, like Menasseh (they hail from India), Ephraim (the Samaritans), Dan (the Ethiopian "Jews"), and Levi (the Cohens). All those tribes together plus the remaining tribes are the people of Israel."

All Jews are Israelites but not all Israelites are Jews.

The "identity markers" of the Jewish people are whatever the Jewish people want them to be according to their own law. YOU have no say in it just like Jews do not ex-officio define the laws that government membership of the German or French or Icelandic people.

Your religious beliefs, whether you think that today's Jews are still following the same religion as whatever you think the Israelite religion was (and I know that you understand neither today's Judaism nor the ancient religion of the Israelites), have NOTHING to do with what the Jewish people are and what Israelites are.

If you read their answers like you did mine, that wouldn't surprise me.

For everybody else, here is the short answer:

Jews are members of certain tribes of the people of Israel. The people of Israel are a middle-eastern people related to Aramaeans, Phoenicians, and Arabs. They speak a Canaanite (like the Phoenicians), Semitic (like the Arabs) language called "Hebrew". They have their own religion. And this hasn't changed in over 4000 years.

Put simply the Israelites are descendants of Israel (Jacob). 

Jews are a word for the Israelites which came into general use during the period after the Babylonian Exile.  In the NT it designates Israelites as opposed opposed to Gentiles. 

Interesting discussion.  Sorry I got here so late but after quickly skimming a few entries about the sin offering I just wanted to add my two cents. 

AD, if I'm reading you correctly you don't believe Jesus sacrifice was considered a blood sacrifice because it wasn't in the temple?  What about Abel's sacrifice?  What about Abraham's?  The story of Abraham and Issac in Gen 22 is a complete picture of the future sacrifice of Christ.  Abraham said to his son "God will provide the sacrifice."   What did he know? 

A blood sacrifice is required by Scripture and is centrally tied to the sin issue.  The substitutionary death of an innocent was required since an atonement for sin was to be made only thru the blood, (Lev 17:11).  The NT was in agreement (Heb 9:22).

This concept was strongly taught by the rabbis even a century after Jesus.  In the Talmud, it states "There is no atonement but by blood."  (Yoma 5a).  The solution to the sin problem was always tied to the substitutionary shedding of blood.

The penalty for breaking God's law is death (shedding of blood).  His justice demands it, but in his mercy he provided a substitute.  That is, an innocent one could serve as his substitute. 

Jeremiah fortold a a new covenant which would supercede the Mosaic Covenant.  Jer 31:31-34. This covenant would be better in that it would provide for the removal of sins instead of merely covering the past year's sins.  It would be written in their hearts and they would be given power to keep it. 

The Old Covenant was only a forerunner until the fullness of time when God would bring in the New.  Heb 7:19, 10:1

If the Old Covenant had been sufficient to provide a permanent solution to the sin problem instead of merely a covering then God would never have promised a second covenant to supersede it.  Heb 8:7

I've heard it illustrated by a credit card.  A credit card has no intrinsic value.  It's just plastic but is accepted in lieu of cash.  It's a forerunner or a shadow of the true payment which is to follow.  The actual payment is made at a later time when the customer pays his credit card bill.  Until that time the credit card covers the purchase.   Likewise, the sacrifices under the OC covered sins and foreshadowed the coming day when Jesus would make the true payment upon the cross.  He paid the debt.   Becuase the debt has been paid and salvation purchased there is no need for the credit card (sacrificial system) today. 

He was the once and for all payment for our sin. 

John said in 1:29 "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."  Why did he say that?  Does one  lamb take away sin for the whole world?  This one did. 

Under the Old Covenant men's lambs could only cover sin (Heb 10:4) but under the New Covenant God's Lamb is able to TAKE AWAY sin. 

Concerning the whole burnt/altar thing and Lev 4.

First of all the sacrifices were done outside the Temple, not inside.   Only the blood was sprinkled inside the temple  in the presence of God (seven times for completion).  The blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat (inside) which is where God dwelt.  Interesting? 

In 1 Cor 5:21 Paul says this:

"For he has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 

That's why when Christ had the sin weight of the world on him he cried out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"  We know that sin separates us from God.  Up until that point Jesus was in perfect union and harmony with God.  It was only with this sin weight upon him did he feel that separation.  He truly bore our sin and became our offering for us. 

Hebrews 13 refers back to Lev 4. 

"We have an altar wherof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.  For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin are burned outside the camp.  Wherefore Jesus also that he might sanctify the people with his own blood suffered without the gate.  Let us go forth therefore to him without the camp, bearing his reproach."  13:10-13

Notice that those who still want to be under the law cannot enjoy the benefits of our altar, the cross and all it stands for. 

In Lev 4 you read where the carcasses of sin offering animals were burned outside the camp.  4:21 and 16:27.  Jesus also suffered outside the gate.  See John 19:17-20 to see how they took Jesus outside Jerusalem and hung him to die.  Christians who wish to follow Christ also need to go outside the camp and join themselves to Christ.   

Yes, that's true. Because at that point the other tribes had assimilated or vanished.

KFC,

In Ex. 3:15, we read that God changed the the name Jacob to Isreal.  Wasn't the name Israel given at a later date to the 10 northern tribes that have disappeared as per 1Kings 2:28-30?

Whoa....what a good question!

Ya, the really amazing thing about the whole OT is that it finds its fulfillment in Christ. And this makes sense because salvation is ultimately bound to Christ.

 Hebrews 8: 6-13 

6 But now he hath obtained a better ministry, by how much also he is a mediator of a better testament, which is established on better promises. 7 For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Juda, a new testament: 9 Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least to the greatest of them: 12 Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more. 13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end.

 Hebrews 8: 6-13 is St.Paul's comparison between the New and the Mosaic Covenants.

The Old made with Moses was written on stone and the New engraved on the minds and hearts of the faithful. He quotes Jer. 31:31-34 where Jeremias refers to the restoration of the Jews after the Exile. They've been purified by suffering and are ready to be the people of God.  "I will be there God and they shall be my people is the core of the prophecy and is a promise of intimate friendship...We don't know if Jeremias sensed the messianic restoration that lay beyond the restoration of the chosen people on its return from exile but certinaly we see this prophecy finds its fulfillment in the New Covenant.

v. 7 "for if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second" and v. 12 "I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more." The Old covenant was not faultless becasue it was bad, it's that it was powerless to atone for sins...it didn't provide people with the grace to avoid committing sins; it simply showed people how to recognize their sins and those who lived under the Old Law continued to be subject to sin.

Whereas the New Covenant of Grace, God truly forgives sins and remembers them no more.  It's repeated again in Hebrews 10:16, I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more v. 18, "Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin." 

Judaism hasn't changed in over 4000 years? Oh really?  I'd say you've got a serious theological problem. But let's say this is so...Leauki...go ahead and show how modern Judaism still possesses the items listed in Romans 9:4-5...

How does modern Judaism have the "sonship"? the "glory"?  the "covenants"? the "law"? the "worship"? the "promises"? and the "fathers"?  as did the ancient Israelites? Lastly, Christ is the eigghth and the beginning of a new seven. The "Isrealites" are thus identified as the Christ-bearers. How does that fit in with modern Judaism?

And again you do not read what I wrote.

I said:

"Jews are members of certain tribes of the people of Israel. The people of Israel are a middle-eastern people related to Aramaeans, Phoenicians, and Arabs. They speak a Canaanite (like the Phoenicians), Semitic (like the Arabs) language called "Hebrew". They have their own religion."

And that hasn't changed.

I read what you wrote. It doesn't support your statement that Judaism hasn't changed in over 4000 years. They may well have their own religion......but it's not the religious Judaism practiced by ancient Israelites described by St.Paul in Romans 9.

If you disagree the burden is on you to show it.

Yes, the Northern Tribe of Israel went into Assyrian Captivity.  That's where later the Samaritans came from.  They were a mixed breed of Jews who inter-married with the Assyrians. 

Judah which was the Southern Kingdom comprised of the other two tribes was also taken into captivity into Babylon for 70 years because of their sin against God regarding his Sabbath.  This is where we get alot of the prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel warning the Jews about the impending danger but the people treated them like  nut cases.....similar to what the world thinks of us now.....God never ever brings judgment without first many warnings.  Shows how merciful he really is in comparison to what is said about him. 

Yes.  The whole book from beginning to end is all about Christ.  That's the whole point.  A plan in progress. 

No, you didn't read what I wrote.

I didn't say that Judaism hasn't changed in over 4000 years.

I'll repeat it for you again:

"Jews are members of certain tribes of the people of Israel. The people of Israel are a middle-eastern people related to Aramaeans, Phoenicians, and Arabs. They speak a Canaanite (like the Phoenicians), Semitic (like the Arabs) language called "Hebrew". They have their own religion."

Read it aloud two or three times until you understand what it means.

Then return and read the below.

I said that

1. Jews are members of certain tribes of Israel.

2. The people of Israel are a middle-eastern people.

3. The people of Israel speak a Canaanite language, Hebrew.

4. The people of Israel have their own religion.

Then I added that that has never changed.

Jews will FOREVER be members of certain tribes of Israel. Israel will FOREVER be a Semitic (middle-eastern) people. Hebrew will FOREVER be their native language. And Israel will have their own religion until the Messiah comes.

And not Egyptians or Assyrians, or Greeks or Romans, or Christians or Muslims will take that away from Israel.

Judaism as a religion changed like Christianity has changed. And I never said that it hadn't. But the core of the religion remained the same: one incorporeal god, certain laws, a priest caste, a Temple when it exists. Everything else may change.

OK... Leauki...this is all you needed to say! PEACE.

"Judaism as a religion changed like Christianity has changed."

You have a talent for "overlooking" words, don't you?

First you go on about how I said something I didn't say, then you "misunderstand" what I said about change in religion.

All religions change, especially Christianity has a talent for it, hence the many different denominations and attempts to return to the real church.