Jesus was absolutely Jewish

Maybe you should attempt to define "Jewish" in this context.

Exactly so called Jesus was not Jewish those are converts and they damn well know it. He was a Jew from the tribe of Judah.

Hebrews 7:14King James Version (KJV)

14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

He subscribed to the religion of his people then. He taught in the synogogue, was circumcised and did the usual purifications and practices. He did not come to condemn the law but fulfill it. A priest in the order of Melchezidek says the prophecy.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/topmindsofreddit] White Jesus was not a (((Jew)))

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

Qumranian is the best explanation I've ever read.

Yes he is. He resurrected so he was and still is..

Jesus is a fiction.

If I remember correctly there were multiple Jesus like figures doing the same Magix tricks at that time. Jesus was just the one that caught on and exploited to drive an agenda. Its so weird people have crafted their whole lives around a book written by men full of fairy tales.

Atheist here. Pretty sure it is stupid to deny Jesus existed.

His myths, miracles and “quotes” are all up for discussion but saying the person is fiction is a bit naive

No, it's not naive.

It’s true and it’s important to understanding the level of deception at play in society’s wider narrative. This Christian Zionism bullshit has only been around a few generations, before which the Jews were correctly understood to be the bad guys of the Bible having incurred God’s wrath ”forever”.

Judeans and Judahites, Hebrews and Israelites are distinct from the Jew; those same Jews now desecrating the Holy Land under a Babylonian banner, promoting the mischaracterization of their being the “chosen people”.

I'll do you one better. Jesus was not real either. Woah

They why do they bitch about Jesus in the Talmud and mention him in historical texts? I know he fits the messiah archetype and all of that, but the didn't exist argument seems kinda weak.

They don't. No contemporary accounts of Jesus exist, and the only historical texts were from after he supposedly died.

All religions come from the same story. Ancient Egypt had the first and they all share the same traits. Born from a virgin, died and resurrected. Go look it up.

fitting a pattern doesn't discount historical record

If you believe in Jesus fair enough. Keep in mind Iceland believes in fairies and they claim to have historical records on them.

Quick question though, is Jesus white or middle eastern in your mind?

Middle eastern or black. I'd love it if he was fiction but the debunking arguments are weak. Of course being the messiah is another claim altogether.

well Jesus had a short ministry and the execution was the noteworthy part to non-followers.

Over in Iceland they believe in fairies and claim to have historical texts (as you put it) to prove it.

Something else that may or not may not surprise you. People lie, none more than religious fanatics

But are the fairies validated by non-Icelandic texts? Jesus appears in Jewish and Roman texts.

I even heard the Khaballah says that Jesus miracles were real, walking on water was walking on the 12 stones of the tribes of Israel or something. Haven't verified that yet.

If you believe in a man who walks on water comes and goes from the sky and fathered by a deity banging some random girl then by all means. But maybe one day you'll join the 21st century. Until then careful what you do or say as he's watching you always.

I'm arguing the historicity of Jesus which is widely accepted. I see you haven't looked into it much or don't care. Best of luck.

Well consider this, Shakespeare. A more recent part in history and many don't consider for a moment he was made up. Some revionists now believe he was never real. So you claiming he must be real he's in the bible and also in the Torah. Well both of those are works of fiction whereas actual credited history books claim Shakespeare was real. Don't believe everything you read and hear. Learn to be a revisionist. Best of luck.

I'm arguing the historicity of Jesus which is widely accepted. I see you haven't looked into it much or don't care. Best of luck.

Jesus was a mushroom

I think you mean that he wasn't a Zionist. He's absolutely a Jew, being a Jew is central to his identity and is why Mary's lineage drawing a path to King David is a necessary part of his story.

I did read the article. However, Jesus is meaningless if he's not the Jewish Messiah promised in the Old Testament. So much of the story in the Bible - like the non-existent census in the Nativity - needs him to fulfill Jewish prophecy.

What do you mean by Jewish? Seriously.

What he means is that Jesus was Jewish, you dense fuck.

What you article argues (very poorly) is an etymology of the term "Jew" (in English mind you as it doesn't touch other languages to support his "theory") , which does't make any sense anyway. As he is discussing the term we use today. It's like discussing how early Christians were called by some "The Nazarenes" and hence that makes John, Matthew, Peter..etc and other disciples not Christians.

If we called Jews today "Judahite", "Judeans" or wahataver.... as article argues, Jesus in that respect would be a "Judahite", "Judean" or whatever society subscribed to call the people who follow Abraham.

Do you fucking understand that core tenant of Christian faith is that Jesus was the last messiah of Abraham people a.k.a Jews. It is literally inscribed in scripts (old Testament) that last Messiah of Jews - have to be Jew. That makes Jesus , the Jesus. That's how he got chance to preach and gather people. He was literally sent by god to Jews, for Jews, to fulfil Jewish prophecy. Only after he was rejected by Jews for not being a Messiah (as they believed that last Messiah can't be born of the deity) ..... early Christians decided to spread Jesus words to non Jewish people (hence replacing the circumcision for example, with baptism) . How people called Jews at that time is irrelevant. He is a Jew.

What author of article is actually insinuating is a slight anti-semitism(dare I say??) as he obviously has a problem with the term "Jew"

However, we Christians must do our part and remove the word “Jew” from the translated bible and replace it with Judahite. That way all of us may know that Jesus was NOT a Jew.

In other words: We Christians should stop associate Jesus with (((Jews)) .

Yeah, that. ^{^}

That's pretty much what I got from the article and your half thought out posts myself, so.

You're splitting hairs pretty fucking hard trying to make it what you want it to be. Like the guy above me, I'm pretty sure you're having to keep from typing (((Jews))). Jesus absolutely has to be a Jew. It's the entire point of his story and character arc.

You cannot take him being the Jewish Messiah out of his story and still have a story. You - and the author of the article - want him to not be a zionist, which he absolutely isn't, I'll agree with that. But if he's not a Jew, he's not important and he's certainly not anyone that has any authority for a major religion to be built on.

They're an ethnoreligious group tracing their line back to Abraham, his son Isaac, Isaac's son Jacob, and the Biblical matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel.

Just admit that your issue is with white European (((Jews))), not the ethnoreligious Jewish people of Abrahamic descent.

The ethnoreligious group that traces their lineage to Abraham. You know those begat sections in the Bible? They're a storytelling conceit that's entire purpose is to trace lineage back to Abraham. The whole reason Mary's lineage is a plot point in the New Testament is to establish Jesus as a direct descendant of both David and Abraham, and give him the authority of Jewish prophecy.

The Tamakh and related tomes establish that. I'm taking it you're not incredibly familiar with the origins of the Bible?

I still don't know what point you're trying to make. The Talmud is the basis for the Jewish faith, it's also part of the Christian Bible.

Nice (((Jews))) meme that is only used by people from TMOR.

I did read the article and if you read my post you ll see I addressed issues in the article.

WHO IS A JEW?

The word “Jew” did not come into existence until the year 1775. Its modern connotation points to someone who follows and adheres to a faith similar to that of the Pharisees of Judah, but is not of the tribe and stock of Judah.

From the get go author tries to define an etno-religious group (Jews) through its etymology ("The word “Jew” did not come into existence...")

Furthermore

“The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times.

“When the word ‘Jew’ was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was ‘Judean’. However, during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international ‘pressure group’ created a so-called ‘secondary meaning’ for the word ‘Jew’ among the English-speaking peoples of the world. This so-called ‘secondary meaning’ for the word ‘Jew’ bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word ‘Jew’. It is a misrepresentation.

So according to author there is world wide conspiracy to redefine what original Jew was in a Bible. Author admits it something it only exist in English speaking countries, but ti doesn't explain why then "Jew" in other languages (specifically German and Slavic for example, as well as Greek) ...is not refined and it is old as..well a Bible (before King James translated version?)

In other words, how do you explain the term "Jew" in other languages which didn't change at all and it preserved original meaning and term which is also used today. (eg. term "Jew" used in Bible is the same term used for Jews today) The only stupidity that might exist is that English speaking people (mostly Americans) think that Christianity started with King James Bible.

But lets dig further

In fact, the religion that is known as Judaism is actually Pharisaism. Judaism – as it pertains to Pharisaism – is a misnomer since it is neither the doctrine of Judah nor the doctrine that Christ practiced.

It is the doctrine of the Pharisees of old, an evil doctrine they brought back from their Babylonian captivity. It does not follow the truth of the Bible, neither of the Old Testament nor of the New. Its central tenets are found in a book called the Talmud (the real Satanic Verses), **a book full of worldly traditions, lies, and superstitions.

Today, those who are known as Jews are in fact the non-Semitic and non-Israelite Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Samaritans, who in later times joined small numbers of other races that converted to Judaism/Pharisaism

It is clear that author tries to link Jews of today to, and I quote, "an evil doctrine" . However, author being clearly an English speaking Christian can't bare the fact that actual Jesus and ideology he believes in derives from "an evil doctrine".... so he decided to perform mental gymnastic in order to separate Jesus from "the Jew" because it clearly fits his narrative.

Therefore Jesus is NOT a Jew but a Judahite. While Jews of today are, and I quote again, followers of " an evil doctrine they brought back from their Babylonian captivity"

You also sound extremely emotional.

As paid shill who gets $2 per post I really feel I am not paid enough to deal with stupidity on this level

You are apologising to me? It is you who put the article up for discussion and it's up to you to explain agenda from article. Not me.

I am sorry that no one believes that Jesus is not a Jew.

How did I exposed myself by stating the obvious? and exposed as what?

I literally bold out citations from your article that clearly state how Jews of today practice, and I quote again:

"an evil doctrine they brought back from their Babylonian captivity"

Essentially labelling all Jews of today as evil. Not some Jews, not mentioning Zionist or something similar. No. Jews of today

Today, those who are known as Jews are in fact the non-Semitic and non-Israelite Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Samaritans, who in later times joined small numbers of other races that converted to Judaism/Pharisaism

Author clearly states that Jews of today are not the Biblical [Good] Jews that Jesus descended from, buy they are followers of an evil and corrupt doctrine..and if that was not enough....author argues that the reason we don't know about it is because (((well paid organisations))) in 18th century made sure to re-define the term "Jews" in Bible.

If it is not antisemitism, what is it?

Its bloody textbook antisemitism mate.

and since you have no arguments to defend.... you engage into "you are exposed" and "your reading skills are not up to task" etc. Nope mate, it is not me who is exposed.

It is you.

He was born into a Jewish families and was learned enough to be a rabbi by his teens. But did not embrace the identity of a Jew. Those missing years he travelled and acquainted himself with other religions and condemned them all, just as he had Judaism. He breaks Jewish laws in scriptures and says it's wrong. The Jews were the most dangerous religious fanatics of the time (still are) and just didn't let him get away with his life for disrespecting their infant form of spiritually.

Great article. Thanks.

This seems simply propaganda against the Israel country and people. This article tries to cut the good will of Americans towards that country. There are direct arguments against the thesis in the article, but the most important point is that this are times of ideological wars and that everything has to be doubted and not be taken as a truth just because it has some true words and historic knowledge embedded in it.

How exactly do you respond to gibberish? If you buy the author's thesis then the only "true" jews are the Samaritans (no exile). They are damned because salvation is only for the house of Judah which was destroyed if you accept the original premise.

More of a fiction, I would say.

Jesus was a poor Jewish carpenter who looked middle eastern and no amount of whitewashing can change that fact.

I read a bunch of other articles by reputed bible scholars and historians