I think this discussion is worth a its own topic. We are talking about the Historical Jesus, not the Prophesied Jesus. There are several question to be risen, not just one.
Here is part of my comment, recovered from the trash bin and corrected.
One of the great examples is the phrase “Jesus was a Jew”. It is usually repeated by the likes of Bart, including Elaine Pagels, Dale Martin and others. But Jesus was not of the tribe of Judah; he was a Galilean, explicitly mentioned in the Bible numerous times. Besides the connection with king David (which, by the way, is avoided by these “scholars”, because historical Jesus doesn’t have any connections to David, David’s lineage as extinct centuries prior Jesus), there is nothing to point Jesus as from the tribe of Judah.
Jesus was an Israelite. He considered himself as such and clearly the Jews considered him apart (and his followers, i.e. Peter has an accent or future apostles ask amongst themselves sarcastically: “can something good can come from Nazarene?”).
The religion of the Jews at that time was not the same as today’s Judaism. They had a couple of sects, some were dependent of ancient Hebraism religion – which, BTW, the language was extinct at that time and only used in religion – they were speaking Aramaic, some were dependent on the Babylonian oral tradition. Jesus was rising in a Greek cultured world, combining Hellenic and Hebraism into one religion. He was not of the “Jewish” faith. Older modern Judaism was founded on the writings after Jesus, 200-300 AD, as a clear rejection of Jesus in the aftermath of Christianity; recent modern Judaism only appeared in 17-18 century. Jesus cannot be of the “Judaic” faith, since the ancients did not have Judaism and the modern Judaism only appeared after Jesus, precisely in his aftermath. We have to distinguish very clearly between ancient Judaism and modern Judaism.
So Jesus was not a Jew, neither by ancestry nor by religion; however, all these corrupt conspirators from academia are stating that Jesus was a Jew, pushing an agenda of which I cannot describe here completely without not being [DELETED]. A very good article is this one:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
there are some other articles, not that good, that go on the idea that the ancient Jews were not actually Jews but they were replaced by other nations, mainly Edomites, along others like Canaanites and such.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
However I find this idea a bit off: it doesn’t really matter exactly the genetics of the people; if they speak the same or a similar language and adhere to same ideologies, I guess they can still be called what they insist to be called. Today, Greeks and Italians claim without a doubt their ancestry to imperial Romans and Hellenes, despite the genetics are a bit different, and no one has a problem with it. We know that Hebraism was long gone, 500 of years before Jesus, with the Babylonian exile, which suggest either a population replacement or a mingling too far. But that shouldn’t be a point in who’s who; and I actually been circumspect of this idea, because it might come from people that try to prove that not the Jews killed Jesus, as it is stated in the Bible, but other Jews that weren’t actually Jews, in order to fight antisemitism (thus, is subjective and false, despite having good intentions). For this idea of “replacement” there is support, even Josephus, he calls the Jews Edomites.
There’s also one article I want to mention but despite saying some truths, it goes full retard no brakes and it states that the Jews are actually… the Germans. This article should be a study in itself, it’s containing actually the modern pop-culture or internet culture edgy and fringe belief – so if you read this one, you understood them all.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So… question: why does Bart states Jesus was a Jew? Does he not know, being a world renowned scholar, that this statement is technical inaccurate? I’m sure he knows. If he know that he says something partially incorrect… does he do it with an agenda? What’s the agenda? Whom benefits?
other comment of mine was:
1. The descendant of Jesus from king David is mythological; it is to fulfill prophecies. Next time ask your cult leader Bart Ehrman, the renown scholar about this. You see, the historical Jesus… couldn’t be a David descendant. David’s lineage was extinct centuries before Jesus. Both genealogies, from Matthew and Luke are just make shift to fulfill prophecies. Bart himself states this in many of his talks. David was indeed of tribe Judah; in the Bible the mythology is indeed that Jesus descended from him. But not the historical Jesus.
2. A confusion that is made intentionally is to confuse Jew with Jew. Saying “American” today doesn’t mean a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant person. It can be a person of different confessions and different races. “Judean” at that time could mean a person living in Judea, as an administrative province. When Paul calls himself “Jew” he refers to exactly that: a person from Judea, related to the Jews, born in the main-stream confession of Judes, which was the most important and biggest tribe of all, that imposed itself in the area. This is to distinguish himself from the Romans or Gentiles, in general. In fact, his speech in Acts 22 is precisely that: to prove his “Jewishness” in the front of the Jerusalem Jews, because he was taken as a non Jew.
3. Talking in synagogues, fulfill some rituals, like circumcision, doesn’t make anybody a religious Jew. For the first, there were no other places to preach; for the second, circumcision is not exclusively jewish; the jews copied it from the Egyptians. Muslim people have it, too. Saying that Jesus was a Jew because he was circumcised is the same of calling him an Egyptian because the practice was originally egyptian.
4. Hebraism was the ancient religion of Moses. Moses wasn’t a Jew. Neither Abraham. Neither Jacob (Israel). According to mythology, Judah was the son of Jacob (Israel). This is the lineage:
Heber → Peleg → Reu → Serug → Nahor → Terah → Abraham → Isaac → Jacob (Israel) → Judah
You can’t talk about “Jews” before Judah. Jacob, Isaac, Abraham were Hebrews, but not Jews. Jesus is not a Jew, but an Israelite. That’s why he said: I came at first for the lost sheep of Israel (Jews included). Then Jews rejected Jesus. Then the rest of the people, Israelites, Gentiles and so on became the new Christians. Later in the Bible the word “jew” is referring not the tribe of Judah, but to the “chosen people” of Jesus, which are non-Jews Israelites and Gentiles and became Christians. Jews are welcomed too if they convert, but the mythology is that they don’t.
5. No, they weren’t talking in Hebrew. That is ridiculous. See no. 4 above. Up until the Babylonian exile, we can talk about Hebraism. After the Babylonian exile, when those people came back with new theories from the Babylon, those people are Jews by religion. Jesus was practicing Hebraism, not Judaism. His conflict was with the Jews. Jesus was talking about a renewal of the religion, back to Abraham and Moses. Hebrew as a language was extinct centuries before Jesus, it was used as a mass language, like Latin today in catholic or Anglican church. They were speaking Aramaic. Specifically because they were a different people of the ancient Hebrews. Jesus, being born in Galilee, as an Israelite, could’ve claimed ancestral origin, untamed by the Babylonian corruption.
When honest people say “Jesus was a Jew” what they want to mean is that Jesus was born in Judea, a province inhabited mainly by Jews and practicing one of the Jewish faiths at that time.
When dishonest people (like Bart) say “Jesus was a Jew”, what they want to convey is the agenda that Jesus was of the same ethnicity and religion as modern Jews are today, which is false.
This is vaguely familiar to one of my threads.
Jesus the Galilean was not where the Temple was. Jesus had to go to Jerusalem.
People in Jerusalem, Judah could say, technically, a person from Galilee was not Jewish.
People from Galilee could claim they were Jewish probably as people in the Babylonian Diaspora or people in the Greek Diaspora–or people in the Italian Diaspora could claim they were Jewish.
Steefen said
This is vaguely familiar to one of my threads.
Jesus the Galilean was not where the Temple was. Jesus had to go to Jerusalem.
People in Jerusalem, Judah could say, technically, a person from Galilee was not Jewish.
People from Galilee could claim they were Jewish probably as people in the Babylonian Diaspora or people in the Greek Diaspora–or people in the Italian Diaspora could claim they were Jewish.
1. Find that thread and post the link here.
2. Correct; it seems that almost always Galileans are set apart from Jews. i.e. Josephus the historian says “the Jews and the Galileans” instead of just “the Jews”. They seem to be distinct and maybe even to have their own language? Peter had an accent, for example, accents are to be explained when under the influence of other languages.
Steefen said
Jesus came from what religious tradition reading what scripture, defending what Temple?
Jewish tradition
Jewish scripture
His Father’s House of Prayer
I think these are anachronisms. How would they say back in the day? I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t say the “jewish” scripture. They would utter the names of Abraham and Moses, who are not to be considered “Jews”, but “Hebrews”. And the episode with the “Father’s House of Prayer” is rather mythological than historical. It doesn’t pertain to the “Historical Jesus”.
How do we know that Jesus’ Apostles are all Jewish?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’”
Dan Santa 2003
1. Find that thread and post the link here.
Steefen:
YouTube Channel: Spinoza’s philosophy
Video: Jesus Was NOT Jewish – The Origin the Church Hid for 2,000 Years | Spinoza
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And the forum thread is
Spinoza’s Addition to the Historical Jesus Discussion / John 10:34 – In YOUR Law, not in Our Law
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Whatever being a Jew or Jewishness was considered to be, no Jewish teacher or authority has ever contested Jesus’ Jewishness.
I just think he’s bicultural — Jewish and Nabataean, which were simply the two borderless, intermarried, lead cultures of the First Century Transjordan. I don’t think that someone who just stacks stone walls speaks like Jesus does in quotes. I think that he’s an actual son of a handmaid to a Lord. The people with the duties of a Lord in the area seem to be of partly or fully Nabataean lineage, and that’s where the influence would likely come from.
If someone calling themselves the Son of God is a real, historical person, why can’t the Kingdom of God be a real, historical kingdom?
A Nabatean is a member of an ancient Arab people who built a wealthy trading kingdom in the southern Levant and northern Arabia from the 4th century BCE until 106 CE.
= = = =
Steefen:
Petra is not Sepphoris or Nazareth or Capernaum.
Second,
In 1st century Petra, the people practiced a polytheistic Arab religion.
“_no Jewish teacher or authority has ever contested Jesus’ Jewishness_”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_9459dd50-3656-44d3-b422-b827bddd30f0
**There is no major mainstream Jewish teacher, rabbi, or authority who denied that the historical Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish.** Jewish sources from antiquity to the present consistently treat him as a Jew (by birth, upbringing, and context), while rejecting Christian claims that he was the Messiah, divine, or that he founded a new religion superseding Judaism.
### What Jewish sources actually say
– **Talmud and related rabbinic literature**: Passages traditionally linked to Jesus (often under names like Yeshu, Ben Pandira/Panthera, or “that man”) portray him as a Jew who practiced sorcery, led people astray, and was executed. Some traditions claim he was the illegitimate son of a Jewish woman (Mary/Miriam) and a non-Jewish man (a Roman soldier named Panthera in certain accounts). This was a polemical attack on the virgin-birth and Davidic-lineage claims, and it could imply he was a *mamzer* (illegitimate) or of mixed parentage under ancient standards. It does **not** deny that he lived and operated within Jewish society.
– **Toledot Yeshu** (medieval Jewish “Life of Jesus” parodies): These polemical texts depict Jesus as an illegitimate troublemaker and heretic within a Jewish setting. They contest his legitimacy and claims, not his ethnic or cultural Jewish identity.
– **Medieval disputations**: At the 1240 Paris disputation, Rabbi Yehiel of Paris argued that Talmudic references to “Yeshu” referred to a different person, not Jesus of Nazareth. This was a defensive strategy against Christian accusations of blasphemy in the Talmud, not a claim that Jesus himself was non-Jewish.
### Modern Jewish scholarship
From the 19th century onward, Jewish scholars and rabbis have overwhelmingly **affirmed** Jesus’ Jewishness while situating him firmly inside first-century Judaism (often as a Pharisee-like teacher or Galilean charismatic):
– Abraham Geiger (Reform Judaism pioneer)
– Joseph Klausner (*Jesus of Nazareth*)
– David Flusser, Geza Vermes, Pinchas Lapide, Schalom Ben-Chorin
– More recent figures such as Amy-Jill Levine, Shmuley Boteach (*Kosher Jesus*), and many contributors to *The Jewish Annotated New Testament*
These writers emphasize that Jesus was born to Jewish parents in Judea/Galilee, observed Jewish practices, taught from Jewish texts, and died as a Jew under Roman authority.
They reject only the later Christian theological claims about him.
### Important distinctions
– Jewish tradition contests **Jesus’ religious significance** for Jews (he is not the Messiah or God) and sometimes his birth legitimacy in polemical literature.
– It does **not** contest that he was ethnically and culturally Jewish.
– Claims that “Jesus was not Jewish” (Aryan, purely Galilean Gentile, “Palestinian” in a modern political sense, etc.) come almost exclusively from non-Jewish sources—most notoriously certain Nazi-era Christian theologians and some modern political polemics—not from Jewish authorities.
In short, the consistent Jewish position across centuries is that Jesus was a Jew who went astray or whose followers later developed ideas unacceptable to Judaism.
No prominent Jewish teacher is known for arguing that he was not Jewish at all.
Steefen said
How do we know that Jesus’ Apostles are all Jewish?Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’”
Only one tribe of the Israel is “Judah”. Only one tribe are Jews. The rest of the tribes have different names and are called, in general, Israelites. Have you even read what I posted?
Steefen said
Dan Santa 2003
1. Find that thread and post the link here.
Steefen:
YouTube Channel: Spinoza’s philosophy
Video: Jesus Was NOT Jewish – The Origin the Church Hid for 2,000 Years | Spinoza
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Unfortunately this looks like AI slop, however I made an effort to watch it and I agree with many things from there. Key points from the video that I recorded:
- Galilee was derogatory called “the Galilee of the Gentiles” from the “pure Jews” POV
- when Nathanial, a future disciple, asks “Can something good come from the North?” in a mocking way, because the Jews didn’t see with good eyes the Galileans
- Mary, a Galilean woman, was the cousin of Elisabeth (after Luke), which was from the Levi tribe
- the Galilean accent (when Peter is ousted out as a follower of Jesus) – this implies people of a different ethnicity + people using a different language. Jesus himself when saying “Eli, Eli yama sabachtani” is misunderstood by the people nearby because of the thick accent.
- 11 of the disciples are Galilean; it is only one that is Jewish, and his name is not a coincidence that is Judah! The 12 disciples match the tribes and Judah the Iscariot represent the Jews, who betrayed Jesus and had him killed.
- archeological remains of pigs; there is evidence in the Gospels about Jesus and his followers not keeping kosher, according the Jewish food rituals.
- Galilee was treated separately from the Judah by the Romans; Pilate seems to pass the area of competence to Herod when judging the Northern Jesus.
- the genealogies are constructed to match the prophesies: Jesus had to be come from David’s lineage to be the Messiah.
- the conclusion is stupid, unfortunately, and doesn’t worth to be mentioned.
And the forum thread is
Spinoza’s Addition to the Historical Jesus Discussion / John 10:34 – In YOUR Law, not in Our Law
** you do not have permission to see this link **
I scanned as fast as I could that thread, but it seems that BJH1960 and even Robert hijacked it, distracting people from the topic. To avoid repeating, there is there but only one thing to be addressed, which is John 10:34. I found this to be a a lousy argument, just because Jesus said yours and not ours. The line “the testimony of two men can be verified” in the Old Testament comes from Deuteronomy 19:15, which is still the Hebrew Bible, not the Pharisaic tradition. I am 100% convinced that Jesus was practicing some sort of Hebraism mixed with Hellenism, thus there is no doubt that Jesus would not accept Deuteronomy, in fact, he was clearly pushing for the 5 books of Moses against the Pharisaic tradition that sought to cancel or by-pass it. I would say the nature of the speech is that of an emphasis: “but even you, yourself, follow your writings, that belong to you, this!” Despite the writings were the Scripture that everybody accepted.
It’s akin to a discussion between an anti-vaxxer and a pro-vaccination person, when the anti-vaxxer says to the other: “but even you believe in science, the science that states if you believe in something to be true with no tolerance for doubt, that means you’re not practicing science, but a cult!” while the anti-vaxxer clearly is believing into the scientific method himself when trying to debunk the other.
Steefen said
Basically,
People from Jerusalem could speak of Galileans as “other.”
– and –
Jesus could speak of People from Jerusalem as “not mine,” “not My Law” but “YOUR Law.”
Correct; not only people in general, like the people from the Gospels, but historians, like Josephus, would’ve make this distinction.
Incorrect; that is a bad argument. Jesus was trying to make a “revert back to the original religion”, which was Hebraism; Jesus clearly said to his disciples to teach the 5 books of Moses. He was using a polemic speech, engaging the Pharisees.
Stephen said
Dan’s posts read better in the original German.
Stephen said
DavidFord said
“Dan’s posts read better in the original German”
Evidence of translation from German?
Evidence that you have any sort of detectable sense of humor?
and, of course, I couldn’t make it through without the Neanderthal’s thread hijacking with distracting jokes, personal attacks and name calling.
Serene said
Whatever being a Jew or Jewishness was considered to be, no Jewish teacher or authority has ever contested Jesus’ Jewishness.
I just think he’s bicultural — Jewish and Nabataean, which were simply the two borderless, intermarried, lead cultures of the First Century Transjordan. I don’t think that someone who just stacks stone walls speaks like Jesus does in quotes. I think that he’s an actual son of a handmaid to a Lord. The people with the duties of a Lord in the area seem to be of partly or fully Nabataean lineage, and that’s where the influence would likely come from.
If someone calling themselves the Son of God is a real, historical person, why can’t the Kingdom of God be a real, historical kingdom?
Of course the Jewish teachers, neither liberal bought-off professors (coughBartcough), would ever contest Jesus’ Jewishness. When I learn about Jesus in history at school, I remember reading: Jesus was a person born in modern day Palestine territory. I don’t remember the other things, only if I’ll ever get my hands on that manual, but the term used in almost all of the cases was hebrew. Sometimes the word “iudeu” was uttered, especially when talking about what INRI stood for. But I think the religion of Jesus was called “the ancient Hebraic religion”. Modern Israel was not recognized at that time; and “Judea” was the name of a Roman Provence. The kingdom of Judah never existed, never was mentioned, – this is what I remember, I might be wrong.
And this is what I believe: that sometimes along history, somebody hijacked who Jesus was. I believe that Jesus, in liberal academia today, is presented as a modern Jew, as a psychological operation, to combat antisemitism. Likewise for Christianity, it is portrayed as being a branch of Judaism. It’s like the ancient Jews birthed Christianity while continuing to exist and to be today’s Judaism. This is false. Modern Judaism is based on the Talmudic writings that occurred after Jesus, 2-3 centuries, literally in the aftermath of Christianity taking movement. Some people try to pose themselves as fore-fathers of Jesus and Christianity to:
- gain sympathy and tolerance
- look more important than what they are and
- gain validity in their religion (getting Christians to acknowledge that even without Jesus they can be saved – while the Protestant movements are already pozzed, real Christianity like the Catholics did not backed off so far).
“The Kingdom of God” cannot be a specific kingdom in history, because it is simply the future kingdom, where the Creation will be restored, people will be awaken in restored bodies to live for ever on the restored earth, along side with Jesus, as their King. This is what Jesus thought; and I find this simple idea to be so subverted and the waters so muddied by people like Bart, that average people do not understand this. This idea is specific to Jesus (and to Christianity), as Jews (be them Pharisee or Sadducee) did not believe in this; they believed the soul goes to God, without retaining the deceased personality, because the person is the body that simply returns to earth upon dying. For the Jews of that time “life everlasting” was simply the Jewish tribe living on the face of the earth for ever, each generation spawning another generation and so on; the individual doesn’t matter, only the tribe. Jesus came with the original idea (“original” meaning copied from the Greeks) that a man can become a [demi]god.
DavidFord said
In short, the consistent Jewish position across centuries is that Jesus was a Jew who went astray or whose followers later developed ideas unacceptable to Judaism.
No prominent Jewish teacher is known for arguing that he was not Jewish at all.
Yes. And if you wonder why, read above.
Sure, the goals might be morally good, but the method is not; and saying that “Jesus was a Jew” omitting intentionally all the technicalities behind it proves that the utterer is pushing some kind of nefarious agenda that contains half-truths, distortions, and lies.
Dan Santa 2003:
one thing to be addressed, which is John 10:34. I found this to be a a lousy argument, just because Jesus said yours and not ours.
Steefen:
Is it not written in your Law
You have to follow your Laws, I don’t-I’m the outsider in this gathering.
You find that lousy. It’s accurate.
You find accuracy lousy.
You’re saying Jesus is an outsider.
Jesus says he’s not part of that group.
You’re saying your position is lousy.
Introduction, Body, Conclusion: so, your introduction is poor, the body of you what you’re saying is lousy. Two out of three are dysfunctional. You’ve already lost.
You’ve spoken against the introduction and the claim. You’re trying to get people to agree with a conclusion you’ve already trashed.
Steefen, any time you spend arguing with Dan is wasted. He thinks we’re all deluded Satanists. I went over to his blog so the rest of you don’t have to. It’s loathsome and vile. If he posted some of that stuff over here he would get banished to outer darkness.
As it is a thread devoted to proving that Jesus wasn’t a Jew is merely stupid.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)