• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why can’t Jesus be a Jew?

roy1928

Member
Judea and Galilee were two separate states and political entities, as illustrated on the map of Palestine in the time of our Saviour in the Bible. Jesus Himself was a Galilean or resident of Galilee (Matthew 26:69; John 7:41), and a Judahite or descendent of the Tribe of Judah. The Judeans of prominence were not of the Tribe of Judah, but of Edomites. Pilate was being ironic when he wrote the sign "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans" for the Cross (John 19:19). That is, "the Galilean who was King of the Judeans," as in "Queen Victoria of England, Empress of India." Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Galilee. His disciples were fishermen from the Sea of Galilee. And although He visited Jerusalem, he spent most of His life in his home country of Galilee. John 7:1, "After this Jesus stayed in Galilee; for He could not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him." His followers were constrained "for fear of the Jews" (John 7:13, 19:38, 20:19).


We know that Saul was the first king of Israel and that John was the first man called Baptist, but who was the first Jew? Neither Adam, Seth or Noah are called Jew. Nor were Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Moses was not called a Jew and neither were Saul, David or Solomon called Jew. In fact you will not find the word Jew in the first eleven books of the Bible. The first time Jews are mentioned in the Bible, is in II Kings 16:6 (and then only in translations revised in the eighteenth century) where we find Israel was at war with the Jews and drave the Jews from Elath. Jesus Christ tells John in Revelation 2:9 . We know that God changed the name of Abram to Abraham in Genesis 17:5, and that He changed the name of Jacob to Israel in Genesis 32:28, but nowhere in the Bible do we find where God changed the name of Israel to Jew! There is therefore no authority by which those who say they are Jews can claim to be Israel!

By the time of Jesus the word Edom or Edomite had been translated by Greek and Latin into Ioudaios and Iudaeus meaning a Judean or person living in Judea. The original King James version of the Bible, 1611, translated Idumaean-Judean into Iewes. It wasn't until the revised editions of the King James Bible, that the word Jew appeared. The word Jew does not mean Israel or Israelite!

Psalm 83:3 says God's elect are "hidden" or protected ones, and that they are under attack from a coalition of evil groups led by Edom. Who was Edom?


Terrible judgements against Edom are made in most of the prophecies of the Old Testament. For instance, Isaiah 34, 63, Jeremiah 49, and the entire book of Obadiah.

The Talmud was originally compiled by the Edomites and Canaanites of whom our Lord spoke to in John 8


"If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me ... If God were your father, you would love Me ... Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to hear My Word. You are of your father the Diabolical One, and the lusts of your father you wish to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it. ... He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear Me, because you are not of God."


http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishviewofjesus/a/jesus_onegod.htm
 

Mike182

Flaming Queer
wasn't it claimed that he be the King of the Jews? i suspect one would need be a Jew to take on that title...
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Yeah, I'm with those who have already posted. Jesus WAS a Jew. Christianity was considered a sect of judaism for quite a while.
 

standing_on_one_foot

Well-Known Member
We know that Saul was the first king of Israel and that John was the first man called Baptist, but who was the first Jew?
Well, the general understanding is that the Israelites became Jews (as the word is used today) once they got the Torah and all that.

You're using linguistic distinctions in a rather odd fashion; especially seeing as how the word Jew has changed over time. By the modern term, Jesus was a Jew.

I'm not entirely sure what you've got against Judaism, but I feel you're treading on pretty shakey theological ground here.

And the link you bring in doesn't really seem to have anything to do with your point. It's more a discussion of why Jews aren't Christians...with which I would agree.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Yeah, Jesus was Jewish as were ALL of the Apostles. That's why it's funny to hear them being called anti-semitic.
 

Anti-World

Member
Pilate was being ironic when he wrote the sign "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans" for the Cross (John 19:19). That is, "the Galilean who was King of the Judeans," as in "Queen Victoria of England, Empress of India."

Pilate took time out of his day to write a sign for a guy that was about to be crucified for crimes Pilate didn't think he committed? I have a *really* hard to trusting that statement.

You've gotten me thinking though so I decided to look up the definition of the word.

1.one of a scattered group of people that traces its descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite. 2.a person whose religion is Judaism. 3.a subject of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

Obviously, since Jesus was a descendent of David (Who was the king of Israel.) he was an Israelite which, according to the first definition, is a Jew. It really doesn't have much to do with the land at all or whether what the sign said was a joke or not, the simple proposed lineage of Jesus blows the whole argument out of the water.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Pilate was being ironic when he wrote the sign "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans" for the Cross (John 19:19). That is, "the Galilean who was King of the Judeans," as in "Queen Victoria of England, Empress of India."

Pilate took time out of his day to write a sign for a guy that was about to be crucified for crimes Pilate didn't think he committed? I have a *really* hard to trusting that statement.

You've gotten me thinking though so I decided to look up the definition of the word.

1.one of a scattered group of people that traces its descent from the Biblical Hebrews or from postexilic adherents of Judaism; Israelite. 2.a person whose religion is Judaism. 3.a subject of the ancient kingdom of Judah.

Obviously, since Jesus was a descendent of David (Who was the king of Israel.) he was an Israelite which, according to the first definition, is a Jew. It really doesn't have much to do with the land at all or whether what the sign said was a joke or not, the simple proposed lineage of Jesus blows the whole argument out of the water.
The Biblical geneologies say that Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah (aka, a Jew).
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Pilate took time out of his day to write a sign for a guy that was about to be crucified for crimes Pilate didn't think he committed? I have a *really* hard to trusting that statement.
I don't think Pilate personally wrote the sign...

Pilate was notorious for crucifying people at the drop of a hat, the gospel versions of him are most likely fanciful tales created, perhaps, to make the story more appealing to pagan converts.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Jesus was a Jew, his father Joseph came from Judah's line; it is right there in Matthew and I don't think it was a typo. More anti-semetic propaganda.
 

TruthInCatholocism

Apologetics
Just Quickly... O_O

Jesus was unmistakably Jewish..... He was "At The temple Praying and teaching"
It was the house of his father
He studied the Torah.....

All through out his life... Mention of him being Jewish... So im lost O_O
 

Todd

Rajun Cajun
Just Quickly... O_O

Jesus was unmistakably Jewish..... He was "At The temple Praying and teaching"
It was the house of his father
He studied the Torah.....

All through out his life... Mention of him being Jewish... So im lost O_O

Jesus was a Jew, his father Joseph came from Judah's line; it is right there in Matthew and I don't think it was a typo. More anti-semetic propaganda.

I'm not denying Jesus was a Jew (I believe he was), but wouldn't it have to come from Mary's blood line since Joseph wasn't really the father. After all, the Bible states that Mary was a virgin when she had him. That's just a question that I always had about his blood line.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I'm not denying Jesus was a Jew (I believe he was), but wouldn't it have to come from Mary's blood line since Joseph wasn't really the father. After all, the Bible states that Mary was a virgin when she had him. That's just a question that I always had about his blood line.

Yeah, in this it seems that the New Testament is matrilineal, tracing the "Jewishness" or humanity of Jesus through his mother only. :rolleyes:
 

kateyes

Active Member
Jesus was a Jew--by birth and by practice.

Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the right to ascend the Jewish throne, both through Mary and through adoption by his foster father, Joseph. Mary's genealogy is supplied in Luke 3:23-38. Dr. Henry Morris explains the genealogy in Luke:
"Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says 'son of Heli'] should be understood to mean 'son-in-law of Heli.' thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word 'son' is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either 'son' or 'son-in-law' in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David--Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin" [SIZE=-1][Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).][/SIZE].​
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Yeah, in this it seems that the New Testament is matrilineal, tracing the "Jewishness" or humanity of Jesus through his mother only. :rolleyes:

Yes, but, in the Hebraic way of thinking, lineage was passed through the father, even if that father were "adoptive," as in the case of Joseph. Refer to the law of levirate marriage. If a man died without progeny, his nearest male relative was bound to marry his widow. When she first bore a son, that first son was counted as the first husband's progeny -- not that of the biological father.

Jesus' humanity would, by Hebraic thinking, be traced, therefore, through Joseph's lineage, as the NT geneaologies suggest.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Yes, but, in the Hebraic way of thinking, lineage was passed through the father, even if that father were "adoptive," as in the case of Joseph. Refer to the law of levirate marriage. If a man died without progeny, his nearest male relative was bound to marry his widow. When she first bore a son, that first son was counted as the first husband's progeny -- not that of the biological father.

Jesus' humanity would, by Hebraic thinking, be traced, therefore, through Joseph's lineage, as the NT geneaologies suggest.

I think that you're wrong about this. Jewish heritage passed through the mother. That is, if a Jewish man married a foriegn woman, that child would not be a Jew.
 
Top