Was Jesus Christ a Jew...or Not ?

[mchawe]

I have seen a few statements saying the Jesus being a Jew was a Jewish invention.

But Luke Ch2. (King James version)

[4]And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

Not only was he of the lineage of David but,

22] And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
[23] (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

[41] Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
[42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
[43] And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

His parents were practising Jews according to Luke. Why otherwise would they go to Jerusalem for the passover ?

[/tab]

.
. Some words on it

The only information/source about Jesus Christ we have is coming from "the Christian Bible" Part 2: The New Testament.

First I ask you: Was Joseph the father of Jesus? If the answer is no the doesn't matters what applies to him (Joseph).

Second, if we follow the trivium as a method or tool of understanding, we must then agree first about the Grammar. We must define all the important words. So, what was a Jew year 0 ? By then it wasn't such a thing as a Jew as we understand it today. Iudaea was a Roman province and then many people born there were under the roman empire's class system, been plebeians.

what is a Jew year 2010: A follower directly or indirectly, knowingly or unknowingly of the pharisee sect of the Talmud.


Iudaea province did not include Galilee, Gaulanitis (the Golan), nor Peraea or the Decapolis. The capital was at Caesarea, not Jerusalem.
Where was Jesus' born?  The biblical Jesus was truly born in Bethlehem, and it was most likely the Bethlehem of Galilee, not that in Judaea.


Trivium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium_(education)

http://www.classical-homeschooling.org/trivium.html

Quadrivium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrivium

The social structure of ancient Rome
 
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/order.html

Judaea or Iudaea -  Latin: IVDÆA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaea_(Roman_province)
.
.

[ada]

thanks /tab!

Is the bible a jewish book?
I don't think so. Here is why.
It is certain that we don't get the New Testament from them cause it condemns the jewish religion throughout the whole New Testament.
That's the reason why there are efforts from the adl and other jewish-groups to label the New Testament as anti-semitic.
Now is the Old Testament from ? No it is not either.
Their great historian Josephus writes, "So the Jews prepared the work. Jew is the name they are called by from the day that they came up from Babylon."
Cause no jew by religion existed before the return from the Babylonian captivity, shortly after 536 B.C.
The only books of the Old Testament that were written after the return from Babylon are, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (all of them historical, rather than doctrinal) Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
In none of these do the jews receive anything but rebuke for their wickedness, for their apostasy from the religion of the Old Testament.
The late rabbi stephen wise, formerly the chief rabbi of the USA said,
"The return from Babylon and the introduction of the babylonian talmud mark the end of Hebrewism and the beginning of judaism."

[mchawe]

tab/ and ada....
None of this answers the question.....

First I ask you: Was Joseph the father of Jesus? If the answer is no the doesn't matters what applies to him (Joseph).

Then you have to prove he was not the father ! Especially when he does all the actions of a father.
Alternatively you have to prove that the book of Luke was BS.
The passages from Luke are taken from the actual King James version not any revised version.

I don't see the relevance of the points you make..The grammar seems clear to me.
Josephus, the return from Babylon, the Talmud etc has nothing to do with the question. Whether his parents practised Judaism or Hebrewism...I don't get the point.

What is the relevance of the place where they lived. The evidence (annual trip to Jerusalem for the passover) indicates something that equates to Judaism. In addition in Luke the words "he was of the house and lineage of David" indicates he was a Jew.

[ada]

I don't understand your initial question either.
What do you want to tell us with your question?
How could this relevant at all when Jesus was born thru the Holy Spirit?
You can't believe that?
So you won't understand John 1-5 either:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God.All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was [url="//made.in"]made.In[/url] him was life; and the life was the light of men.And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

[/url]

[/tab]

.
.

Then you have to prove he was not the father ! Especially when he does all the actions of a father.

Nobody can prove that. You are saying and asking for funny things.  :lol: What I meant was that the belief that the New Testament implies is that the God was the Father, that was what I ment by that (the "Immaculate Conception").

The Immaculate Conception of Mary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Alternatively you have to prove that the book of Luke was BS.

I don't understand you here, can you elaborate a little bit further please?  Is not my point here to go against/look down to the faith of Christians.

BS

That is not what I meant at all. All religions are based on Faith, are under the matter of belief.

The passages from Luke are taken from the actual King James version not any revised version.

I humble recommend that you read beside/parallel the Vulgata Bible (Latin) and the King James Bible, because Words have meanings and Do matters

I E Here - - > http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=3    http://www.latinvulgate.com/

audiens sapiens sapientior erit et intellegens gubernacula possidebit
"A wise man shall hear, and shall be wiser: and he that understandeth shall possess governments."

I don't see the relevance of the points you make..The grammar seems clear to me.

The grammar is not clear until you manage to explain very clear its definition. Then, is not enough to do that, but you must even know what the definition was in differents times in History, i e for the word Jew by the year 0 wasn't the same that for 2000 years after, Do you call today a Palestinian a JEW ? How do yourself make the definition of the Word Jew? Please make the definition here and now. You are very welcome

Case Studie - - >   Even the very Word "definition" has several definitions:

def·i·ni·tion
   /ˌdɛfəˈnɪʃən/ Show Spelled[def-uh-nish-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.
2.
the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, etc.
3.
the condition of being definite, distinct, or clearly outlined.
4.
Optics . sharpness of the image formed by an optical system.
5.
Radio and Television . the accuracy of sound or picture reproduction.

definition
late 14c., "setting of boundaries," from O.Fr. definicion , from L. definitionem , noun of action from definire  (see define). In logic, meaning "act of stating what something means" is from 1640s; meaning "a statement of the essential nature of something" is from late 14c.; special focus on words developed after c.1550. Meaning "degree of distinctness of the details in a picture" is from 1889.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/definition

Definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition

Josephus, the return from Babylon, the Talmud etc has nothing to do with the question. Whether his parents practised Judaism or Hebrewism...I don't get the point.

I ment that TIME, LANGUAGE  & PLACE MATTERS and has all to do with the Question

Read please the Vulgata Bible and try to find the word JEW there:

http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=3

for instance take Luke 7:3

English: And when he had heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the ancients of the Jews, desiring him to come and heal his servant.

Latin: et cum audisset de Iesu misit ad eum seniores Iudaeorum rogans eum ut veniret et salvaret servum eius



Iudaeorum = Do you think that in latin the word

Iudaeorum

means JEWS with the same meaning that we understand today ? OR was it about the people born there ?

What is the relevance of the place where they lived. The evidence (annual trip to Jerusalem for the passover) indicates something that equates to Judaism.

Judaism by then, what was that? Torah people? Can you  writte here the Definition of Judaism in the year 0. Can you also do the same with the word Hebrew? (Year 0)

In addition in Luke the words "he was of the house and lineage of David" indicates he was a Jew.

Are they talking about Joseph ?

_____________________________________________________________________________________



Then By Way of Deception:




When in reality

[mchawe]

Look guys, I am asking you to refute me with evidence that is acceptable in a court of law. The immaculate conception is not something that can even be discussed in a court of law. The question is simple. Was Jesus a Jew by birth or not ?
Now let us be guided by the evidence.
My reading of Luke says he was a Jew by birth
Either Luke was lying or his testimony does not stand up. Or otherwise show me I am wrong.
If you can prove to me he was not a Jew, I have no problem with that. But what you have produced so far is not clear enough to refute what is said in Luke.
So I am in effect inviting you to show me Luke wrote BS (or someone else played around with the actual words he used) or to show me his parents were not practising Jews or Joseph was not his father.Basically is Luke's evidence untrustworthy ?
Most people on this site are more interested in the truth than being right or wrong.  
We are talking here about evidence. (Such as the Holocaust starts off at 6 million. Auschwitz is later revised down from 4m to 1m. But the 6m figure stays the same and is not revised down to 3m........That is what is called evidence ! )

[/tab]

Look guys, I am asking you to refute me with evidence that is acceptable in a court of law.

 :lol:  8-)   Do you mean a Masonic Court of Law? Or a court of the people ? if it is the later one, and if we must put the hand on the bible for it, then the answer is self-evident, isn't it ? Okey, I am gonna spell the answer to the Jew or not Jew question right now, and I am gonna spell it very slowly, here you are : Jesus was a Christian, in fact, the very first one

Was Jesus a Jew by birth or not ?

Can you get us a definition of the Word JEW please ?

Did you meant if they were followers of the Torah ?

Or do you mean if they (Jesus family) were followers of the Talmud (the Oral tradition) ? I really hope not   :shock:  :lol:

The Talmud is the written record of an oral tradition.

Talmud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

Most people on this site are more interested in the truth than being right or wrong.

 :crazy: [youtube:3isjtxd2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgOQGiOYZ9M [/youtube]3isjtxd2]

We are talking here about evidence.

 :lol:



Oh men I really have a laugh with your rhetoric, Thx for that, now, get real will you, we are talking about matters of Faith here, but if you really  want to discuss some more about it then I am gonna ask you to first deliver your definition of what do you mean by the word Jew. mchawe, do please that now.

Under the time, here is another silly / funny image, enjoy, or not ? :



.
.

[ada]

efnz0phy]

[Helphand]

Have a look at Jacob Elon Conner's "Christ Was Not A Jew" written in the 1930s:

http://www.4shared.com/dir/4TFesXeu/Public.html

Banned in Canada!

[Fester]

Here's an excerpt from Benjamin Freedman on the topic from his The Truth about the Khazars (http://iamthewitness.com/audio/Benjamin.H.Freedman/The.Truth.about.Khazars.htm)

The utterance by the Christian clergy which confuses Christians the most is the constantly repeated utterance that "Jesus was a Jew." That also appears to be your favorite theme. That misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestable historic fact is uttered by the Christian clergy upon the slightest pretext. They utter it constantly, also without provocation. They appear to be "trigger happy" to utter it. They never miss an opportunity to do so. Informed intelligent Christians cannot reconcile this truly unwarranted misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestable historic fact by the Christian clergy with information known by them now to the contrary which comes to them from sources believed by them to be equally reliable.  

This poses a serious problem today for the Christian clergy. They can extricate themselves from their present predicament now only be resorting to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". That is the only formula by which the Christian clergy can recapture the lost confidence of Christians. As effective spiritual leaders they cannot function without this lost confidence. They should make that their first order of business.  

My dear Dr. Goldstein, you are a theologian of high rank and a historian of note. Of necessity you also should agree with other outstanding authorities on the subject of whether "Jesus was a Jew." These leading authorities agree today that there is no foundation in fact for the implications, inferences and the innuendoes resulting from the incorrect belief that "Jesus was a Jew". Incontestable historic facts and an abundance of other proofs establish beyond the possibility of any doubt the incredibility of the assertion so often heard today that "Jesus was a Jew".  

Without any fear of contradiction based upon fact the most competent and best qualified authorities all agree today that Jesus Christ was not a so-called or self-styled "Jew". They do confirm that during His lifetime Jesus was known as a "Judean" by His contemporaries and not as a "Jew", and that Jesus referred to Himself as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew". During His lifetime here on earth Jesus was referred to by contemporary historians as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew." Contemporary theologians of Jesus whose competence to pass upon this subject cannot challenge by anyone today also referred to Jesus during his lifetime here on earth as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew".  

Inscribed upon the Cross when Jesus was Crucified were the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". Pontius Pilate's mother-tongue. No one will question the fact that Pontius Pilate was well able to accurately express his own ideas in his own mother-tongue. The authorities competent to pass upon the correct translation into English of the Latin "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum" agree that it is "Jesus of Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans." There is no disagreement upon that by them.  

During His lifetime here on earth Jesus was not regarded by Pontius Pilate nor by the Judeans among whom He dwelt as "King of the Jews". The inscription on the Cross upon which Jesus was Crucified has been incorrectly translated into the English language only since the 18th century. Pontius Pilate was ironic and sarcastic when he ordered inscribed upon the Cross the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". About to be Crucified, with the approval of Pontius Pilate, Jesus was being mocked by Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was well aware at that time that Jesus had been denounced, defied and denied by the Judeans who alas finally brought about His Crucifixion as related by history.  

Except for His few followers at that time in Judea all other Judeans abhorred Jesus and detested His teachings and the things for which He stood. That deplorable fact cannot be erased from history by time. Pontius Pilate was himself the "ruler" of the Judeans at the time he ordered inscribed upon the Cross in Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum", In English "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". But Pontius Pilate never referred to himself as "ruler" of the Judeans. The ironic and sarcastic reference of Pontius Pilate to Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans" can hardly be accepted as recognition by Pontius Pilate of Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans". That is inconceivable by any interpretation.  

At the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus Pontius Pilate was the administrator in Judea for the Roman Empire. At that time in history the area of the Roman Empire included a part of the Middle East. As far as he was concerned officially or personally the inhabitants of Judea were "Judeans" to Pontius Pilate and not so-called "Jews" as they have been styled since the 18th century. In the time of Pontius Pilate and not so-called "Jews" as they have been styled since the 18th century. In the time of Pontius Pilate in history there was no religious, racial or national group in Judea known as "Jews" nor had there been any group so identified anywhere else in the world prior to that time.  

Pontius Pilate expressed little interest as the administrator of the Roman Empire officially or personally in the wide variety of forms of religious worship then practiced in Judea. These forms of religious worship extended from phallic worship and other forms of idolatry to the emerging spiritual philosophy of an eternal, omnipotent and invisible Divine deity, the emerging Yahve (Jehovah) concept which predated Abraham of Bible fame by approximately 2000 years. As the administrator for the Roman Empire in Judea it was the official policy of Pontius Pilate never to interfere in the spiritual affairs of the local population. Pontius Pilate's primary responsibility was the collection of taxes to be forwarded home to Rome, not the forms of religious worship practiced by the Judeans from whom those taxes were collected.  

As you well know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the Latin word "rex" means "ruler, leader" in English. During the lifetime of Jesus in Judea the Latin word "rex" meant only that to Judeans familiar with the Latin language. The Latin word "rex" is the Latin verb "rego, regere, rexi, rectus" in English means as you also well know "to rule, to lead". Latin was of course the official language in all the provinces administered by a local administrator of the Roman Empire. This fact accounts for the inscription on the Cross in Latin.  

With the invasion of the British Isles by the Anglo-Saxons, the English language substituted the Anglo-Saxon "king" for the Latin equivalent "rex" used before the Anglo-Saxon invasion. The adoption of "king" for "rex" at this late date in British history did not retroactively alter the meaning of the Latin "rex" to the Judeans in the time of Jesus. The Latin "rex" to them then meant only "ruler, leader" as it still means in Latin. Anglo-Saxon "king" was spelled differently when first used but at all times meant the same as "rex" in Latin, "leader" of a tribe.  

During the lifetime of Jesus it was very apparent to Pontius Pilate that Jesus was the very last Person in Judea the Judeans would select as their "ruler" or their "leader". In spite of this situation in Judea Pontius Pilate did not hesitate to order the inscription of the Cross "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". By the wildest stretch of the imagination it is not conceivable that this sarcasm and irony by Pontius Pilate at the time of the Crucifixion was not solely mockery of Jesus by Pontius Pilate and only mockery. After this reference to "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans" the Judeans forthwith proceeded to Crucify Jesus upon that very Cross.  

In Latin in the lifetime of Jesus the name of the political subdivision in the Middle East known in modern history as Palestine was "Iudaea". It was then administered by Pontius Pilate as administrator for the Roman Empire of which it was then a part. The English for the Latin "Iudaea" is "Judea". English "Judean" is the adjective for the noun "Judea". The ancient native population of the subdivision in the Middle East known in modern history as Palestine was then called "Iudaeus" in Latin and "Judean" in English. Those words identified the indigenous population of Judea in the lifetime of Jesus. Who can deny that Jesus was a member of the indigenous population of Judea in His lifetime?  

And of course you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, in Latin the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" is "Iudaeorum". The English translation of the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeorum" is "of the Judeans". It is utterly impossible to give any other English translation to "Iudaeorum" than "of the Judeans". Qualified and competent theologians and historians regard as incredible any other translation into English of "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum" than "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". You must agree that this is literally correct.  

At the time Pontius Pilate was ordering the "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum" inscribed upon the Cross the spiritual leaders of Judea were protesting to Pontius Pilate "not to write that Jesus was the ruler of the Judeans" but to inscribe instead that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans". The spiritual leaders of Judea made very strong protests to Pontius Pilate against his reference to Jesus as "Rex Iudaeorum" insisting that Pontius Pilate was not familiar with or misunderstood the status of Jesus in Judea. These protests are a matter of historical record, as you know.  

The spiritual leaders in Judea protested in vain with Pontius Pilate. They insisted that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans" but that Pontius Pilate was "not to write that Jesus was the ruler of the Judeans". For after all Pontius Pilate was a foreigner in Judea who could not understand the local situations as well as the spiritual leaders. The intricate pattern of the domestic political, social and economic cross-currents in Judea interested Pontius Pilate very little as Rome's administrator.  

The Gospel by John was written originally in the Greek language according to the best authorities. In the Greek original there is no equivalent for the English that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans". The English translation of the Greek original of the Gospel by John, XIX, 19, reads "Do not inscribe 'the monarch (basileus) of the Judeans (Ioudaios), but that He Himself said I am monarch (basileus) of the Judeans (Ioudaios)' ". "Ioudaia" is the Greek for the Latin for "basileus" in Greek. The English "ruler", or its alternative "leader", define the sense of Latin "rex" and Greek "basileus" as they were used in the Greek and Latin Gospel of John.  

Pontius Pilate "washed his hands" of the protests by the spiritual leaders in Judea who demanded of him that the inscription on the Cross authored by Pontius Pilate be corrected in the manner they insisted upon. Pontius Pilate be corrected in the manner they insisted upon. Pontius Pilate very impatiently replied to their demands "What I have written, I have written." The inscription on the Cross remained what it had been, "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum", or "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans" in English.  

The Latin quotations and words mentioned in this letter are verbatim quotations and the exact words which appear in the 4th century translation of the New Testament into Latin by St. Jerome. This translation is referred to as the Vulgate Edition of the New Testament. It was the first official translation of the New Testament into Latin made by the Christian Church. Since that time it has remained the official New Testament version used by the Catholic Church. The translation of the Gospel of John into Latin by St. Jerome was made from the Greek language in which the Gospel of John was originally written according to the best authorities on this subject.  

The English translation of the gospel by John XIX, 19, from the original text in the Greek language reads as follows, "Pilate wrote a sign and fastened it to the Cross and the writing was "Jesus the Nazarene the monarch of the Judeans' ". In the original Greek manuscript there is mention also made of the demands upon Pontius Pilate by the spiritual leaders in Judea that Pontius Pilate alter the reference on the Cross to Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans". The Greek text of the original manuscript of the Gospel by John establishes beyond any question or doubt that the spiritual leaders in Judea at that time had protested to Pontius Pilate that Jesus was "not the ruler of the Judeans" but only "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans".  

There is no factual foundation in history or theology today for the implications, inferences and innuendoes that the Greek "Ioudaios", the Latin "Iudaeus", or the English "Judean:" ever possessed a valid religious connotation. In their three respective languages these three words have only indicated a strictly topographical or geographical connotation. In their correct sense these three words in their respective languages were used to identify the members of the indigenous native population of the geographic area known as Judea in the lifetime of Jesus. During the lifetime of Jesus there was not a form of religious worship practiced in Judea or elsewhere in the known world which bore a name even remotely resembling the name of the political subdivision of the Roman Empire; i.e., "Judaism" from "Judea". No cult or sect existed by such a name.  

It is an incontestable fact that the word "Jew" did not come into existence until the year 1775. Prior to 1775 the word "Jew" did not exist in any language. The word "Jew" was introduced into the English for the first time in the 18th century when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals", II,i, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew". Prior to this use of the word "Jew" in the English language by Sheridan in 1775 the word "Jew" had not become a word in the English language. Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" as you will see. Shakespeare never used the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice", V.III.i.61, Shakespeare wrote as follows: "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?".  

In the Latin St. Jerome 4th century Vulgate Edition of the New Testament Jesus is referred to by the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" in the Gospel of John reference to the inscription on the Cross, - "Iudaeorum". It was in the 4th century that St. Jerome translated into Latin the manuscripts of the New Testament from the original languages in which they were written. This translation by St. Jerome is referred to still today as the Vulgate Edition by the Roman Catholic Church authorities, who use it today.  

Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.  

The available manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century accurately trace the origin and give the complete history of the word "Jew" in the English language. In these manuscripts are to be found all the many earlier English equivalents extending through the 14 centuries from the 4th to the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" these English forms included successively: "Gyu", "Giu", "Iu", "Iuu", "Iuw", "Ieuu", "Ieuy", "Iwe", "Iow", "Iewe", "leue", "Iue", "Ive", "lew", and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew". The many earlier English equivalents for "Jews" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis", "Giws", "Gyues", "Gywes", "Giwes", "Geus", "Iuys", "Iows", "Iouis", "Iews", and then also finally in the 18th century, "Jews".  

With the rapidly expanding use in England in the 18th century for the first time in history of the greatly improved printing presses unlimited quantities of the New Testament were printed. These revised 18th century editions of the earlier 14th century first translations into the English language were then widely distributed throughout England and the English speaking world among families who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language. In these 18th century editions with revisions the word "Jew" appeared for the first time in any English translations. The word "Jew" as it was used in the 18th century editions has since continued in use in all elections of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word "Jew" thus was stabilized.  

As you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" did not appear in it. 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.  

Countless copies of the revised 18th century editions of the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament into English were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. They did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" nor did they care. They accepted the English word "Jew" as the only and as the accepted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios". How could they be expected to have known otherwise? The answer is they could not and they did not. It was a new English word to them.  

When you studied Latin in your school days you were taught that the letter "I" in Latin when used as the first letter in a word is pronounced like the letter "Y" in English when it is the first letter in words like "yes", "youth" and "yacht". The "I" in "Iudaeus" is pronounced like the "Y" in "yes", "youth", and "yacht" in English. In all the 4th century to 18th century forms for the 18th century "Jew" the letter "I" was pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth", and "yacht". The same is true of the "Gi" or the "Gy" where it was used in place of the letter "I".  

The present pronunciation of the word "Jew" in modern English is a development of recent times. In the English language today the "J" in "Jew" is pronounced like the "J" in the English "justice", "jolly", and "jump". This is the case only since the 18th century. Prior to the 18th century the "J" in "Jew" was pronounced exactly like the "Y" in the English "yes", "youth", and "yacht". Until the 18th century and perhaps even later than the 18th century the word "Jew" in English was pronounced like the English "you" or "hew", and the word "Jews" like "youse" or "hews". The present pronunciation of "Jew" in English is a new pronunciation acquired after the 18th century.  

The German language still retains the Latin original pronunciation. The German "Jude" is the German equivalent of the English "Jew". The "J" in the German "Jude" is pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth", and "yacht". The German "J" is the equivalent of the Latin "I" and both are pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth" and "yacht". The German "Jude" is virtually the first syllable of the Latin "Iudaeus" and is pronounced exactly like it. The German "Jude" is the German contraction and corruption of the Latin "Iudaeus" just as the English "Jew" is the contraction and corruption of the Latin "Iudaeus". The German "J" is always pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth", and "yacht" when it is the first letter of a word. The pronunciation of the "J" in German "Jude" is not an exception to the pronunciation of the "J" in German.  

The English language as you already know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, is largely made up of words adopted from foreign languages. After their adoption by the English language foreign words were then adapted by contracting their spelling and corrupting their foreign pronunciation to make them more easily pronounced in English from their English spelling. This process of first adopting foreign words and then adapting them by contracting their spelling and corrupting their pronunciation resulted in such new words in the English language as "cab" from the French "cabriolet" and many thousands of other words similarly from their original foreign spelling. Hundreds of others must come to your mind.  

By this adopting-adapting process the Latin "Iudacus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" finally emerged in the 18th century as "Jew" in the English language. The English speaking peoples struggled through 14 centuries seeking to create for the English language an English equivalent for the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" which could be easily pronounced in English from its English spelling. The English "Jew" was the resulting 18th century contracted and corrupted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios". The English "Jew" is easily pronounced in English from its English spelling. The Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" cannot be as easily pronounced in English from the Latin and Greek spelling. They were forced to coin a word.  

The earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition is the Wyclif, or Wickliffe Edition published in 1380. In the Wyclif Edition Jesus is there mentioned as One of the "iewes". That was the 14th century English version of the Latin "Iudaeus" and was pronounced "hew-weeze", in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular. In the 1380 Wyclif Edition in English the Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads "Ihesus of nazareth kyng of the iewes". Prior to the 14th century the English language adopted the Anglo-Saxon "kyng" together with many other Anglo-Saxon words in place of the Latin "rex" and the Greek "basileus". The Anglo-Saxon also meant "tribal leader".  

In the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament in English published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the "Iewes". In the Coverdale Edition published in 1535 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes". In the Coverdale Edition the Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads "Iesus the Nazareth, kynge of the "Iewes". In the Cranmer Edition published in 1539 Jesus was again described as One of the "Iewes". In the Geneva Edition published in 1540-1557 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes". In the Rheims Edition published in 1582 Jesus was described as One of the "Ievves". In the King James Edition published in 1604-1611 also known as the Authorized Version Jesus was described again as one of the "Iewes". The forms of the Latin "Iudaeus" were used which were current at the time these translations were made.  

The translation into English of the Gospel by John, XIX, from the Greek in which it was originally written reads "Do not inscribe 'the monarch of the Judeans' but that He Himself said 'I am monarch' ". In the original Greek manuscript the Greek "basileus" appears for "monarch" in the English and the Greek "Ioudaios" appears for "Judeans" in the English. "Ioudaia" in Greek is "Judea" in English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judeans" in English. There is no reason for any confusion.  

My dear Dr. Goldstein, if the generally accepted understanding today of the English "Jew" and "Judean" conveyed the identical implications, inferences and innuendoes as both rightly should, it would make no difference which of these two words was used when referring to Jesus in the New Testament or elsewhere. But the implications, inferences, and innuendoes today conveyed by these two words are as different as black is from white. The word "Jew" today is never regarded as a synonym for "Judean" nor is "Judean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew".  

As I have explained, 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.  

The "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today bears as little relation to its original and correct meaning as the "secondary meaning" today as for the word "camel" bears to the original and correct meaning of the word "camel", or the "secondary meaning" for the word "ivory" bears to the original and correct meaning of the word "ivory". The "secondary meaning" today for the word "camel" is a cigarette by that name but its original and correct meaning is a desert animal by that ancient name. The "secondary meaning" of the word "ivory" today is a piece of soap but its original and correct meaning is the tusk of a male elephant.  

The "secondary meaning" of words often become the generally accepted meanings of words formerly having entirely different meanings. This is accomplished by the expenditure of great amounts of money for well-planned publicity. Today if you ask for a "camel" someone will hand you a cigarette by that name. Today if you ask for a piece of "ivory" someone will hand you a piece of soap by that name. You will never receive either a desert animal or a piece of the tusk of a male elephant. That must illustrate the extent to which these "secondary meanings" are able to practically eclipse the original and correct meanings of words in the minds of the general public. The "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" today has practically totally eclipsed the original and correct meaning of the word "Jew" when it was introduced as a word in the English language. This phenomena is not uncommon.  

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the "secondary meaning" of words. The highest court in the land has established as basic law that "secondary meanings" can acquire priority rights to the use of any dictionary word. Well-planned and well-financed world-wide publicity through every available media by well-organized groups of so-called or self-styled "Jews" for three centuries has created a "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" which has completely "blacked out" the original and correct meaning of the word "Jew". There can be no doubt about that.  

There is not a person in the whole English-speaking world today who regards a "Jew" as a "Judean" in the literal sense of the word. That was the correct and only meaning in the 18th century. The generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today with practically no exceptions is made up of four almost universally-believed theories. These four theories are that a so-called or self-styled "Jew" is (1) a person who today professes the form of religious worship known as "Judaism", (2) a person who claims to belong to a racial group associated with the ancient Semites, (3) a person directly the descendant of an ancient nation which thrived in Palestine in Bible history, (4) a person blessed by Divine intentional design with certain superior cultural characteristics denied to other racial, religious or national groups, all rolled into one.  

The present generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" is fundamentally responsible for the confusion in the minds of Christians regarding elementary tenets of the Christian faith. It is likewise responsible today to a very great extent for the dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith. The implications, inferences and innuendoes of the word "Jew" today, to the preponderant majority of intelligent and informed Christians, is contradictory and in complete conflict with incontestable historic fact. Christians who cannot be fooled any longer are suspect of the Christian clergy who continue to repeat, and repeat, and repeat ad nauseam their pet theme song "Jesus was a Jew". It actually now approaches a psychosis.  

Countless Christians know today that they were "brain washed" by the Christian clergy on the subject "Jesus was a Jew". The resentment they feel is not yet apparent to the Christian clergy. Christians now are demanding from the Christian clergy, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". It is now time for the Christian clergy to tell Christians what they should have told them long ago. Of all religious groups in the world Christians appear to be the least informed of any on the subject. Have their spiritual leaders been reckless with the truth?  

Countless intelligent and informed Christians no longer accept unchallenged assertions by the Christian clergy that Jesus in His lifetime was a Member of a group in Judea which practiced a religious form of worship then which is today called "Judaism", or that Jesus in His lifetime here on earth was a Member of the racial group which today includes the preponderant majority of all so-called or self-styled "Jews" in the world, or that the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today are the lineal descendants of the nation in Judea of which Jesus was a national in His lifetime here on earth, or that the cultural characteristics of so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today correspond with the cultural characteristics of Jesus during His lifetime here on earth and His teachings while He was here on earth for a brief stay. Christians will no longer believe that the race, religion, nationality and culture of Jesus and the race, religion, nationality and culture of so-called or self-styled "Jews" today or their ancestors have a common origin or character.

Christians today are also becoming more and more alerted day by day why the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world for three centuries have spent uncounted sums of money to manufacture the fiction that the "Judeans" in the time of Jesus were "Jews" rather than "Judeans", and that "Jesus was a Jew". Christians are becoming more and more aware day by day of all the economic and political advantages accruing to the so-called or self-styled "Jews" as a direct result of their success in making Christians believe that "Jesus was a Jew" in the "secondary meaning" they have created for the 18th century word "Jew". The so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today represent themselves to Christians as "Jews" only in the "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew". They seek to thereby prove their kinship with Jesus. They emphasize this fiction to Christians constantly. That fable is fast fading and losing its former grip upon the imaginations of Christians.  

To allege that "Jesus was a Jew" in the sense that during His lifetime Jesus professed and practiced the form of religious worship known and practiced under the modern name of "Judaism" is false and fiction of the most blasphemous nature. If to be a so-called or self-styled "Jew" then or now the practice of "Judaism" was a requirement then Jesus certainly was not a so-called "Jew". Jesus abhorred and denounced the form of religious worship practiced in Judea in His lifetime and which is known and practiced today under its new name "Judaism". That religious belief was then known as "Pharisiasm". The Christian clergy learned that in their theological seminary days but they have never made any attempt to make that clear to Christians.  

The eminent Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, the head of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, often referred to as "The Vatican of Judaism", in his Foreword to his First Edition of his world-famous classic "The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith", on page XXI states:

"...Judaism...Pharisiasm became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name...the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered...From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered...demonstrates the enduring importance which attaches to Pharisaism as a religious movement..."
The celebrated Rabbi Louis Finkelstein in his great classic quoted from above traces the origin of the form of religious worship practiced today under the present name "Judaism", to its origin as "Pharisaism" in Judea in the time of Jesus. Rabbi Louis Finkelstein confirms what the eminent Rabbi Adolph Moses states in his great classic "Yahvism, and Other Discourses", in collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi H.G. Enlow, published in 1903 by the Louisville Section of the Council of Jewish Women, in which Rabbi Adolph Moses, on page 1, states:  
"Among the innumerable misfortunes which have befallen...the most fatal in its consequences is the name Judaism...Worse still, the Jews themselves, who have gradually come to call their religion Judaism...Yet, neither in biblical nor post-biblical, neither in talmudic, nor in much later times, is the term Judaism ever heard...the Bible speaks of the religion...as "Torah Yahve", the instruction, or the moral law revealed by Yahve...in other places...as "Yirath Yahve", the fear and reverence of Yahve. These and other appellations CONTINUED FOR MANY AGES TO STAND FOR THE RELIGION...To distinguish it from Christianity and Islam, the Jewish philosophers sometimes designate it as the faith or belief of the Jews...IT WAS FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, WRITING FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF GREEKS AND ROMANS, WHO COINED THE TERM JUDAISM, in order to pit it against Hellenism...by Hellenism was understood the civilization, comprising language, poetry, religion, art, science, manners, customs, institutions, which...had spread from Greece, its original home, over vast regions of Europe, Asia and Africa...The Christians eagerly seized upon the name...the Jews themselves, who intensely detested the traitor Josephus, refrained from reading his works...HENCE THE TERM JUDAISM COINED BY JOSEPHUS REMAINED ABSOLUTELY UN-KNOWN TO THEM...IT WAS ONLY IN COMPARATIVELY RECENT TIMES, AFTER THE JEWS BECAME FAMILIAR WITH MODERN CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, THAT THEY BEGAN TO NAME THEIR RELIGION JUDAISM." (emphasis supplied).
This statement by the world's two leading authorities on this subject clearly establishes beyond any question or any doubt that so-called "Judaism" was not the name of any form of religious worship practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus. The Flavius Josephus referred to in the above quotation lived in the 1st century. It was he who coined the word "Judaism" in the 1st century explicitly for the purpose recited clearly above. Religious worship known and practiced today under the name of "Judaism" by so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world was known and practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus under the name "Pharisaism" according to Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, head of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and all the other most competent and qualified recognized authorities on the subject.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I have seen a few statements saying the Jesus being a Jew was a Jewish invention.

But Luke Ch2. (King James version)

[4]And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

Not only was he of the lineage of David but,

22] And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
[23] (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

[41] Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
[42] And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
[43] And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

His parents were practising Jews according to Luke. Why otherwise would they go to Jerusalem for the passover ?

It all depends on how you define "Jew."

Jesus was NOT a Jew by the modern definition; however, he was a Jew in the natural sense of the term: a Judahite. He was of the tribe of Judah, but has nothing in common with those today who call themselves Jews.

[mchawe]

I am disappointed that no one has convinced me that Christ was not a Jew.
Not one of you have dealt directly with Luke's testimony.
Luke was a witness that
(a) Knew Him personally and,
(b) is credible because he had no axe to grind or have any reason not to tell the truth.

He said that Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem for the Passover every year. You also have accounts in the NT about Jesus spending time in the temple astonishing everyone with his wisdom.
If you look up Passover anywhere and in any encyclopedia, they all say it is a JEWISH festival.
OK so it didn't say "Synagogue", but what "Temple" was it ? A Confucian or a Zoroastrian one ?
His parents didn't go to Jerusalem once a year to practise Bhuddism ! (Sarcasm)

What difference does it make that the word "Jew" or "Judaism" does not appear until centuries later ?
He (or rather his parents according to Luke) practised at that time something that equates to Judaism.

I do not mean Talmudic Judaism because he later criticised the Pharisees (meaning the Oral Tradition) as follows....

Ye Pharisees and Scribes, ye will compass sea and land to make one convert and when he is made you will make him twice the child of Hell as ye are yourselves

or

Ye are of your father the Devil and the lusts of your Father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and he abode not in the Truth because there is no Truth in him, and when he speaketh a lie he speaketh of his own because he is a liar and the father of it

Such criticism does not make him not a Jew (or whatever that was back then)

Just because he said such words never stopped him from being a Jew. Today if a Jew makes a sincere conversion to Christianity, he still remains a Jew because you cannot change your racial origin. What he does is drop his connection to the Talmud, Rabbis, Fathers of Zion or whatever the Pharisees now call themselves and has nothing further to do with the Oral Tradition.

My understanding is that Jesus started off giving his message to the Jews or whatever they called themselves back then, but they rejected it and so as he himself stated, he would spread the Word among the Gentiles. None of that stops him being a Jew or whatever equated to one back then.



Note that Luke says that

he was of the house and lineage of David:

No one has either dealt with that or given an explanation. My understanding is that THAT is from what the modern day (Sephardic ?) Jew (NOT Ashkenazi) claims descent.
(There was no way he was anything to do with Ashkenazi, so let us not muddy the waters any more than they already are !)

Fester quoting Benjamin Freedman

Here's an excerpt from Benjamin Freedman on the topic from his The Truth about the Khazars

As mentioned above let's not muddy the waters with Khazar or Ashkenazi.....

The utterance by the Christian clergy which confuses Christians the most is the constantly repeated utterance that "Jesus was a Jew." That also appears to be your favorite theme. That misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestable historic fact is uttered by the Christian clergy upon the slightest pretext. They utter it constantly, also without provocation. They appear to be "trigger happy" to utter it. They never miss an opportunity to do so. Informed intelligent Christians cannot reconcile this truly unwarranted misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestable historic fact by the Christian clergy with information known by them now to the contrary which comes to them from sources believed by them to be equally reliable.

This poses a serious problem today for the Christian clergy. They can extricate themselves from their present predicament now only be resorting to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". That is the only formula by which the Christian clergy can recapture the lost confidence of Christians. As effective spiritual leaders they cannot function without this lost confidence. They should make that their first order of business.

All very well, but NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE either way. Luke brings first hand testimony which so far is not refuted !  Stating the words, "an incontestable historic fact" with no back-up is empty rhetoric !

during His lifetime Jesus was known as a "Judean" by His contemporaries and not as a "Jew", and that Jesus referred to Himself as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew"

Rather difficult to refer to something that didn't exist until the 17th Century ! If Jews were first called "Jews" centuries after Christ, it does not follow that they were not Jews before that word came into existence !

I presume by your logic and others that Judas Iscariot could not have been a Jew. Like Christ, he was also a Galilean or a Judean. Yet no one as far as I know says Judas was not a Jew ! So what was Judas Iscariot ?

Inscribed upon the Cross when Jesus was Crucified were the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". Pontius Pilate's mother-tongue. No one will question the fact that Pontius Pilate was well able to accurately express his own ideas in his own mother-tongue. The authorities competent to pass upon the correct translation into English of the Latin "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum" agree that it is "Jesus of Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans." There is no disagreement upon that by them.

This does not prove Jesus whose father Joseph " was of the house and lineage of David",  was not a "Jew". ( I am not going to get into arguments about whether Joseph was the real father. If you wish to say he was not the real father, I say Prove it. Even if you prove it, still so what ?)
           
If someone puts on my gravestone, "Here lies a Chinaman", that does not make me Chinese !

Does it not appear likely the words "Rex Iudeorum" was sarcasm in any case ?   In fact backed up by.......

During the lifetime of Jesus it was very apparent to Pontius Pilate that Jesus was the very last Person in Judea the Judeans would select as their "ruler" or their "leader"

 "Nazarene" could mean he was disowned by the Jews, his own tribe, It has happened you know !


Whatever was written on the cross can be taken therefore with a pinch of salt. It is not EVIDENCE.

Helphand, I waded through Jacob Elon Conner's book and could not find a single reference to Luke. What I did find was a lot of stuff which I can only put down with the words, "mere conjecture" and not evidence ! Same thing with ada's video.

I was going to drop this subject because I thought what's the point ? People are going to stick to their beliefs no matter what. They have not satisfactorily refuted Luke's evidence with hard evidence of their own in my view. Hard evidence means eye witness testiony from a reliable source or forensic evidence or something like that.  Also in the scheme of things whether or not Christ was or was not a Jew is unimportant because his message about how to live your life spiritually is what counts.  However what made me recontinue was a statement by Eustace Mullins who is thought of as reliable in matters concerninbg the J Tribe.

Mullins from "The New History of the Jews".....

First of all the Jews have survived because they are
masters at confusing the issues. After the crucifixion of Christ,
when His message of salvation began to attract thousands of
followers, the Jews made a typical move. Rather than oppose
Him, they tried to take Him over. They proclaimed to the world
that Christ was a Jew, Therefore, one could become a Christian
merely by doing whatever the Jews ordered you to do.
In doing this, the Jews ignored Isaiah, 5;20, "Woe unto them
that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and
light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
Incredibly enough, millions of people were tricked by this
stratagem of the Jews. Despite all records which proved that
Jesus Christ in His physical form was a blue-eyed, flaxen-haired
gentile from Galilee, thousands of Christian ministers tell their
congregations, "Let us worship Christ the Jew." Not only is this
the ultimate blasphemy against Our Savior, but it also violates
every canon of common sense.

I take issue with the words, "Despite all records which proved that Jesus Christ in His physical form was a blue-eyed, flaxen-haired gentile from Galilee". What records ? What is his source ? Who is his eye witness, and if there is one, how credible ?
Of course he does not say or give a footnote. If this is sheer speculation then Mullins himself starts to lose credibility in my eyes.

[ada]

What do we have to do with your twisted mindset?
What you are arguing about is just pathetic and dumb.
You don't understand the deity of Christ who is one with the Father and the Holy Ghost.
All you looking for is how it fits in your concept of fleshly ignorance.
Therefore no one can ever convince you.
You sounds like a jew or atheist to me.
In this case its no wonder that you don't have eyes to see and ears to hear.
Bow down to Jesus confess your sins and ask him for forgiveness so that you may get saved.

[Kadafi]

quick answer: no

The original Torah was the real book at the time with revelations and does that make someone a jew if u follow the torah, if u say yes then Muslims are Jewish because Muslims believe in the Torah. Jesus is a prophet of God and therefore he is a Muslim. B4 u reply find out what it means to be a Muslim.

[GordZilla]

quick answer: no

The original Torah was the real book at the time with revelations and does that make someone a jew if u follow the torah, if u say yes then Muslims are Jewish because Muslims believe in the Torah. Jesus is a prophet of God and therefore he is a Muslim. B4 u reply find out what it means to be a Muslim.

Yes perhaps He did 'submit' to the will of his Father and in that sense He could be considered to be a Muslim, but then there is this;

"I am the way, the light and the life, none get to the Father but threw me."

Which is part of the reason why I'm  confused about some of Islamic beliefs, they know Jesus was a profit, but pick and choose just what parts of His message they will believe in (after the fact, I might add). To me , I don't think it works that way.  This is not meant as an attack, just my perspective. I know Muslims and Christians have much more in common than seen at first glance, way more than Jews do with either of our faiths.

[mchawe]

Now we seem to have moved on to the subject of E Michael Jones (thanks to CSR), the following I think throws a bit of light on this subject

[youtube:1xomat7x]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65sZ_OpwiM[/youtube]1xomat7x]


also. What he had to say in the following clip is particularly relevant.
Those who claimed they were the decendants of Moses but did not accept Jesus as Messiah became the Jews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMtrjbbg ... re=related

and also

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY_DBLa3 ... re=related
(Please anyone, embed the other two for me. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.)

[mchawe]

deleted (repeat post)

[mchawe]

I have ordered this book. Listening to him here (4 vids) has started to straighten out my mind about this matter
[youtube:2290qify]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB8RVzGqJiI[/youtube]2290qify]

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

mchawe, it's not that simple. You can't go around making assertions without defining the terms those assertions are based on. We are talking the evolution of terms over a few thousand years.

[mchawe]

Timothy-Fitzpatrick
mchawe, it's not that simple. You can't go around making assertions without defining the terms those assertions are based on. We are talking the evolution of terms over a few thousand years.

I don't quite get the meaning of your statement. Can you give a few examples please.
This is what I am beginning to understand.
1. At the birth of Christ there was no term "Jew". Those who practised the "Passover" did not call themselves Jews. Did they call themselves the "Children of Israel" or "the seed of Abraham" or what ? Did that religious practise have a name ?  What religion was practised in the synagogue before Christ ? (By the way, I think the Passover celebrated something rather gruesome, if not obscene....the killing by God of all the Firstborne unless there was blood daubed on the door. However it is too much of a stretch of faith for me to believe in the story of the Passover as something that really happened ! I classfy it as a myth perpetuated by a primitive tribe. Can any bible scholar here say whether Jesus affirmed it or denied it ?)
2. E. Michael Jones appears to me to say the Jews were those who denied Christ, and are not a race but "a theological construct". He appears to say that the word Jew appears 71 times in John's gospel and its meaning changes as the gospel goes on. Everyone starts out as a Jew but eventually those who rejected Christ became Jews and those who didn't were not. He mentions a blind person whom Christ healed: the guy's parents were "afraid of the Jews" because the Jews threatened to expel from the synagogue everyone who said Jesus was the Messiah. How could they be afraid of the Jews, they were Jews themselves ?  Dr. Jones then says that the term "Jew" now takes on a different meaning: it ceases to have an ethnical meaning, it now has a theological meaning. "A Jew is now someone of Jewish ethnicity who has rejected Christ. If you are someone of Jewish ethnicity who has accepted Christ, you are not a Jew."
The point here is that although Jesus is a person born of Jewish ethnicity, he was not born a Jew because the term "Jew" didn't appear until later because it only encompasses someone who has rejected Jesus Christ.
I am finding it very hard to get my head around this because I do not believe your DNA miraculously changes once you accept Jesus Christ (if you are a Jew that is.) Trying to explain this to 99% of everyone else is extremely difficult !

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Jesus says there are those who call themselves Jews but are not; they are the synagogue of Satan.

What do you take this to mean, mchawe?

[mchawe]

@Tim-Fitz.
Please enlighten me......Thanks by the way for this question/riddle.
Obviously in the time of Jesus, there were no Ashkenazi, so I am confused here

I found 2 references.
1. Revelations 2. 1. 9.

1. [9] I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

and
2. Revelations 3. 1. 9.

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

Am I right in saying the above was channelled by John in a vision ?
Who was he talkng about then ?

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

You are right that there was no Ashkenazi/Sephardim etc. debate in those times. So obviously Jesus can't be referring to fake physical Jews. It only leaves us with a spiritual interpretation of the passage.

"Those who call themselves Jews (Judahites) but are not." Clearly, Jesus shows that the Tribe of Judah is a house and not a racial pool. Jesus is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. Anyone can become a tribesman of Judah through faith in God. The physical tribe of Judah was used as a foundation for the faith, but the Bible is clear that the racial roots of the tribe of Judah were merely a means to an end.

The New Testament calls Christians "spiritual Jews" (Judahites). In other words, they become like the patriarchs of old who have faith.

There are a lot of terms: Judah, Jew, Judea. Three different terms used interchangeably. Deciphering it can be difficult, but when you look at everything in a spiritual way it becomes clear.

Was Jesus a Judahite? Yes, he is called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah and a racial descendant of Abraham. (Christian identity would probably disagree with me, but they are full of shit anyways).

Was Jesus a Jew? Absolutely not.

Was Jesus a Judean? Yes. He lived and preached in the Roman state of Judea.

[Christopher Marlowe]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but E Michael Jones is awesome.  I passed on that 4 part audio to some others and they were also blown away.  CSR posted a link to EMJ a couple weeks back, and I listened to several hours on a variety of subjects.  

About a year ago, I stumbled onto another "Culture Wars" writer named Robert Sugenis, and was equally impressed.  I don't subscribe to "Culture Wars" yet, but I'm very impressed by their staff.

To the point discussed here, I don't think you are ever going to find a satisfactory answer. The main problem has to do with defining your terms, i.e. "What is a Jew?" Define that and the problem is solved. Of course, whoever defines "Jew" is going to be guided by their own desire to make Jesus a Jew or a non-Jew. So someone who objects with  the outcome is going to question the definition, and around and around it goes.

Jones' remarks about the Gospel of John seemed to be very on-point because it brings up several of the issues that cut the definition. One main point is the idea of race versus religion.  Jesus' discussion with the Jews showed that he dismissed the idea that they were special because they were descendants of Abraham.  Jesus said he could make the stones into descendants of Abraham. Another point that comes out in this discussion is that the Jews Jesus is speaking to are not descendants of Israel/Jacob. The Jews say that Abraham was their father, but they were never in slavery. This means that these Jews are Edomites, who did not go to Egypt. Josephus says these people adopted the teaching of the rabbis after the people returned from the Babylonian exile. According to Josephus, Herod and his family were Edomites, and this is hinted at by this exchange in the Gospels.

The point of Jones' remarks is that the term "Jew" was fluid at the time of Jesus, and it is fluid today.  There are many definitions, and your definition will be influenced by your viewpoint.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Marlowe said:

"Another point that comes out in this discussion is that the Jews Jesus is speaking to are not descendants of Israel/Jacob. The Jews say that Abraham was their father, but they were never in slavery. This means that these Jews are Edomites, who did not go to Egypt."

So what are you saying here? That Jesus is calling the Edomites the Synagogue of Satan and the "real" Jews are off the hook?

[Christopher Marlowe]

So what are you saying here? That Jesus is calling the Edomites the Synagogue of Satan and the "real" Jews are off the hook?

Nope.  I was only using this as an example to show how people who called themselves Jews at the time of Christ were not proper descendants of Jacob/Israel.  The Synagogue of Satan quote comes from the Revelation.  I believe in the Gospel of John, he says those people are sons of the devil, who is the father of all lies.  

I was speaking to the original question of "Was Jesus a Jew....or Not?"  My main point was to say that how one answers this question will be based on the definition of Jew. That definition was fluid then, and is fluid today. The people who call themselves Jews today probably have a dozen different definitions of what a Jew is.  My point in bringing up the Edomites is just to say that there was confusion as to the genetic make-up of Jews back in those days. If one were to define Jews by saying they were descendants of Jacob/Israel, then that would not be entirely accurate because some who were regarded as Jews, e.g. Herod, were actually Edomites.  

Going to the Religious definition, Jesus was presented in the temple at the proper time according to the law of Moses, and so fulfilled the Law.  But he did not behave according to the teachings of the rabbis, and challenged their authority.  Jesus was baptized by John, and it was at that time that God showed His approval: "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

How one answers this question is based on the definition of "Jew".  But how one defines "Jew" will be probably controlled by how one wants the answer to turn out. There doesn't seem to be any cut an dried rules, as the word "Jew" was fluid and remains so.

As far as being "off the hook", I don't think anyone is off the hook unless Jesus removes their sin.  We are all born under sin, and Jesus is the only way to salvation.  Over the centuries, as MJ has pointed out, the Jews have acted as rebellious people. They have sponsored revolution, which is what one would expect from a group whose only real binding spiritual doctrine is that they do not believe in Christ.  The Jews are the killers of the Christ, who is the Logos, the order that established the universe. As such they continue to be in rebellion against God. We must all submit to the authority of God and reject our own sinful pride.  Eventually, those in rebellion, the ones who are on the hook, will be gathered up an thrown into the eternal fire.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Well, yeah. That's what I have been saying this whole time; define "Jew" before you debate.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Very interesting commentary. This definition gives some scope around "Who" were the Edomites in the Bible.  Apparently they were subsumed into the Kingdom of Judah? Solomon's temple at Baalbek with his influence on Jeroboam is worth a look.

------

Kings of Edom: Spiritual - Theosophy Dictionary on Edom (of "barebones" scholarship--CSR)

Edom 'Edom (Hebrew) The land and the Kings of Edom are mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 36) in allegorical manner, and treated in the Qabbalah as referring to a period of unbalance before balance or harmony was inaugurated; the Kings, in one meaning of this Qabbalistic allegory, refer to the various attempts (and failures) at the formation of worlds before this one. However, "the 'Edomite Kings' could never symbolize the 'prior worlds,' but only the 'attempts at men' on this globe: the 'pre-Adamite races,' of which the Zohar speaks, and which we explain as the First Root-Race. . . . the Kings of Edom are the sons of 'Esau the father of the Edomites' (Gen., xxxvi, 43); i.e., Esau represents in the Bible the race which stands between the Fourth and the Fifth, the Atlantean and the Aryan" (SD 2:705). Interestingly Edom is exactly the same word as 'Adam (man), the only difference being one of vocalization, of changing the Massoretic points. The seven Kings of Edom are therefore the seven races of man, whether the reference be made to the seven subraces of any one root-race, or to the seven root-races themselves.


Bible Dictionaries
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary
red, earthy; of blood
 
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary (1869) , by Roswell D. Hitchcock. About

Easton's Bible Dictionary
(1.) The name of Esau (q.v.), Gen. 25:30, "Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage [Heb. haadom, haadom, i.e., 'the red pottage, the red pottage'] ...Therefore was his name called Edom", i.e., Red. (2.) Idumea (Isa. 34:5, 6; Ezek. 35:15). "The field of Edom" (Gen. 32:3), "the land of Edom" (Gen. 36:16), was mountainous (Obad. 1:8, 9, 19, 21). It was called the land, or "the mountain of Seir," the rough hills on the east side of the Arabah. It extended from the head of the Gulf of Akabah, the Elanitic gulf, to the foot of the Dead Sea (1 Kings 9:26), and contained, among other cities, the rock-hewn Sela (q.v.), generally known by the Greek name Petra (2 Kings 14:7). It is a wild and rugged region, traversed by fruitful valleys. Its old capital was Bozrah (Isa. 63:1). The early inhabitants of the land were Horites. They were destroyed by the Edomites (Deut. 2:12), between whom and the kings of Israel and Judah there was frequent war (2 Kings 8:20; 2 Chr. 28:17). At the time of the Exodus they churlishly refused permission to the Israelites to pass through their land (Num. 20:14-21), and ever afterwards maintained an attitude of hostility toward them. They were conquered by David (2 Sam. 8:14; comp. 1 Kings 9:26), and afterwards by Amaziah (2 Chr. 25:11, 12). But they regained again their independence, and in later years, during the decline of the Jewish kingdom (2 Kings 16:6; R.V. marg., "Edomites"), made war against Israel. They took part with the Chaldeans when Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, and afterwards they invaded and held possession of the south of Palestine as far as Hebron. At length, however, Edom fell under the growing Chaldean power (Jer. 27:3, 6). There are many prophecies concerning Edom (Isa. 34:5, 6; Jer. 49:7-18; Ezek. 25:13; 35:1-15; Joel 3:19; Amos 1:11; Obad.; Mal. 1:3, 4) which have been remarkably fulfilled. The present desolate condition of that land is a standing testimony to the inspiration of these prophecies. After an existence as a people for above seventeen hundred years, they have utterly disappeared, and their language even is forgotten for ever. In Petra, "where kings kept their court, and where nobles assembled, there no man dwells; it is given by lot to birds, and beasts, and reptiles." The Edomites were Semites, closely related in blood and in language to the Israelites. They dispossessed the Horites of Mount Seir; though it is clear, from Gen. 36, that they afterwards intermarried with the conquered population. Edomite tribes settled also in the south of Judah, like the Kenizzites (Gen. 36:11), to whom Caleb and Othniel belonged (Josh. 15:17). The southern part of Edom was known as Teman.

http://dictionary.babylon.com/edom/

Ancient Israel foe Edom in eye of scholarly storm

By John Noble Wilford
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE

June 13, 2006

In biblical lore, Edom was the implacable adversary and menacing neighbor of the Israelites. The Edomites lived south of the Dead Sea and east of the desolate rift valley known as Wadi Arabah, and from time to time they had to be dealt with by force, notably by the likes of kings David and Solomon.

Today, the Edomites are again in the thick of combat – of the scholarly kind. The conflict is heated and protracted, as is often the case with issues related to the reliability of the Bible as history.

Chronology is at the crux of the debate. Exactly when did the nomadic tribes of Edom become an organized society with the might to threaten ancient Israel? Were David and Solomon really kings of a state with growing power in the 10th century B.C.? Had writers of the Bible magnified the stature of the two societies at such an early time in history?

An international team of archaeologists has recorded radiocarbon dates they say show the tribes of Edom may have come together in a cohesive society as early as the 12th century B.C., certainly by the 10th. The evidence was found in the ruins of a large copper-processing center and fortress at Khirbat en-Nahas, in the lowlands of what was Edom and is now part of Jordan.

Thomas E. Levy, an archaeologist at the University of California San Diego, said last week that the findings at Khirbat en-Nahas and at abandoned mines elsewhere show that the Edomites developed a complex state much earlier than previously thought.

The first results of the research by Levy and Mohammad Najjar, director of excavations and surveys at the Department of Antiquities of Jordan, were announced two years ago and immediately came under attack.

In an article in the July/August Biblical Archaeology Review, Levy and Najjar say their most recent field work "demonstrates the weak reed on the basis of which a number of scholars have scoffed at the idea of a state or complex chiefdom in Edom at this early period."

Levy said the research yielded the first high-precision dates in the region, plus artifacts such as scarabs, ceramics, metal arrowheads, hammers, grinding stones and slag heaps. Radiocarbon analysis of charred wood, grain, and fruit in sediment layers revealed two major phases of copper processing, first in the 12th and 11th centuries, later in the 10th and 9th.

Khirbat en-Nahas, which means "ruins of copper" in Arabic, is 30 miles from the Dead Sea and 30 miles north of Petra, Jordan's most famous archaeological site.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... 3edom.html


Also of interest-- a pretty interesting link if familiar with the background:
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/jeroboam.html

Baal-hanan ben Achbor

Baal-hanan ben Achbor was a king of Edom mentioned in the Bible, in Genesis 36:31-43. He succeeded Saul of Rehoboth in the apparently elective kingship of the early Edomites. His name, which means "Baal is gracious", may indicate that the cult of the Baalim existed in Edom.

He is called the son of Achbor; but the name of his native city is not given. For this and other reasons, Marquart ("Fundamente Israelitischer und Jüdischer Gesch." 1896, pp. 10 et seq.) supposes that "son of Achbor" is a duplicate of "son of Beor" (Gen. xxxvi. 32), and that "Baal-hanan" in the original text is given as the name of the father of the next king, Hadar.

The date and even historicity of his reign are unknown, as he is not mentioned in any other surviving source. This article incorporates text from the public domain 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

Categories: Edom | Jewish Encyclopedia

=========

Edom

Edom (אֱ×"וֹם, Standard Hebrew Edom, Tiberian Hebrew ʾÄ"ḏôm, Assyrian Udumi, Syriac ܐܕܘܡ), a Hebrew word meaning "red", is a name given to Esau in the Hebrew Bible, as well as to the nation that purportedly traced their ancestry to him.
Edom - Esau as Edom

The Book of Genesis mentions "red" a number of times when describing Esau, and has been alternate name in describing him:

    * "The first one [Esau] came out reddish (admoni in Hebrew) as hairy as a fur coat. They named him Esau." [1] (Genesis 25:25).
    * "Jacob was once simmering a stew, when Esau came home exhausted from the field. Esau said to Jacob, 'Give me a swallow of that reddish red (ha-adom, ha-adom [i.e. using the word ha-adom twice]) I am exhausted.' He was therefore given the name Edom ('Red' or 'Ruddy')." [2] (Genesis 25:29-30)

Children of Eber, Edomite language, Habiru, Hebrews, Nabataea
Edom - The Edomites

The Bible refers to Esau's descendents as "Edomim" or "Edomites". The Edomite people are known from history to have been a Semitic-speaking tribal group inhabiting the Negev Desert and the Aravah valley of what is now southern Israel and Jordan. According to Genesis, Esau's descendents were said to have settled in this land after displacing the Horites. The reddish sandstone of the region may be an alternative explanation for the nation's name to that found in Genesis. Their homeland was also called the land of Seir; Mount Seir appears to have been strongly identified with them and may have been a cultic site. The Edomites may have been connected with the Shasu and Shutu, nomadic raiders mentioned in Egyptian sources. Indeed, a letter from an Egyptian scribe at a border fortress in the Wadi Tumilat during the reign of Merneptah reports movement of nomadic "shasu-tribes of Edom" to watering holes in Egyptian territory. (Redford, Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton Univ. Press, 1992. p.228, 318.)

Edom - In the Bible

Their original country, according to the Tanakh, stretched from the Sinai peninsula as far as Kadesh-barnea. Southward it reached as far as Eilat, which was the seaport of Edom (Deut. 1:2; 2:1-8). On the north of Edom was the territory of Moab (Judges 11:17-18; II Kings 3:8-9). The boundary between Moab and Edom was the Wadi Zered (Deut. 2:13-18). The ancient capital of Edom was Bozrah (Gen. 36:33; Isa. 34:6, 63:1, et al). In the time of Amaziah (838 B.C.), Selah (Petra) was its principal stronghold (II Kings 14:7); Eilat and Ezion-geber its seaports (I Kings 9:26).

Genesis 36 is dedicated to chronicling the history of Esau's family and of the kings of Edom:

These are the kings who ruled in the land of Edom before a king ruled the children of Israel. And Bela ben Beor ruled in Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah. And Bela died, and Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah ruled in his place. And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of Temani ruled in his place. And Husham died, and Hadad ben Bedad, who struck Midian in the field of Moab, ruled in his place, and the name of his city was Avith. And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah ruled in his place. And Samlah died, and Saul of Rehoboth on the river ruled in his place. And Saul died, and Baal-hanan ben Achbor ruled in his place. And Baal-hanan ben Achbor died, and Hadar ruled in his place, and the name of his city was Pau (Edom), and his wife's name was Mehetabel bat Matred bat Mezahab. And these are the names of the clans [the Hebrew word here is "alufim"; variously translated as "clans", "chiefs", "generals" or "dukes"] of Esau by their families, by their places, by their names: clan Timnah, clan Alvah, clan Jetheth, clan Aholibamah, clan Elah, clan Pinon, clan Kenaz, clan Teman, clan Mibzar, clan Magdiel, clan Iram. (Genesis 36:31-43)

If the account may be taken at face value, it appears that the kingship of Edom was, at least in early times, elective rather than hereditary. Deuteronomy mentions both a king and chieftains. When the King of Edom refused to allow the Israelites to pass through his land on their way to the land of Canaan the Israelites were expressly ordered not to wage war upon the Edomites, but to go around their country (Num. 20:14-21; Deut. 2:4-6); neither did the King of Edom attempt hostilities against the Israelites, though he prepared to resist aggression.

Nothing further is recorded of the Edomites in the Bible until their defeat by King Saul of Israel in the late 1000's BCE; forty years later King David and his general Joab defeated the Edomites in the "valley of salt," (probably near the Dead Sea) (II Sam. 8:13-14; I Kings 9:15-16). An Edomite prince named Hadad escaped and fled to Egypt, and after David's death returned and endeavored to excite his countrymen to rebellion; failing in which he went to Syria (ib. 9:14-22; Josephus, "Ant." viii. 7, § 6). From that time Edom remained a vassal of Israel. David placed over the Edomites Israelite governors or prefects (II Sam. 8:14), and this form of government seems to have continued under Solomon. When Israel divided into two kingdoms Edom became a dependency of the Kingdom of Judah. In the time of Jehoshaphat (c. 914 B.C.) a king of Edom is mentioned (II Kings 3:9-26), who was probably an Israelite appointed by the King of Judah. It is stated further (II Chron. 20:10-23) that the inhabitants of Mount Seir invaded Judea in conjunction with Ammon and Moab, and that the invaders turned against one another and were all destroyed. Edom revolted against Jehoram, elected a king of its own, and afterward retained its independence (II Kings 8:20-22; II Chron. 21:. Amaziah attacked and defeated the Edomites, seizing Selah, but the Israelites were never able to subdue Edom completely (II Kings 14:7; II Chron. 25:11-12).

In the time of Nebuchadnezzar the Edomites took an active part in the plunder of Jerusalem and in the slaughter of the Jews (Ps. 137:7; Obad. 11-14). It is on account of these cruelties that Edom was so violently denounced by the Prophets (Isa. 34:5-8; Jer. 49:7-22; Obad. passim).

According to the Torah (Deut. 23:8-9), the congregation could not receive descendants of a marriage between an Israelite and an Edomite until the fourth generation. This law was a subject of controversy between R. Simeon and other Talmudists, who maintained that female descendants were also excluded until the fourth generation, contrary to R. Simeon, who regarded the limitation as applicable in only to male descendants (Yev. 76b).

Edom - Economy

The Kingdom of Edom drew much of its livelihood from the caravan trade between Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, and southern Arabia, along the Incense Route. Astride the King's Highway, the Edomites were one of several states in the region for whom trade was vital due to the scarcity of arable land. Edom's location on the southern highlands left it with only a small strip of land that received sufficient rain for farming.

Edom probably exported salt and balsam (used for perfume and temple incense in the ancient world) from the Dead Sea region.

Edom - Post-Biblical Times

Edom is mentioned in Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions in the form "Udumi" or "Udumu"; three of its kings are known from the same source: Ḳaus-malaka at the time of Tiglath-pileser III (c. 745 BCE), Malik-rammu at the time of Sennacherib (c. 705 BCE), and Ḳaus-gabri at the time of Esarhaddon (c. 680 BCE). According to the Egyptian inscriptions, the so-called "Aduma" at times extended their possessions down as far as the borders of Egypt (Müller, "Asien und Europa," p. 135). After the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians, the Edomites were allowed to settle in the region south of Hebron. They prospered in this new country, called by the Greeks and Romans "Idumaea" or "Idumea", for more than four centuries (Mark 3:8; Ptolemy, "Geography," v. 16). At the same time they were driven by the Nabatæans from their ancestral lands to the south and east.

During the revolt of the Maccabees against the Seleucid kingdom, a Seleucid general named Gorgias is referred to as "Governor of Idumaea"; whether he was a Greek or a Hellenized Edomite is unknown (II Maccabees 12:32). Judas Maccabeus conquered their territory for a time in around 163 BCE (Josephus, "Ant." xii. 8, §§ 1, 6). They were again subdued by John Hyrcanus (c. 125 BCE), by whom they were forced to observe Jewish rites and laws (ib. xiii. 9, § 1; xiv. 4, § 4). They were then incorporated with the Jewish nation.

The Hasmonean official Antipater the Idumaean was of Edomite origin. He was the progenitor of the Herodian dynasty that ruled over Judea after its conquest by the Romans. Under Herod the Great Idumaea was ruled for him by a series of governors, among whom were his brother Joseph ben Antipater and his brother-in-law Costobarus.

Immediately before the siege of Jerusalem by Titus 20,000 Idumaeans, under the leadership of John, Simeon, Phinehas, and Jacob, appeared before Jerusalem to fight in behalf of the Zealots who were besieged in the Temple (Josephus, "B. J." iv. 4, § 5).

After the Jewish Wars the Idumaeans ceased to be a separate people, though the geographical name "Idumea" still existed at the time of St. Jerome.

Edom - Edomite religion

The nature of Edomite religion is largely unknown. As close relatives of other Levantine Semites, they may have worshipped such gods as El, Baal, Asherah, and possibly even YHWH. A national god named Kaus (possibly analagous with the Moabite god Chemosh) is known from personal names and from an altar inscription discovered near Mamre.

Edom - Identification with Rome

Later in Jewish history, it was the Roman Empire that came to be identified with Esau and "Edom" because of their frequent use of the color red in their banners and standards, and also due to their ruthless and often "bloody" reign in Judea. In medieval rabbinic writing, "Edom" is used to refer to the Byzantine Empire and Christendom in general (cf. the use of "Ishmael" to refer to the Islamic world).

Edom - Controversy

For over a century, archeologists specializing in the Middle East maintained that there was no evidence of an organized state society in Edom earlier than the 800's or 700's BCE. Biblical minimalists touted this fact as one piece of evidence of the Bible's mythical nature and ultimate unreliability as a historical source. (Redford 305)

Recently, however, excavations such as the 2004-2004 UCSD dig at Khirbat an-Nahas in Jordan have shed new light on the history of Edom, unearthing artifacts and evidence of settled state society as early as the thirteenth through the tenth centuries BCE.[3] [4]

Fundamentalists have predictably seized on this new evidence to "prove" the total reliability of the Bible as history. More cautious appraisals by such secular scholars as William Dever, who believes that at least parts of the Bible are reliable as historical sources and that the minimalist wholesale rejection of the biblical text is reckless anti-scholarship, have pointed to these excavations to call for a more balanced approach to the Bible as a tool to be used in archeology.

See also

    * Children of Eber
    * Edomite language
    * Habiru
    * Hebrews
    * Nabataea

Edom - Resources

    * Edom on Jewishencyclopedia.com
    * Edom on Bruce Gordon's Regnal Chronologies
    * UCSD article on age of Edom
    * Article on age of Edom from the Jerusalem Post
    * Mail & Guardian Article on Edom's age, includes Dever's reaction
    * Edom on Ancientroute.com

This article incorporates text from the public domain 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Edom/id/1894942

Categories: Edom | Ancient peoples | Torah people | Torah places | Jewish Encyclopedia

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

It is quite clear that Jesus abhorred the religion of Judaism. But does it really matter whether Jesus was racially a Jew (Judah) or not, as far as our present situation today exists?

For a Christian, I can see why it would matter because the prophecy was that the Messiah would be the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, but for areligionists, what does it matter? If Jesus were a racial Jew, would that make you respect Christianity less? If Jesus were not a racial Jew, would that make you respect Christianity more?