Was Jesus a Jew racially?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glorthac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Glorthac

Guest
I’m doing a study of religion and race, and this is one of the more popular topics. We can all agree Jesus was a Christian religiously, He being the founder. But what does the Church teach about His race?

I’m taking a guess, but the Church probably says Jesus was mostly Jewish racially, with small traces of Moabite and other blood (since Ruth, the Moabite, was King David’s grandparent).

Also, has the Church made any statements in regards to the various anti-semetic churches, like the Christian Identity movement and Positive Christianity? Has the Church said anything about the idea that Jesus was a German or Anglo-Saxon racially?

And if you could, please provide Church quotes.

Thanks!
 
you don’t need any “church quotes” you need a bible. He was Jewish by birth and by law. Read Luke’s gospel.
 
Yes, he was a member of the Jewish race - a descendant of Abraham (by Abraham’s fourth son, Judah).
 
Yes definitely Jewish. His mother was Jewish, after all. He might even have described his religion as Judaism at that stage, the word Christian did not appear until the time of Acts.
 
I believe Jesus was a Jew by race, and a Galilean (instead of being, say, Judaean or Samaritan) by origin - more specifically, one from Nazareth/Nazaret/Nazara. 🙂
 
Yes - a descendant of David from mother and from foster father (blood and law).

James
 
It’s so obvious that Jesus was a Jew that as far as I know there’s never been any need for the Magesterium to make a dogmatic declaration about it. The kook fringe that says he wasn’t a Jew is so out there that I bet very few folks know it exists, and in any case one can’t waste time rebutting the ravings of every kook fringe… you’d never get anything constructive done.
 
Glorthac said:
Also, has the Church made any statements in regards to the various anti-semetic churches, like the Christian Identity movement and Positive Christianity? Has the Church said anything about the idea that Jesus was a German or Anglo-Saxon racially?
Click to expand...
No. You are a former protestant, and you may not be aware that the Church very rarely responds to any non-Catholic ideas (the main exception being Trent’s response to the heresy of Martin Luther).

If some wackos went around saying that Jesus was a transvestite, the Church would not respond in any way, unless the wackos gained some SERIOUS traction.

The Church has often opposed heresy, but it has to be a pretty significant heresy to attract such attention. I have never heard of these movements you mentioned (and I try to stay pretty informed), so I can assure you that the Church has probably not noticed them and has certainly not formally addressed them.
 
DavidFilmer said:
Yes, he was a member of the Jewish race - a descendant of Abraham (by Abraham’s fourth son, Judah).
Click to expand...
So he was not a Levite, what about the mention of Moabite? This is interesting to me.

Of the twelve tribes, he was Judahite? I need to get to my old testament tonight.
 
Isn’t the first chapter of Matthew with all that begetting all about establishing Jesus’ lineage, looks pretty Jewish to me.
 
larsenl1 said:
So he was not a Levite, what about the mention of Moabite? This is interesting to me.

.
Click to expand...
Correct. Read Hebrews 7:14 to find the passage that explains he is not a Levite. It’s something I stumbled on when trying to locate another verse for another reason.

I snipped out part of your post because I did not want to address that part.
 
The only thing I don’t get is why do people depict Jesus as white when he clearly wasn’t?:confused:
 
JaredM said:
The only thing I don’t get is why do people depict Jesus as white when he clearly wasn’t?:confused:
Click to expand...
The possibility exists that he could have had fair skin and eyes that were blue or green, or any color.

The probability is, slimmer.

The importance of it is nill in reality.

It was simply good marketing that any business would use.

Lighter= better (cigarette companies know this too)

Women wear white wedding gowns (in most cultures)
First Holy Communion is all about white

White witch= good witch
Black witch= bad

Granted, other cultures do not view this the same way.
 
wmscott said:
Isn’t the first chapter of Matthew with all that begetting all about establishing Jesus’ lineage, looks pretty Jewish to me.
Click to expand...
Uhh…there are 5 women listed in that genealogy. 4 of them are NOT Jewish. Mary is the only Jewish one.

Isn’t Jewish lineage passed through the mother?

?
 
ricmat said:
Uhh…there are 5 women listed in that genealogy. 4 of them are NOT Jewish. Mary is the only Jewish one.

Isn’t Jewish lineage passed through the mother?

?
Click to expand...
I don’t know, that is why I am asking.
 
JaredM said:
The only thing I don’t get is why do people depict Jesus as white when he clearly wasn’t?:confused:
Click to expand...
Probably because there is hardly a difference between a white person and a Jewish person. Is Natalie Portman a white person or a Jewish person? I thought she was white until someone told me she was Jewish.
 
JaredM said:
The only thing I don’t get is why do people depict Jesus as white when he clearly wasn’t?:confused:
Click to expand...
Let’s face it, we don’t know for sure how Jesus looked like, and the whole idea of ‘historical accuracy’ is a rather new phenomenon that came up when studies like archaeology flowered. Many early artists didn’t seem to care if Jesus or other Biblical characters wasn’t ‘Jewish’ enough, just as they didn’t care whether a piece of clothing or an architectural structure actually existed in Biblical times: they painted only what is familiar to them.

Granted, I always complain that I’m not really a fan of the dainty, ultra-blond Jesuses with spotlessly-clean clothes and fair, delicate skin. 😃
 
patrick457 said:
Let’s face it, we don’t know for sure how Jesus looked like, and the whole idea of ‘historical accuracy’ is a rather new phenomenon that came up when studies like archaeology flowered. Many early artists didn’t seem to care if Jesus or other Biblical characters wasn’t ‘Jewish’ enough, just as they didn’t care whether a piece of clothing or an architectural structure actually existed in Biblical times: they painted only what is familiar to them.

Granted, I always complain that I’m not really a fan of the dainty, ultra-blond Jesuses with spotlessly-clean clothes and fair, delicate skin. 😃
Click to expand...
I agree with this 🙂 but In the gospels it says that judas was needed to identify Jesus, meaning that he didn’t stand out among his apostles. Therefore, I think it’s safe to say he was just as Jewish in appearance as everyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top