Was Jesus a Palestinian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chorister
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Brian, I hope you don’t mind me asking you a question. (sorry if I go off topic for a moment). I was in RCIA last year. One thing that always bothered me is why Jesus is called a “descendant” of David when he was adopted by Joseph?

I have step-children, but do I say they are descended from me???
No. I don’t understand this Catholic teaching. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

thanks:)
Did you adopt your step-children? I have an adopted daughter, she is as much a daughter as any other daughter. In the eyes of my wife and I, the law, everything save the genes.

My dad had a mother and a step-mother. The step-mother never adopted him. There is a difference.

Joseph did not adopt Jesus, he was born of his wife. Legally his child. Even more than an adopted child in that half of his parentage comes from his parents. Even more than a step-child who shares genes but not parents. (in fact, his male genes may have come from Joseph. Where did God get the genes to give Jesus his male characteristics?)
 
I’ve always wondered why Jesus is always depicted as a European person with blue eyes and light brown hair.

Why is he not depicted as an arab looking person with dark eyes and hair?

Anyone know? I asked the ‘ask the apologist’ but no answer.

What is wrong with a little historical accuracy regarding his physical appearance?
We have an image of Mary and Jesus from Japan, carved in ivory. Both of them have Japanese features. The image is to show that Jesus/Mary are our Brother/Mother. Spiritually, but in art you must show this physically.
 
Did you adopt your step-children? I have an adopted daughter, she is as much a daughter as any other daughter. In the eyes of my wife and I, the law, everything save the genes.

My dad had a mother and a step-mother. The step-mother never adopted him. There is a difference.

Joseph did not adopt Jesus, he was born of his wife. Legally his child. Even more than an adopted child in that half of his parentage comes from his parents. Even more than a step-child who shares genes but not parents. (in fact, his male genes may have come from Joseph. Where did God get the genes to give Jesus his male characteristics?)
No, I haven’t adopted them because they have a mother who they are very much identified with. So I’m the step-mother, and not as influential as the mother.

Regarding Jesus, I don’t really know what to think about his upbringing to be honest. I can’t imagine having a divine child:D or what that was like.

Joseph knew Mary had a child by divine powers, otherwise he wouldn’t have married her for the world. I don’t even want to think about what having a child out of wedlock would mean in those days. So Joseph pretended it was his child (genetically) even though he knew it wasn’t. And it was his child by every sense (except genetics). So I guess Jesus was descended from Joseph. (even though I still struggle with this as its more difficult than if Jesus were merely a mortal and born from Joseph and Mary and hense ‘descended’ in the way that the OT prophets were directly descended).🙂

To OP, sorry for being off topic, I hope you don’t mind.
 
I have a friend who is Bangladeshi. He was born in India, grew up in Pakistan. Yet he never left town. If the country changes names he changes nationalities (in each instance he could have gotten a passport).

This is if the country changes while he was alive.

On the other hand, my Welsh ancestors arrived in the US in 1650. Were they americans? I would say no, but my ancestors who were their decendents and fought in the revolutionary war, since they died in the US, were Americans; even though both groups lived in what eventually became the state of Maine. Same part of the world, difference ‘citizenship’.

My humble conclusion: Jesus was not Palistinian.
 
Just what the topic says.
Jesus was an Israelite of the tribe of Judah (a Judahite). To refer to Jesus as a “Jew” is erroneous because that term describes the modern people who refer to themselves as Jews. The Jews we know today descend from Esau, rather than Jacob.

The Hebrew word in the Old Testament translated as “Jew” in most modern translations, literally means ‘Judahite’, a descendant of Judah. The Greek word translated as “Jew” in the New Testament literally means a ‘Judean’, a person who lived in the land of Judea regardless of ethnicity.
 
Jesus was an Israelite of the tribe of Judah (a Judahite). To refer to Jesus as a “Jew” is erroneous because that term describes the modern people who refer to themselves as Jews. The Jews we know today descend from Esau, rather than Jacob.
Eh? Is there a source for this?

The last of the Idumeans were supposed to have been wiped out during the Jewish-Roman war of 70-73.
 
Eh? Is there a source for this?

The last of the Idumeans were supposed to have been wiped out during the Jewish-Roman war of 70-73.
There sure is evidence:
“There is evidence that in the 6th century BC, some of the Edomites fled their homeland of Seir and migrated north, 'After the fall of Jerusalem, in 586 BC, the Edomites began to press northward (Ezekiel 36:5).”
(The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by Henry S. Gehman, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1970, p. 418)

At the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD, the Edomite Jews became scattered over all of Europe, setting up communities in places such as southern Gaul, Germania Inferior (Holland), and along the banks of the Rhine and Danube Rivers in Germany.
“… the Idumeans (Edomites) were…made Jews…and a Turkish people (Khazars) were mainly Jews in South Russia…The main part of Jewry never was in Judea and had never come out of Judea.”
(H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, 3rd ed., MacMillian, p. 494).
“Edom is in Modern Jewry.”
(The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925 edition, vol. 5, p. 41)
“Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an ‘Israelite’ or a ‘Hebrew.’”
(The Jewish Almanac, Compiled and Edited by Richard Siegel and Carl Rheins (New York: Bantam Books, 1980) p. 3.)

Thus we have it from Jewish sources, such as the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Jewish Almanac, that Jews are of Edomite stock.

In addition, the so-called ‘Turkic’ people mentioned above (the Khazars) claimed that their original homeland was in the land of Edom as we can see from this quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia under the entry of ‘Chazars’:
“Hasdai ibn Shaprut, who was foreign minister to Abd-al-Rahman, Sultan of Cordova, in his letter to King Joseph of the Chazars (about 960 AD) … speaks of the tradition according to which the Chazars once dwelt near the Seir Mountains.”
(The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 372; or see ‘Chazars’)

The ‘Seir Mountains’ are none other than the original land of Esau. (Genesis 36:8). The Seir mountains were the home of the Edomites for nearly a millennium (The Edomites arrived in Edom or Seir at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 13th century BC. It is quite likely the the aforementioned Edomites who fled north in the 6th century BC, settled in the area of Russia, once known as Khazaria, intermingling with the native Turkic* peoples of the region adopting their Shamanism. In the 9th Century AD, these Khazars converted en masse to Judaism (Pharisaism) when King Bulan invited Babylonian/Edomite Perushim (Pharisees) into Khazaria. Eventually they and their families settled in the region, intermarrying with the native Khazar/Edomite population. This is the origin of many Eastern European (Ashkenazi) Jews. They make up at least 90% of modern Jewry. Every Israeli Prime Minister has come from this heathen background.
  • There is an old tradition which speaks of the Turks as being descendants of Esau as well.
 
NO.

Matthew 2:1-2

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him.”

Matthew 2:19-21
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”
So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel.

I don’t see anything about the land of Palestine, the West Bank, or the Magi asking where the born King of the Palestineans is at.
 
There seems to be some miscommunication here.

Jesus was Jewish, from the Land of Israel. The Roman name for this territory was “Palestine”. So in a geographical sense, yes, Jesus was a Palestinian.

If you’re speaking from a modern day perspective, no, what we commonly call “Palestinians” is a different ethnicity than what Jesus was.
 
There seems to be some miscommunication here.

Jesus was Jewish, from the Land of Israel. The Roman name for this territory was “Palestine”. So in a geographical sense, yes, Jesus was a Palestinian.

If you’re speaking from a modern day perspective, no, what we commonly call “Palestinians” is a different ethnicity than what Jesus was.
Again, no way, the land was named Palestine after the Jewish dispersion of 70 AD.
 
Are you absolutely sure?

I’ve always been under the impression that Palestine was the Roman name for the territory, but I’m willing to admit I’m wrong if you can source that.
 
Are you absolutely sure?

I’ve always been under the impression that Palestine was the Roman name for the territory, but I’m willing to admit I’m wrong if you can source that.
I did give you my source, Matthew.

Where is your source for such a claim?
 
Matthew himself was Jewish, and he was writing his letter to other Jews, so of course he’s going to call the territory Israel. That doesn’t mean the Romans didn’t call the area Palestine.

Again, I think the problem here is miscommunication. Although it is probably archaic to use the word Palestine in this sense, it’s not incorrect.
 
Matthew himself was Jewish, and he was writing his letter to other Jews, so of course he’s going to call the territory Israel. That doesn’t mean the Romans didn’t call the area Palestine.

Again, I think the problem here is miscommunication. Although it is probably archaic to use the word Palestine in this sense, it’s not incorrect.
I’ll stick with Matthew on the correct name of the land of Israel, and the name of the city Jerusalem as well.
 
I’ve always wondered why Jesus is always depicted as a European person with blue eyes and light brown hair.

Why is he not depicted as an arab looking person with dark eyes and hair?

Anyone know? I asked the ‘ask the apologist’ but no answer.

What is wrong with a little historical accuracy regarding his physical appearance?
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are all depicted like “Palestinians” in the East. Most likely, you have seen Western art, reflective of western concepts. In Africa and Egypt, the Holy Family is depicted as very dark.
 
I’ll stick with Matthew on the correct name of the land of Israel, and the name of the city Jerusalem as well.
I never said that Israel was an incorrect name to use.

I don’t know why you’re getting so hostile at this simple claim. I’m not saying that Jesus is in the same league as Yasser Arafat and Hezbollah. Lord, no. I’m merely saying that the word “Palestine” was used to describe the territory that Israel and Judea are located at, so even if Israeli is a more culturally relevant term, calling Jesus a Palestinian is not incorrect.
 
(in fact, his male genes may have come from Joseph. Where did God get the genes to give Jesus his male characteristics?)
I have always wondered this too. Many people do not realize that it is the sperm that determines the sex of the child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top