Was Jesus a Palestinian?

[patrick457]

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.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lestine.gif/300px-First_century_palestine.gif

Not really. During the time of Jesus, present-day Palestine consisted of the provinces of Judea (formed by combining Judea, Samaria and Idumea), Galilee, the Decapolis, Peraea, and Gaulanitis (the Golan). It was only after Bar Kochba’s revolt in 135 AD that the Emperor Hadrian changed the name of Judea Province into Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina.

Eventually, under Diocletian (284-305) the region was divided into Palaestina Prima which was Judea, Samaria, Idumea, Peraea and the coastal plain with Caesarea as capital, Palaestina Secunda which was Galilee, Decapolis, Golan with Beth-shean as capital, and Palaestina Tertia which was the Negev with Petra as capital.

In a sense, as Jesus was a native of Nazareth, this would have made Him a Galilean (as opposed to a ‘Jew’, or Judean) by 1st century standards since He resided in the province of Galilee.

 

[EphelDuath]

Not really. During the time of Jesus, present-day Palestine consisted of the provinces of Judea (formed by combining Judea, Samaria and Idumea), Galilee, the Decapolis, Peraea, and Gaulanitis (the Golan). It was only after Bar Kochba’s revolt in 135 AD that the Emperor Hadrian changed the name of Judea Province into Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina.p

I don’t think I follow. So the territory is called Palestine, and thus, it is not incorrect to refer to anybody who comes from Judea, Galilee or Samaria as “Palestinians” in the historical sense.

 

[jfoges]

the Holy Land is often referred to as Palestine. Palestine is a geographical term for that area. In that sense, anyone from there can be called a Palestinian, I guess. But it would be foolish to lump all the different groups who have lived there into one ethno-cultural group.

I guess Palestinians can say today that Jesus was one of the people of their land or country. But the difference between the culture of a place 2,000 years ago and today is tremendous. The palestinians of today have about as much in common with the ancient inhabitants as modern day italians have with the ancient romans, or modern day egyptians have with the ancient egyptians.

 

[patrick457]

I don’t think I follow. So the territory is called Palestine, and thus, it is not incorrect to refer to anybody who comes from Judea, Galilee or Samaria as “Palestinians” in the historical sense.

In a sense, yes. However, attempting to use the title ‘(Syro-)Palestinian’ in a 1st century context would be a bit anachronistic as the title was not used then to the Roman Region of Iudaea (or Galilee, or Decapolis, etc.)

 

[patrick457]

the Holy Land is often referred to as Palestine. Palestine is a geographical term for that area. In that sense, anyone from there can be called a Palestinian, I guess. But it would be foolish to lump all the different groups who have lived there into one ethno-cultural group.

I guess Palestinians can say today that Jesus was one of the people of their land or country. But the difference between the culture of a place 2,000 years ago and today is tremendous. The palestinians of today have about as much in common with the ancient inhabitants as modern day italians have with the ancient romans, or modern day egyptians have with the ancient egyptians.

Correct.

 

[dzheremi]

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?

Hi Lisa,

Your post reminds me of a discussion I have often seen occur between the Ethiopians and Eritreans that I have become acquainted with. To that end, here is a link where you can check out Ethiopian icons from centuries past, with Jesus depicted in the traditional Ethiopian way: Gallery of Ethiopian icons

I have also seen caucasian depictions of Jesus used among the Oriental Orthodox, but this does not exclude their own artistic traditions. That’s a good thing, to me. I think they’re really beautiful!



Igziabher yimmesgen!

 

[patrick457]

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?

I’ll admit that the ‘blond, blue-eyed Northern-European/Anglo-Saxon’ images of Jesus is a pet peeve of mine. I mean, how in the world are you supposed to hide a Caucasian-looking child in Egypt?

Of course, the artists were been merely catering to the local tastes or were acting within their own culture, but even so, whenever I see images of this type, I’m reminded of that story where Jesus came out of a survey as the 13th ‘greatest American’.

By the way, that reminds me of a BBC program where they reconstructed a 1st century Jewish man’s face based on a sample skull:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The above face is not necessarily Jesus’, but at least it gives us a fairly good idea about how Jewish men looked like back then.

dzheremi, those icons are really beautiful. Thank you.

 

[Padraig_77]

I’ll admit that the ‘blond, blue-eyed Northern-European/Anglo-Saxon’ images of Jesus is a pet peeve of mine. I mean, how in the world are you supposed to hide a Caucasian-looking child in Egypt?

The Ancient Egyptians were a Caucasian people, specifically Mediterranean, like the Israelites. By Mediterranean I mean Italian or Greek looking (i.e. Southern European). They were not Nordic/Anglo-Saxon, nor were they Black Africans, or Arabs. (Source)

Here is a painting of a native Galilean man from Sepphoris in Galilee, around the time of Christ:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/5742/sepora1.jpg

 

[patrick457]

The Ancient Egyptians were a Caucasian people, specifically Mediterranean, like the Israelites. By Mediterranean I mean Italian or Greek looking (i.e. Southern European). They were not Nordic/Anglo-Saxon, nor were they Black Africans, or Arabs. (Source)

Here is a painting of a native Galilean man from Sepphoris in Galilee, around the time of Christ:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/5742/sepora1.jpg

I stand corrected. However, the original point still stands: how are you supposed to hide an ultra-Nordic/Anglo-Saxon blue-eyed, blond-haired and fair-skinned child in places where there are little to no such people?

 

[Kaninchen]

How’s business in the Christian Identity industry nowadays?

 

[Padraig_77]

I stand corrected. However, the original point still stands: how are you supposed to hide an ultra-Nordic/Anglo-Saxon blue-eyed, blond-haired and fair-skinned child in places where there are little to no such people?

I see you point and you are definitely correct that Christ was not Nordic, as the Shroud of Turin shows he was of Mediterranean type.

However, as a point of interest, I should note that there were actually some blondes and even red-heads in Ancient Egypt. The Pharaohs Seti I and Ramesses II were natural redheads and the remains of a mummy which was nicknamed ‘Ginger’ was discovered in Egypt. The Berbers of North Africa, who are closely related to the ancient Egyptians, are widely known for many of them having red or blonde hair, as you can see here and here.

Here is a photo of a Hieroglyphic which shows some blonde Egyptians:



Blondism also did occur in the Israelites as this photo of an Israelite hieroglyphic shows:



Subjects from the Ancient Kingdom of Northern Israel.

However, I should point out that the Mediterranean type was much more predominate in these areas.

 

[patrick457]

How’s business in the Christian Identity industry nowadays?

Excuse me?

 

[Padraig_77]

How’s business in the Christian Identity industry nowadays?

I’m sorry but, are you referring to me?

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m sorry but, are you referring to me?

Indeed.

 

[Padraig_77]

Indeed.

And what makes you think I’m part of the “Christian Identity” cult? Because I don’t consider “Jews” the “Chosen People” nor that they descend from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? If so, you are gravely mistaken. One doesn’t have to be a member of the “Christian Identity” cult to acknowledge that modern Jews are not real Israelites, as that information has been out for quite some time. Some us of aren’t dumb goyim or Zionuts/Hageeites like you seem to think.

 

[Kaninchen]

And what makes you think I’m part of the “Christian Identity” cult? Because I don’t consider “Jews” the “Chosen People” nor that they descend from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? If so, you are gravely mistaken. One doesn’t have to be a member of the “Christian Identity” cult to acknowledge that modern Jews are not real Israelites, as that information has been out for quite some time. Some us of aren’t dumb goyim or Zionuts/Hageeites like you seem to think.

Didn’t take much to ‘smoke you out’ though, did it?

 

[Padraig_77]

Didn’t take much to ‘smoke you out’ though, did it?

And just what do you mean by that?

 

[Lev23]

And what makes you think I’m part of the “Christian Identity” cult? Because I don’t consider “Jews” the “Chosen People” nor that they descend from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? If so, you are gravely mistaken. One doesn’t have to be a member of the “Christian Identity” cult to acknowledge that modern Jews are not real Israelites, as that information has been out for quite some time. Some us of aren’t dumb goyim or Zionuts/Hageeites like you seem to think.

Like Kaninchen said, you’ve been smoked out.

I can’t believe some of the claims you’ve made in this statement. Were you serious?

 

[Padraig_77]

Like Kaninchen said, you’ve been smoked out.

I can’t believe some of the claims you’ve made in this statement. Were you serious?

My question was what exactly do you mean by ‘smoked out’?

You can’t believe that modern Jews are not real Israelites? Of course, I’m serious; they even state it themselves in their own Jewish Encyclopedia.

 

[Kaninchen]

Like Kaninchen said, you’ve been smoked out.

I can’t believe some of the claims you’ve made in this statement. Were you serious?

For those of us who’ve been around for a while there are a number of real giveaways - from phrases like ‘Edomite Jews’ to ‘lifted’ sentences like “The ‘Seir Mountains’ are none other than the original land of Esau.” which, when placed in google, will take you to all the ‘StormFront/JewWatch/Scriptures For America etc’ usual suspects at the forefront of Jew-hating.

The basic problem, especially nowadays when annihilating us is not exactly a popular program, is that the idea of Jesus being a member of the very, very naughty Jewish people is an acute embarrassment. So, it’s necessary to show that 1) the people to which Jesus belonged were in no way related to the very, very naughty Jewish people and 2) the very, very naughty Jewish people are not really Jewish but the members of all sorts of extremely naughty peoples who couldn’t be in any way connected with Jesus.

The fact that very few take the whole thing seriously and see it as just the product of the outrageous crankiness is, of course, part of the ZOG/Illuminati/New World Order Conspiracy to hide the awful truth.