WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

many people when they say Jesus is a jew they simply mean he was a Hebrew, an Israelite.

That's what I'm trying to stop people from arguing about. Hebrew, Israelite, Judean, Abraham bloodline, David's descendants, Lost Tribes, modern Jew, biblical Jew - It doesn't matter because every link Jesus has to any of that is through Joseph. And Joseph is not Jesus' biological father. Therefore, Jesus is not any definition of Jew. Regardless of what someone's definition of Jew is.

[–] 0 pt

Who is he then, his heritage?

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying, but yeah the incessant arguing generates more heat than light, as the Puritans used to say.

[–] 0 pt

Who is he then, his heritage?

We need to look at the evidence, but also remove all of the lies so the evidence shines through.

Anything associated with Joseph is thrown out because Joseph is not Jesus' biological father. So the only things left in the scriptures is God being Jesus' father, and Mary being a Nazarene from Galilee.

Jesus himself is called a Nazarene over 30 times. So what did the Nazarites look like? Lamentations 4:7 - Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire Purer than snow. Whiter than milk. But.... to me this is very poor evidence and hold very little weight, if any.

Scriptures aside. They lived in the Roman Empire. At an extremely important junction in the Silk Road. A junction that did have many colonists of all different ethnicities and races.

Also, it was an area with a lot of strategic and economic importance to the Roman Empire. Anyone starting a new religion and amassing followers in the area would have been of great interest. That person would have been kept track of. And their leader's description (because they didn't have cameras back then) would have been written down in great detail. Out of all of the records and correspondences made during that time, the ones about a religious leader, who's religion went on to being the biggest in the world, anything written about them would have been copied and saved.

So, what recordings of Jesus' description do we have? - Gamaliel's Interview - Jesus' hair is a little more golden than Mary's. And his eyes are a soft blue. - Letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar - Golden-colored hair and beard.

You see chinks depicting Jesus as having East Asian features. Niggers depict Jesus as well, looking like a nigger. But that's because that is how they want him to look. Anything concerning Joseph and the people of Judea is out because a step-father has no effect on their step-child's genetics. Mary was a Galilean which was mostly Greek colonists and Assyrians at that time. The area was all part of the Roman Empire. But the area was a strategic junction on the Silk Road with all sorts of ethnicities and races.

Gamaliel's Interview and the letter to Caesar are the only things we have to go on that aren't guesses, or people imagining what they want him to look like. Or you can say that Jesus was divine conception and not human, so he therefore doesn't belong to any human race or ethnicity because he was a God. But there is absolutely nothing that says he was any type of Jew. It doesn't matter what constitutes a biblical Jew or a modern Jew. The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus was any type of Jew.

[–] 0 pt

You are one that would maintain that Jesus had blonde hair and blue eyes like others on Poal have said?

[–] 0 pt

>But there is absolutely nothing that says he was any type of Jew. It doesn't matter what constitutes a biblical Jew or a modern Jew. The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus was any type of Jew.

"Not any type of Jew." Meaning not a Hebrew, not an Israelite?

If that's what you're saying then I at this point would just have to say, I would have to research it further because all the great theologians would disagree with that.

We only have our own individual sources, we weren't around at the time and I don't consider myself a scholar, maybe you do, I don't know.

But I'd rather not pursue it, it's really not important to me at this point. But I really do appreciate your info and your perspective.

If you have source material please pass it on, if you wish, that would be helpful.