I think that the theologians explain that legally through Joseph Jesus was the lion of the tribe of Judah.
Hey, there you go. You found a way of explaining how a non-Jew (or a non-descendant of David) could be the savior. So it can be explained how Jesus is the savior without being an ethnic/racial Jew.
All that's left is to accept that religions do have branches, common roots, and do overlap. No one would call Mohammad a religious Jew, and it's just as ridiculous as calling Jesus a religious Jew. Mohammad religiously was a Muslim. And Jesus was religiously a Christian.
And then there's the fact that some of Jesus' teachings share similarities with Buddhism. But again, calling Jesus a Jew is just as ridiculous as calling him a Buddhist.
Yeah, when these guys say Jesus was not a jew they are being disingenuous to an extent as they know that many people when they say Jesus is a jew they simply mean he was a Hebrew, an Israelite.
It would be helpful to explain themselves better rather than immediately start calling everybody a jew when they simply are confused about what is being put forth.
Something like that (I'm in the middle of finishing cooking something so apologies for a scattered brain).
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.
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.
(post is archived)