Cliff Shack said (April 26, 2010):

In "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", the English historian Edward Gibbon had written on the biological origins of Jesus. He wrote that Jesus had his origins in the pagan Idumean people who had been forcefully converted by the sword by the priest/king John Hyrcanus. At the time, Hyrcanus had left the Pharisees fold for the Sadducees, so he most likely converted the Idumeans to Sadducees to impress the elders of that group with a sudden increase in adherents. Security in numbers. Jesus would be born amidst those former pagans several generations after that forceful mass conversion.

Chris said (April 25, 2010):

How does all this square in with St. Paul's letters and the Acts of the Apostles where the term JEW is used most often to designate those
people who would not receive the Gospel message and partake of the christian common life of the Apostles?

The New Testament is replete with the term JEW and I think that this term merits study from a Biblical perspective.

Alan said (April 25, 2010):

A little about me- I am no Christian. I am no Jew. I was a bible-believing Christian for 7 years, moved to Israel and began an Orthodox conversion. I am fluent in Hebrew (modern), and am adept at both Biblical Hebrew and can pick my way through Aramaic fairly well.

In your discussion about Jesus as a Judean and not a Jew: I find this comparison difficult to accept. The breakup of the 13 Tribes of Israel into two distinct nations, Sumeria (9 tribes), and Judea (2 tribes) is noted in the books of Kings (Levis + Cohens + 2 (judea) + 9 (sumeria) = 13. There were 12 sons to Israel, but Joseph's 2 sons both had tribes of their own).

True enough that one who was "Judean" was not necessarily of the tribe of Judah. The small tribe of Benjamin also remained in Judea; although, due to the biblical birth record of Yeshua (Jesus), he would be a member of the tribe of Judah, a Judean, and what today is called, "jew".

Nowadays there certainly is meat within the discussion of the rabbinical monopoly of the term (and title) of "Jew" but that is a different discussion all together.

Hope this helps clarify biblical versus modern definitions within the historical context of linguistics.

Jeff said (April 25, 2010):

I really loved the article. Very timely. I have read all of the responses to this
article and if I may, I would like to pass on a link to Dr. Lorraine Day's site.
She has been researching scripture for years and has an amazing insight into
Jesus not only be a Judean and not a jew, but into so many different topics
that many of your readers have concerns about. Thank you for all the work
you do.

http://goodnewsaboutgod.com/topics.htm

Lynda said (April 25, 2010):

hank you for publishing this Encore by request. This timely post belongs with the material you are publishing on the Polish Air Crash of April 11, 2010 in Smolensk, Russia.

The Soviet execution of Poland's military, intellectual and Roman Catholic elite at Katyn 1940 was a tragedy that was revisited upon that valiant nation this year.

It should be recalled that the Christian aristocracy of Poland is composed in large measure of the Khazarian ethnicity - the nobility of the Sarmatian, Samite, Ossetian peoples of the central Caucasus. These were Khazarians who converted to Christianity at the preaching of Sts Cyril and Methodius. They did not convert to Judaism.

So in the Katyn tragedy of 1940, it was the Soviet NKVD - the Red Russians or Khazarian Jews who murdered the Christian Khazarian aristocracy and military elite of the Caucasus.

In any nation composed of diverse ethnicities - as is Poland, the true aristocracy is going to lead the people. That is why no effort was spared to attempt to break the will of the Polish elite and make them over into a stooge regime.

Only dupes of the Frankfurt School, Tavistock and Masonic think thanks are so deluded as to think that there will be no aristocracy - that crucial 5% that the population is going to follow.

So in the absence of a real aristocracy we get a celebrity cult. People who are famous for being famous. But even these dregs, the people will follow.

Matt said (December 5, 2009):

found a passage in the Old Testament, in the wonderful book of Esther, that reinforces the conclusion that Jews are Jews by faith (and unfortunately also by works).

Esther 8:17
And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

So once again we see that a Jew was never a Jew carnally but spiritually and by worship of the true God, but the pharisees and scribes lived by the letter (and couldn't live up to it and became hypocrites) forgetting that God reads your heart and saw that the zealous pharisees were "whited sepulchres" and fakes at heart. A Christian is more of a Jew than an atheistic or satanic so-called Jew. But our lamb is slain once and for all.

Tony said (December 4, 2009):

Benjamin Freedman was correct in a sense but the whole truth goes beyond what he wrote.

Judea was a geographical area named after one of the sons of "Israel." It was the place where the tribes of Juda and Benjamin settled. It was significant because it contained Jerusalem, where the Israelite religious temple containing their Ark of the Covenant was located. Jesus' mother and her husband were of "Israelite" stock although the linage of Joseph is never given biblically and that of Mary is a bit obscure in places.

However, the family lived in Nazareth and were called "Nazarenes," also a geographic label, such as "American" or "Canadian." Readers of the New Testament will remember that when Phillip wanted to bring Nathanael to Jesus he told him that Jesus was the son of Joseph of Nazareth, to which Nathanael replied, "From Nazareth can there be any good?" Or, in the King James mis-translation, "Can any good come out of Nazareth?"

Moreover, the Pharisees and their mob were incensed when Pontius Pilate, who had reluctantly acceded to their demands to crucify Jesus, had a sign erected on his cross, the true English translation of which reads: "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Judeans." They were incensed not because Jesus' nationality was mislabeled but because it was true; a truth that flew in the face of their arrogance.

Randy said (December 3, 2009):

I don't always agree with you but I like your writing and you do help to think about things in different ways. I am a little confused. Didn't Shakespeare use the term "Jew" in Merchant of Venice? The word must have been in use before 1600.

-----

Randy,

Apparently both the King James Bible and Shakespeare used the term "Iewe" for Judean

This is the pertinent part of Freedman's letter:

Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" as you will see. Shakespeare never used the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice", V.III.i.61, Shakespeare wrote as follows: "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?".

In the Latin St. Jerome 4th century Vulgate Edition of the New Testament Jesus is referred to by the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" in the Gospel of John reference to the inscription on the Cross, - "Iudaeorum". It was in the 4th century that St. Jerome translated into Latin the manuscripts of the New Testament from the original languages in which they were written. This translation by St. Jerome is referred to still today as the Vulgate Edition by the Roman Catholic Church authorities, who use it today.

Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English.

The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.

Lynda said (December 3, 2009):

Great comment and insights on Benjamin Freedman's letter to Dr Goldstein - undoubtedly one of the many rabbis who has been at work in the Catholic Church.

I have read that letter many times and in my latter readings, it appears to me that the true intent of that letter was to test Dr Goldstein.

Freedman had been an insider and may even have personally known or known of in the circles he once frequented (the covert echelons of the Judaic imperium and its lower hierarchy) 'the leader of the generation'. He knew "that invisible and intangible ideological war now being so subversively waged against the Christian faith under their [the clergy's] very noses."

Just as he knew the machinations of the two world wars behind the curtain of the modern statecraft and political theatre. He knew that what was needed for the Christian faith was "a spiritual ride across the nation warning Christians that their enemies are moving in on them fast." And they were moving in on them from within. Now, of course, all Christian institutions are overthrown worldwide.

It seems to me the implicit question of that letter was: 'would Dr Goldstein (a rabbi) be that Paul Revere', as Freedman considered him to be the more qualified for this role? When his letter was unanswered, Freedman had his answer and took command of the matter that he laid out before Dr Goldstein like so much terrain.

As a survey, the letter is a comprehensive assessment of how matters (in what the Elders of Sion call 'our affair') stand within the Catholic Church and the institutions of Christendom - at that time a terrain of debate in the much larger war of the imperium they both understood very well and from the inside. So the letter was very carefully executed. Freedman left Goldman no outs, no room to maneuver in terms ignorance or incompetence.

With the no comment from Goldstein, Freedman had his answer so to speak. His letter to the covert rabbi operating within the Catholic Church left him in no doubt because he had covered the entire terrain. He knew it and Goldstein knew it.

So Freedman mounted up so to speak. He put his entire fortune into his campaign. And he attacked the Judaic imperium operating within the Church on all its fronts and leading from the high ground - as a Khazarian would.

Much as Jan Sobieski also of his people, when Vienna fell to the Ottoman and seeing them poised to invade all the West, took direct command of the last defenses of the Christendom at the gates of Vienna.

Benjamin Freedman: a great American patriot and Catholic churchman. His public speeches are available online. In his addresses he covers much fascinating, relevant subject matter - namely Ur of the Chaldees and the history and geography of the urgaritic peoples of Central Asia. Because father Abraham was a Chaldeean, called from Ur - this is totally relevant to the those adhering to the Mosaic Covenant, to Christianity and to Islam.

When pope St Pius X canonized Jehann d'Arc he stated: "All the strength of Satan's reign is due to easy going Catholics." Well Benjaman Freedman was definitely not one of those.

I still pray for the repose of his Godly soul.

JON said (December 3, 2009):

Ray alleges the Old Testament religion was not Messianic, but that bespeaks desperate ignorance of the Scriptures on his part and highlights how people with no knowledge of a subject can set forth so much spurious content as cast-iron fact when a little bit of basic research would refute them beyond question.

The entire Old Testament is predicated on a coming Messiah, "the Seed", "the Son of David", "Shiloh" of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), etc., and that He would be God Himself born of a woman, hence the term "Emmanuel" (literally, "God with us" - Micah 5:2 - a detailed promise of the Lord Himself coming as Christ). Job said, "I know that my redeemer liveth and that at the latter day he shall stand upon the face of the earth" (Job 19:25) - if that's not Messianic, I know not what is. And that Christ should suffer for his people as sin-bearing perfectly obedient man is repeatedly asserted in the Old Testament, for example, Isaiah 53:1-12 and Psalm 22, which gives a detailed account of the mockery Christ subsequently endured at His death.

Even the passover and circumcision were Messianic sacraments, looking forward to the accomplishment and application of redemption, just as the Lord's supper looks back at the same. The ritualistic washing, etc., were well understood by the Old Testament believers to have, in themselves, no intrinsic merit in the sight of God but served to reinforce and highlight the need for the coming Redeemer. That's why David said in Psalm 51:16-17 that burnt offerings, etc were worthless in dealing with the matter of reconciliation with God: "For thou desirest not sacrifice, else I would give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

In conclusion, the Old Testament describes a religion that was Messianic, that looked forward to God Himself coming into this world as a man born into the tribe of Judah in the town of Bethlehem, that he would be rejected by his own nation and, after leading a faultless life, would suffer a humiliating death in atonement for the sins of his people, which, as the Old Testament also makes clear, includes all believers in Him from every nation in every age.

Ray said (December 3, 2009):

Good article on the history of Jews versus Judeans. Might I add to the debate by asking what happened to the majority of Israelites who were dispersed long before Jesus, namely the Ten Tribes? Are they not the descendants of Abraham just as Judeans are? Where are they? Why call the two tribes we know about Gods Chosen when there are ten other tribes of the same lineage who have somehow gotten misplaced! Further what do we make of Paul saying that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek" which seems to make the whole matter a moot point? The who union of Judeo-Christian is but a transparent attempt to add power and legitimacy to Christianity by linking it to a powerful social group namely those called the "Jews" of today. Perhaps both constructs are fabrications?

Indeed, these and other absurdities of Christianity are illuminated by the fact that we are learning more and more about the 'Jesus is God' myth. The notion of a suffering Messiah was foreign to the OT that’s why Jesus was not accepted as Messiah, and yet the story of a person who was God-like and was martyred, buried and rose after 3 days in an act of "salvation" is replicated by several ancient myths including, but not limited to, Mithra. Christians explain this by saying the Devil anticipated Jesus' real, effectual martyrdom and created a counterfeit story to confuse people and discredit the "real" Messiah when he eventually came. When all else fails blame it on "Old Scratch"!

The historical record for Jesus is extremely shaky and thin. The record of his miracles appears only in the Gospels which were not even written by the people whose names are associated with them. The many revisions to the ancient manuscripts as well as the complete lack of contemporary gospel manuscripts (i.e. from the middle 1st century) make it clear that doctrinal assertions he was God and that there is a "trinity" are fabrications. Bart Ehrman has written a good book for the layman on this matter entitled "Jesus, Interrupted" which brings scholarship both contemporary and historical to bear on the matter of "textual criticism" which was a valid area of inquiry for centuries until it was squashed by the fanatics of modern day fundamental/evangelical/pentecostal/dispensationalism.

The notion that man needs religion to relate to God or that man-created religions are somehow accurate pictures of the living God are absurdly presumptuous. Whatever experiences previous people had are personal to them and do not need to serve as markers for the rest of us. Popular evangelists have reported receiving messages from a 900 foot tall "Jesus" that resulted in them getting thousands of poor, gullible fools to send them money. What rational, decent person would seek such a "God"?? For further amusement see a You Tube video called Pentecostal Bedlam where mega-evangelist Kenneth Hagin is "drunk" in the spirit. It is both hilarious and disturbing to see middle aged paunchy men rolling around on each other on the carpet all under the influence of the God of the Bible.

If God wanted to reveal himself to mankind in a uniform way he has had tens of thousands of years to do it and it would seem that isolated, sporadic individual revelations or events such as Jesus' incarnation tens of thousands of years into mankind's existence are an absurdly ineffective. How about the millions who lived before Jesus or the billions who have died since never having heard of him? These means only make sense if you conclude God loves very few of us (mainly Europeans). Calvin and Augustine preached exactly this and yet it creates a picture of God more monstrous than loving.

Man needs the truth to set him free not fables and mind games. Only the weak need myths to artificially structure their reality so they do not go off the "deep end". For those who need no God in their lives at all, I respectfully disagree with your beliefs, yet respect them. May we each find out the truth in the after-life, if there is such a thing.

Anon said (December 3, 2009):

Re Shlomo Sand's book, "Invention of the Jewish people," I think he's right. Others before him were aware that they were stealing the land. They realized the Palestinians were descendants of Judeans. At first they hoped they would join them, but they rebelled against them and they then decided it was better to eliminate them.

They were aware that they were Khazars and that they were making a false claim of being descendants of the Judeans and that they were reclaiming their land. And that they were deliberately brainwashing the kids. But he's an Sabra. He likes it there. He feels it's too late now. Like the Americans and their ethnic-cleansing of the natives, the Israelis are there to stay. But at least he wants the Palestinians and Safardis and other Jews (and perhaps non-Jews like the Asians now there - the Filipinos, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, Thais, etc.) to be treated as equal citizens.

David said (December 3, 2009):

An important distinction has been made here between Judean and Jewish. If the current usage of the word Jew is racial, then perhaps Christ was a Jew. If the meaning goes into other things like religion and culture, then Christ isn't 'Jewish".

The whole 'Jewish' emphasis is purely material ie relating to the body and its birth environment. The Soul that was Jesus transcends material/body linkages and fuses with the best good guys on the planet, race notwithstanding. The Yogis, the Buddhists, the more accomplished Christians and anyone who dared go directly to God, had their upliftment and enlightenment. The religions may quarrel about the only son of God and the last messenger. These material definitions were deliberately placed there to cause rivalry and disharmony. Guess who would do a thing like that? Scriptures have been heavily sabotaged, which is why they survive.

You cannot say JEWS and not hear that they are the chosen race. If God is spiritual, why is a material quality his personal preference. God chose nobody. A bible commissioned by Constantine around 325 AD and later reworked under the orders of King James, is hardly the word of God. It is the spiritual tips that Christ gave to us to help us live properly and in tune with God the father, that gives some legitimacy to Christianity. Beyond that, God sends his sons anywhere and anytime and he sends as many as he wishes. In fact God may come Himself, as the Bhagvad Gita maintains. Christ being Jewish or other is a moot point. When spirituality is the topic, who defeats satan is what counts. You cannot assert as soul if you do not beat him. Christ, Yogis and good guys, past and present, have beaten satan. Jews, most of them obviously bowing to satan and his materialism, are not spiritual or chosen. Christ was! The Judeans don't seem spiritual either!

Len said (December 3, 2009):

Hi Henry. Very interesting article and perspective. From my studies, as a Christian minister and missionary, I have discovered that Jesus definitely respected the Torah and the Jewish prophets, but he was opposed to the legalistic and racial type of religion that was mostly propagated by the Scribes, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Jesus preached love and a very high moral standard, as found in the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew, chapters 5 thru 7. He also preached and taught very clearly that we are "not our own gods or saviours." HE CAME TO EARTH in order to provide a way of atonement and new spiritual-rebirth. - anything outside of that is not of The Kingdom of GOD (which is described as "lasting forever.")

Much of present-day Judaism is Talmudic and a form of very exclusive Pharisee-ism. - It is extremely antichrist and generally xenophobic to the nth degree.

Jeanon said (December 3, 2009):

I think your article quoting Mr. Benjamin Friedman may be factual in the most part, especially regarding the term "Jew." However I always thought the term "Jew" meant that a person was descended from those people of the tribe of Judah. And Jesus certainly was descended from the tribe of Judah by the House of David, through Nathan to Mary, Jesus's physical mother. And Jesus's other genalogy shows him descended from the House of David through Solomon to Joseph, Joseph being Jesus's legal father but not physically related to Jesus.

Heli, Mary's father, apparently had no sons, and Mary married within the tribe of Judah. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, of the house and lineage of David and carrying legal title to the line, but without the blood curse of Jeconiah.

Abraham

Isaac

Jacob

Judah

Pharez

Hezron

Ram

Amminadab

Nahshon

Salmon

Boaz

Obed

Jesse

David

Nathan and Solomon were David's sons.

I just find the two or three references to Jesus not being descended from the "nation" of Judea very misleading. No person is ever decended from a nation. People are descended from other people who are of a tribe or clan.

Certainly it is wrong to say "Jesus was a Jew" but I think this distinction I make is strangely missing from the discussion.

I personally believe Jesus is God. "Before Abraham was, I am."

Mary said (December 3, 2009):

Jesus was NOT a Jew, he was against Judaism, and there was no "crucifixion." It was a myth, invented by Jews in order to give them leverage and power. They never "killed" him. Only in their dreams.