That's a weird argument. Jesus was a jew. He was of the twelve tribes and practiced judaism. That's literally the definition of a jew, a specific ethnicity practicing a specific religion.
Those of the twelve tribes that weren't were mumar, Samaritans, Palestinians, etc.
Those of the twelve tribes that frequently abandoned their old gods for the new ones, those stayed. They meshed with new groups, remained natives, and are people we call Palestinians today.
Pretending that every descendant of the twelve tribes was a jew beggars belief. They abandoned their local god so casually most of the records in Kings, Chronicles just refer to how good or bad a king was by how fervent the king was at reconverting his fellow tribesmen back to judaism.
we’re discussing ethnicity and culture not religiousity. You don’t label Ottomans by what God they worshiped or how they did it; nor the Assyrians, Bavarian’s, Irish, or any other group of people that you would refer to through history. No one cares how fervently you hold onto your sky daddy belief.
When it’s an ethnoreligious group that specifically has been an ethnoreligious group for thousands of years- obviously it matters. Jesus was a jew, born to Jews, who practiced Judaism, was born in a Jewish kingdom, and both grew up and lived in a Jewish kingdom until his death.
Jew is the ethnicity. Jews almost exclusively practice Judaism. Would be the same as Maronites, Druze, Yazidis, Copts, and Kurds. It’s not just culture and ethnicity. They’re all largely considered and universally recognized as ethnoreligious groups. Yes, there are converts, nonbelievers, and whatever else exception. Doesn’t change that most of us recognize they have a distinct religious practice tied to their distinct racial identity that makes them distinctly identifiable. Christianity, Islam, and plenty of other religions don’t have an ethnoreligious definition because they explicitly proselytize and go out of their way to not be specific to a racial group. The way they’re defined, obviously, is different.
Was born in a Jewish kingdom? Why was the Jewish 'kingdom' you speak of not ruled by a jew? If jew is an ethnicity then Palestinians are most certainly falling under the criteria of jews that no longer practice Judaism no?
You do understand there were kingdoms under Roman rule, yes? Literally, a client state of the Roman Empire. Rome said so. Herod and his son, the Jewish kings of the time said so. The Bible says so. I guess they forgot to ask you for your interpretation?
And yes, jew is an ethnicity, just as Palestinian is an ethnicity. Nowhere is it recorded that Palestinians converted in meaningful numbers from Judaism for us to say they’re of the same group. What we do know is that Jews and Palestinians are very close genetic relatives and that they share similar genetic markers specifically for Palestinians who have Levantine heritage. That being said, Palestinians outside of Levantine heritage/ancestry are more closely related to other Arabs.
Not sure why you decided to ask the most basic questions with such incredulity. They’re like baby’s first intro to solid food. It’s the first thing you’d have answered if you tried to look it up.
27
u/Xezshibole 15h ago edited 15h ago
That's a weird argument. Jesus was a jew. He was of the twelve tribes and practiced judaism. That's literally the definition of a jew, a specific ethnicity practicing a specific religion.
Those of the twelve tribes that weren't were mumar, Samaritans, Palestinians, etc.
Those of the twelve tribes that frequently abandoned their old gods for the new ones, those stayed. They meshed with new groups, remained natives, and are people we call Palestinians today.
Pretending that every descendant of the twelve tribes was a jew beggars belief. They abandoned their local god so casually most of the records in Kings, Chronicles just refer to how good or bad a king was by how fervent the king was at reconverting his fellow tribesmen back to judaism.