"The gospels do not portray Jesus as anything other than a Jewish man. They describe him as being circumcised, going to synagogue on the Sabbath, and to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage holidays.
If you were raised in a predominantly Christian culture this may sound extremely subversive, or even conspiratorial. I know this because I went to a Church of England school and grew up believing that Jesus Christ was a blond haired, blue-eyed Christian."
Have American churches just been "woker" on this topic for far longer than English churches? I went to a conservative evangelical presbyterian church in the American south (growing up in the 90s) and we all knew Jesus was a Jew. "White Jesus" (referring to the blond blue-eyed guy) was referred to in a joking way, because we all knew he couldn't have looked like that. I have Jewish heritage myself, and I was always super proud to tell my friends at church that, because it carried cachet. The complaint from American jews towards evangelicals is more that they're weirdly fetishized...so problematic but from the opposite direction.
Victimhood mining. Virtually every Christian has known for decades if not centuries that Jesus was a Jew. It is absurd to claim otherwise. So the Palestinians and sympathizers want to sorta borrow him as a symbol of their resistance to their Zionist conquerors, that's predictable and not really a problem.
There is a profound theological problem with this that Francis well knows: Christianity is the only of the three Abrahamic religions that explicitly rejects sacrifice of any sort. Jesus is the last sacrifice because only God himself could be the perfect sacrifice to God so as the oft misunderstood cliche goes "Jesus (the human manifestation OF God who IS God) died for our sins." There are no more sacrifices that can even come close. So the true genius of Catholicism is the end of all sacrificial death. Islam however is enamored, if not fixated on animal sacrifices, thousands of animals are slaughter at the Hajj during Eid... and via Islamic Jihad martyrdom is equivalent to Human sacrifice. So to have Jesus as a human sacrifice, akin to a goat or a camel, on a keffiyeh is anathema to Catholicism.
I stopped reading at "he was born to a Jewish family, most likely in Nazareth between 6 and 4 BC."
Anyone who's ready to offhandedly dispute the location of Jesus's birth in the very first sentence of his piece has no interest in support or agreement from Christian readers. Unfortunate, because I'm offended by that picture, too. And yes, Jesus is absolutely a Jew.
There's actually not much evidence to support Jesus being born in Bethlehem. A lot of scholars believe he was born in Nazareth, as The Gospel of Mark (the earliest account of Jesus’ life) would suggest. Here's a good piece on it if you are interested: https://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-come-from-nazareth/
There's more documentary evidence to support Bethlehem as Jesus's birthplace in the two Gospels (Matthew and Luke) representing independent traditions, as well as an apparently ancient oral tradition on the ground encountered by Helena, the mother of Constantine, in the Fourth Century, than there is to support the factuality of the Siege of Alesia, for which we only have Julius Caesar's brilliant but obviously political "Gallic Wars" as a source. And we know where Bethlehem is; we still can't say the same about Alesia with absolute certainty.
No one that I know of seriously doubts that Caesar actually besieged Alesia -- I don't. I don't doubt that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, either, even though the sources are ancient and have a point of view. I had walked away, but I thought that doubling down on your offensive opening deserved a (closing) response.
I think it is an especially pertinent historical fact today because there has been a conscious and intentional effort among Palestinian Christians to say that Jesus was "Palestinian" or a man of the middle east, as opposed to a Jewish man. This is intended, I think, to be one more nail in the coffin of the idea that Jews are also indigenous to the region. I actually think it is a little different than painting the blond-haired, blue-eyed Madonna in Renaissance art. While this is an ahistorical representation of the little Jewish girl who gave birth to Jesus, concepts of cultural appropriation were centuries away. (I agree with the thesis that such representation added to antisemitism; my argument is the intentionality of the propaganda.) In our current time, there are many paintings of Jesus and his mother in which he is represented as a Sub-Saharan African, or East Asian, etc. which are presented, I assume , as evidence of his universality, not to deny his Jewishness.
Keffiyah Jesus is different as would be Jesus dressed in a Confederate flag. It is an intentional political statement about who Jesus is (and, by implication) who he is not. That the Pope accepted the imagery was very disturbing.
Jesus was Jewish, and is taught as such in every church I've ever attended. But was Jesus a Zionist? One of the major themes of stories told by and about Jesus is his willingness to include everyone, Samaritan or Roman, prostitute or tax collector, in his teaching and healing. Those hearing his teaching were presumably Jewish, or mostly Jewish, but the kingdom he announced was not of this world. Jesus himself did not challenge Roman dominion or campaign for a Jewish state. So would he have welcomed Palestinians had they, or their forebears, been present? Why not?
As for the appropriation argument, using an image with theological resonance in one religion should be understood in terms of that religion and its teachings, and respected as such. There are a few thousand years of symbolism and theology at work in Christianity--complex, sometimes contradictory, continueally evolviing--and at the root of it all a mystery. Placing a figure of the baby Jesus on a keffiyeh isn't the most subtle piece of iconography, but it is congruent with the theme of the Jesus who speaks to and for the outcast and oppressed.
"Jesus’ Jewishness is often acknowledged as a historical fact, but it is treated as incidental—a sort of temporary condition that preceded his “true” identity as the founder of Christianity."
Can you clarify your objection to this? I, like most American Christians, was raised knowing Jesus was Jewish, but that he preached beliefs and principals distinct from Judaism resulting in a new religion branching off from Judaism. Ultimately, his Jewish heritage is no longer seen as the most defining aspect of his story. Should it? Is this "symptomatic of how deeply ingrained anti-Jewish biases remain in our culture?"
I Norway, in the 90s and 00s, there was never anything in our school curriculum that said anything other than that Jesus was a Jew, and was crucified by the romans. At least the Norwegian portrayals of Jesus he always was a Jew as far as I know.
In churches where the crucified Jesus is a prominent piece of art, the cross usually includes the plaque reading «INRI», which is an abbreviation of Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum, meaning «Jesus if Nazareth, King of the Jews».
That said, in the more hardline Christian areas, they might tell a different tale. But I should think that there’s no doubt Jesus was a Jew for anyone not captured by a strong ideological reason to pretend otherwise.
In the small-town, conservative, Midwestern Methodist church I attended as a child, Jesus was invariably pictured as an obviously Semitic man and member of the Jewish community, which was described and talked about even in early Sunday School classes. He was thought of as a "Christian" only in the sense that he started "Christianity."
This is a bit like someone saying "Well akshully Father Christmas was a Turkish bishop."
He's their god and the worshipers give gods' their forms. Personally I doubt he existed at all but assuming he did they don't worship a weird Jewish rabbi, they worship a concept that barely intersects with that reality.
Few Christians have a problem with the story of Jesus' Jewishness. They just note that as the son of God he converted to Christianity. The narrative of Jews rather than secular Romans killing Jesus is a different subject. However I juxtapose that with modern Palesrians still largely committed to wiping Jews off the face of the earth. A goal clearly supported by the educated Western left. Maybe stick with that narrative if your true interest is hate of Jews.
According to Israeli laws Jesus would not be considered a Jew. Look up Oswald Rufeisen. So this piece is just a little bit disingenuous, especially if one keeps in mind that the Palestinian Christians are the descendants of the Jews who stayed.
In fact what you are arguing is that Christianity is a false religion and that Jesus did not intend to found it. You also (incorrectly) argue that the Church does not recognise Jesus’ ethnicity. You are of course entitled to believe whatever you want, but a little bit of candour would be welcome, both about what the Church really says about this topic and the goal of your polemic. Speaking of which, the senseless murder of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians by Israel is not going to go away, however much you try to throw suspicion on the motivations of those who feel compassion for them.
"The gospels do not portray Jesus as anything other than a Jewish man. They describe him as being circumcised, going to synagogue on the Sabbath, and to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage holidays.
If you were raised in a predominantly Christian culture this may sound extremely subversive, or even conspiratorial. I know this because I went to a Church of England school and grew up believing that Jesus Christ was a blond haired, blue-eyed Christian."
Have American churches just been "woker" on this topic for far longer than English churches? I went to a conservative evangelical presbyterian church in the American south (growing up in the 90s) and we all knew Jesus was a Jew. "White Jesus" (referring to the blond blue-eyed guy) was referred to in a joking way, because we all knew he couldn't have looked like that. I have Jewish heritage myself, and I was always super proud to tell my friends at church that, because it carried cachet. The complaint from American jews towards evangelicals is more that they're weirdly fetishized...so problematic but from the opposite direction.
Victimhood mining. Virtually every Christian has known for decades if not centuries that Jesus was a Jew. It is absurd to claim otherwise. So the Palestinians and sympathizers want to sorta borrow him as a symbol of their resistance to their Zionist conquerors, that's predictable and not really a problem.
I’m actually far more concerned with Trump’s appropriation of Jesus and the support he’s getting from the radical Christian evangelical right.
Good point!
There is a profound theological problem with this that Francis well knows: Christianity is the only of the three Abrahamic religions that explicitly rejects sacrifice of any sort. Jesus is the last sacrifice because only God himself could be the perfect sacrifice to God so as the oft misunderstood cliche goes "Jesus (the human manifestation OF God who IS God) died for our sins." There are no more sacrifices that can even come close. So the true genius of Catholicism is the end of all sacrificial death. Islam however is enamored, if not fixated on animal sacrifices, thousands of animals are slaughter at the Hajj during Eid... and via Islamic Jihad martyrdom is equivalent to Human sacrifice. So to have Jesus as a human sacrifice, akin to a goat or a camel, on a keffiyeh is anathema to Catholicism.
I stopped reading at "he was born to a Jewish family, most likely in Nazareth between 6 and 4 BC."
Anyone who's ready to offhandedly dispute the location of Jesus's birth in the very first sentence of his piece has no interest in support or agreement from Christian readers. Unfortunate, because I'm offended by that picture, too. And yes, Jesus is absolutely a Jew.
There's actually not much evidence to support Jesus being born in Bethlehem. A lot of scholars believe he was born in Nazareth, as The Gospel of Mark (the earliest account of Jesus’ life) would suggest. Here's a good piece on it if you are interested: https://ehrmanblog.org/did-jesus-come-from-nazareth/
There's more documentary evidence to support Bethlehem as Jesus's birthplace in the two Gospels (Matthew and Luke) representing independent traditions, as well as an apparently ancient oral tradition on the ground encountered by Helena, the mother of Constantine, in the Fourth Century, than there is to support the factuality of the Siege of Alesia, for which we only have Julius Caesar's brilliant but obviously political "Gallic Wars" as a source. And we know where Bethlehem is; we still can't say the same about Alesia with absolute certainty.
No one that I know of seriously doubts that Caesar actually besieged Alesia -- I don't. I don't doubt that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, either, even though the sources are ancient and have a point of view. I had walked away, but I thought that doubling down on your offensive opening deserved a (closing) response.
I think it is an especially pertinent historical fact today because there has been a conscious and intentional effort among Palestinian Christians to say that Jesus was "Palestinian" or a man of the middle east, as opposed to a Jewish man. This is intended, I think, to be one more nail in the coffin of the idea that Jews are also indigenous to the region. I actually think it is a little different than painting the blond-haired, blue-eyed Madonna in Renaissance art. While this is an ahistorical representation of the little Jewish girl who gave birth to Jesus, concepts of cultural appropriation were centuries away. (I agree with the thesis that such representation added to antisemitism; my argument is the intentionality of the propaganda.) In our current time, there are many paintings of Jesus and his mother in which he is represented as a Sub-Saharan African, or East Asian, etc. which are presented, I assume , as evidence of his universality, not to deny his Jewishness.
Keffiyah Jesus is different as would be Jesus dressed in a Confederate flag. It is an intentional political statement about who Jesus is (and, by implication) who he is not. That the Pope accepted the imagery was very disturbing.
Jesus was Jewish, and is taught as such in every church I've ever attended. But was Jesus a Zionist? One of the major themes of stories told by and about Jesus is his willingness to include everyone, Samaritan or Roman, prostitute or tax collector, in his teaching and healing. Those hearing his teaching were presumably Jewish, or mostly Jewish, but the kingdom he announced was not of this world. Jesus himself did not challenge Roman dominion or campaign for a Jewish state. So would he have welcomed Palestinians had they, or their forebears, been present? Why not?
As for the appropriation argument, using an image with theological resonance in one religion should be understood in terms of that religion and its teachings, and respected as such. There are a few thousand years of symbolism and theology at work in Christianity--complex, sometimes contradictory, continueally evolviing--and at the root of it all a mystery. Placing a figure of the baby Jesus on a keffiyeh isn't the most subtle piece of iconography, but it is congruent with the theme of the Jesus who speaks to and for the outcast and oppressed.
"Jesus’ Jewishness is often acknowledged as a historical fact, but it is treated as incidental—a sort of temporary condition that preceded his “true” identity as the founder of Christianity."
Can you clarify your objection to this? I, like most American Christians, was raised knowing Jesus was Jewish, but that he preached beliefs and principals distinct from Judaism resulting in a new religion branching off from Judaism. Ultimately, his Jewish heritage is no longer seen as the most defining aspect of his story. Should it? Is this "symptomatic of how deeply ingrained anti-Jewish biases remain in our culture?"
I Norway, in the 90s and 00s, there was never anything in our school curriculum that said anything other than that Jesus was a Jew, and was crucified by the romans. At least the Norwegian portrayals of Jesus he always was a Jew as far as I know.
In churches where the crucified Jesus is a prominent piece of art, the cross usually includes the plaque reading «INRI», which is an abbreviation of Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum, meaning «Jesus if Nazareth, King of the Jews».
That said, in the more hardline Christian areas, they might tell a different tale. But I should think that there’s no doubt Jesus was a Jew for anyone not captured by a strong ideological reason to pretend otherwise.
I like to think of the Imams seething over Jesus’ standing on top of the keffiya, exerting his greatness over Islam. 🤣🇮🇱🕎
In the small-town, conservative, Midwestern Methodist church I attended as a child, Jesus was invariably pictured as an obviously Semitic man and member of the Jewish community, which was described and talked about even in early Sunday School classes. He was thought of as a "Christian" only in the sense that he started "Christianity."
This is a bit like someone saying "Well akshully Father Christmas was a Turkish bishop."
He's their god and the worshipers give gods' their forms. Personally I doubt he existed at all but assuming he did they don't worship a weird Jewish rabbi, they worship a concept that barely intersects with that reality.
Few Christians have a problem with the story of Jesus' Jewishness. They just note that as the son of God he converted to Christianity. The narrative of Jews rather than secular Romans killing Jesus is a different subject. However I juxtapose that with modern Palesrians still largely committed to wiping Jews off the face of the earth. A goal clearly supported by the educated Western left. Maybe stick with that narrative if your true interest is hate of Jews.
Why on earth is it so important to you to claim the central figure of a religion that's not yours as your own?
According to Israeli laws Jesus would not be considered a Jew. Look up Oswald Rufeisen. So this piece is just a little bit disingenuous, especially if one keeps in mind that the Palestinian Christians are the descendants of the Jews who stayed.
What Israeli law is that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Rufeisen?wprov=sfti1#
Oswald Rufeisen converted to Christianity. Jesus was not a Christian.
In fact what you are arguing is that Christianity is a false religion and that Jesus did not intend to found it. You also (incorrectly) argue that the Church does not recognise Jesus’ ethnicity. You are of course entitled to believe whatever you want, but a little bit of candour would be welcome, both about what the Church really says about this topic and the goal of your polemic. Speaking of which, the senseless murder of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians by Israel is not going to go away, however much you try to throw suspicion on the motivations of those who feel compassion for them.
No, you are not a Christian, and you are redefining Christianity to fit your polemic. Sorry but no can do.