Mahmoud Abbas: "Jesus was 'Palestinian"

[Erikl]

Calling Jesus a Palestinian is anachronism, being that he lived in "Provincia Iudaea", not Palestine. The area was renamed into Palestine only by 135 A.D, long after Jesus died/crucified/went to heaven.

This is the sort of anachronism which the Palestinians seem to play on. The region they call Palestine today was carved out by the British in 1920, yet they tell the story as if Palestine in it's current form existed as Palestine from time immemorial.

From wikipedia:

"Judea (Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yehuda Tiberian Yehûḏāh; Arabic: يهودا‎; Greek: Ἰουδαία; Latin: IVDAEA), sometimes spelled in its original Latin forms of Judæa, Judaea or Iudaea to distinguish it from Judea proper, is a term used by historians to refer to the Roman province that incorporated the geographical regions of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea, and which extended over parts of the former regions of the Hasmoneanand Herodian kingdoms of Israel. It was named after Herod Archelaus's Tetrarchy of Judea, of which it was an expansion, the latter name deriving from the Kingdom of Judah of the 6th century BCE.

Rome's involvement in the area dated from 63 BCE, following the end of the Third Mithridatic War, when Rome made Syria a province. In that year, after the defeat of Mithridates VI of Pontus, the proconsul Pompeius Magnus (Pompey the Great) sacked Jerusalem and entered theJerusalem Temple. Subsequently, during the 1st century BCE, the Herodian Kingdom was established as a Roman client kingdom and then in 6 CE parts became a province of the Roman Empire.^[1]

Judea province was the scene of unrest at its founding during the Census of Quirinius and several wars were fought in its history, known as the Jewish-Roman wars. The Temple was destroyed in 70 as part of the Great Jewish Revolt resulting in the institution of the Fiscus Judaicus, and after Bar Kokhba's revolt (132–135 CE), the Roman Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, which certain scholars conclude was done in an attempt to remove the relationship of the Jewish people to the region."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_(Roman_province)

(I underlined that last part)

Edited December 29, 2013 by Erikl

[Yamato]

I can accept how what Abbas said is true. It has nothing to do with citizenship or statehood. 'Palestine' is an ancient term for the same land. It doesn't matter what kind of government it had or didn't have (statism), or what kind of country it was or was not (statism).

Not to forget, Palestine is also the name of the nation created alongside Israel. To deny even the name 'Palestine' is to do what I'm told Palestinians do, deny the other side their homeland.

As for Jesus, Bethlehem is in Palestine even the way the map is drawn today. The annexation of Palestine, the Greater Israel Project, is proceeding too slowly and it makes Abbas even technically correct.

[+and-then]

I hadn't heard that lie, no. Abbas didn't say that. Using Jews to replace Israelis is a Zionist shell game that doesn't work anymore. It would be better for security if there were no Palestinians in Israel either, so again we're using a single standard, Abbas's standard, that's good enough for both sides, without lying about it.

http://www.jpost.com...an-state-321470

Perhaps he'll welcome Jews from other places, just not Israelis?

Edited December 29, 2013 by and then

[Erikl]

I can accept how what Abbas said is true. It has nothing to do with citizenship or statehood. 'Palestine' is an ancient term for the same land. It doesn't matter what kind of government it had or didn't have (statism), or what kind of country it was or was not (statism).

Not to forget, Palestine is also the name of the nation created alongside Israel. To deny even the name 'Palestine' is to do what I'm told Palestinians do, deny the other side their homeland.

As for Jesus, Bethlehem is in Palestine even the way the map is drawn today. The annexation of Palestine, the Greater Israel Project, is proceeding too slowly and it makes Abbas even technically correct.

Erm, no. The region was renamed into Palestine after Jesus no longer lived there, in 135 A.D. Ergo, when Jesus lived there, it wasn't Palestine. No one denies the name Palestine, no one denies that the region was named Palestine in different times throughout history, after 135 A.D. If anything, the Palestinians deny that the region was called Judea. They deny that Jews created independent kingdoms and had statehood in the region. They even try to deny the fact that there was a Jewish temple in Jerusalem.

By the way, trying to hint that there is some relation between the inhabitants of Palestine 135 A.D and the people who came to call themselves Palestinians in the 20th century, is another anachronism. Until the 20th century, the people who lived here were part of the same Arab Sunni majority that live in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. There was nothing unique to this area that separated them from the Sunni Arabic-speaking people that lived in Baghdad or Amman, and there was nothing that made them distinct. If the British would have decided with the French that "Palestine" would include today's Lebanon and half of Syria, then those people would be considered Palestinians as well today, and it that parallel universe you would be debating how Aleppo and Beirut were part of ancient Palestine since the dawn of time

Edited December 29, 2013 by Erikl

[Erikl]

Yamato, I'll just post this here...

"An anachronism, from the Greek ανά (ana: up, against, back, re-) and χρόνος (chronos: time), is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. Often the item misplaced in time is an object, but it may be a verbal expression, a technology, a philosophical idea, a musical style, a material, a custom, or anything else associated with a particular period in time so that it is incorrect to place it outside its proper temporal domain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anachronism

[Leonardo]

Erm, no. The region was renamed into Palestine after Jesus no longer lived there, in 135 A.D.

Do you refer to the indigenous inhabitants (including those of past times) of the North American continent as "Native Americans", even though the land was not named America while they lived there?

[+and-then]

Yamato, I'll just post this here...

"An anachronism, from the Greek ανά (ana: up, against, back, re-) and χρόνος (chronos: time), is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. Often the item misplaced in time is an object, but it may be a verbal expression, a technology, a philosophical idea, a musical style, a material, a custom, or anything else associated with a particular period in time so that it is incorrect to place it outside its proper temporal domain."

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Anachronism

The statement I made about him " technically" being a Palestinian was due to the muddled thinking of those here who simply will never accept anything that contravenes their doctrine. By their rationale if a place was EVER named Palestine then anyone who EVER lived in that area can be referred to as a "Palestinian". The impliction being that he shared something of culture and history with the modern dwellers of the land which is RIDICULOUS. I hope I will live to see the day when these will be forever shamed and silenced from the hate and lies they push on the world. And I hope it is done in such a way that their supporters can no longer scream "injustice"!

[Yamato]

http://www.jpost.com...an-state-321470

Perhaps he'll welcome Jews from other places, just not Israelis?

Yes perhaps he will. Just not Israelis.

[Yamato]

Yamato, I'll just post this here...

"An anachronism, from the Greek ανά (ana: up, against, back, re-) and χρόνος (chronos: time), is a chronological inconsistency in some arrangement, especially a juxtaposition of person(s), events, objects, or customs from different periods of time. Often the item misplaced in time is an object, but it may be a verbal expression, a technology, a philosophical idea, a musical style, a material, a custom, or anything else associated with a particular period in time so that it is incorrect to place it outside its proper temporal domain."

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Anachronism

Nothing is more proper of a temporal domain than the here and now therefore I'm not the one using religio-historical bases to figure out how to treat people living in the world today. There's plenty of history where your land wasn't called Israel. And so what? That is no basis whatsoever to refuse to call it Israel today.

[Erikl]

Do you refer to the indigenous inhabitants (including those of past times) of the North American continent as "Native Americans", even though the land was not named America while they lived there?

Would you refer to Julius Ceaser as an Italian? No. He was Roman. Would you refer to Heraclius as a Turk/Ottoman? No, he was a Byzantine/East Roman emperor.

Same goes for Jesus. He was a 1st century Jew who lived in Provincia Iudaea. He never called the land he lived in "Palestine". On the other hand, Native Americans might identify themselves as such today.

And if we're on the subject, then the equivalent to the term "Native American" in the Palestinian subject is not "Palestinian", but "Arab". As I was saying, what we call Palestine today was carved out by the British in a series of agreements with the French, Should they have decided to incorporate in that territory other places, such as Lebanon or half of Syria, you would call the people living there "Palestinians" as well. Mind you, places that were part of what was eventually an historical region called Palestine, and was also part of what the British initially called Palestine, such as Jordan, are not regarded as Palestine by you. Even though it is settled by the same people who call themselves Palestinians.

[SHaYap]

~

~

[Leonardo]

Would you refer to Julius Ceaser as an Italian? No. He was Roman. Would you refer to Heraclius as a Turk/Ottoman? No, he was a Byzantine/East Roman emperor.

Same goes for Jesus. He was a 1st century Jew who lived in Provincia Iudaea. He never called the land he lived in "Palestine". On the other hand, Native Americans might identify themselves as such today.

It would be quite correct to refer to Caesar as "Italian" - as correct as it would be to refer to the native inhabitants of what we call Arabia, Arabs.

What others call someone is merely a label of reference, it does not define that person. What is more important is what that person calls themself. To that end, can I ask, did Jesus ever refer to himself as a Jew?

You have made the argument that Jesus, being a native inhabitant of Judea, could be called a Judean - but not all Judeans were Jews. So, in the earliest texts we have of the relevant scripture, did Jesus ever refer to himself, or name himself, as Jewish?

[Beany]

It would be quite correct to refer to Caesar as "Italian" - as correct as it would be to refer to the native inhabitants of what we call Arabia, Arabs.

What others call someone is merely a label of reference, it does not define that person. What is more important is what that person calls themself. To that end, can I ask, did Jesus ever refer to himself as a Jew?

You have made the argument that Jesus, being a native inhabitant of Judea, could be called a Judean - but not all Judeans were Jews. So, in the earliest texts we have of the relevant scripture, did Jesus ever refer to himself, or name himself, as Jewish?

Scripturally, possibly not, but not every word Jesus said was captured in the bible.

[Leonardo]

Scripturally, possibly not, but not every word Jesus said was captured in the bible.

Which is quite irrelevant to the claim of Jesus as Jewish. We know the bible writes that Jesus lived in Judea. We know the bible writes that Jesus had issues with the Jewish authorities, but appeared to generally practice/follow Jewish (or Judean) customs. We also know that Jesus appeared to flaunt some of those laws/customs.

While we may hazard a guess from this that Jesus was Jewish, that would be all it would be - a guess. We can confidantly label him Judean, but that does not make him Jewish.

[SHaYap]

NOt meaning to offend anyone but isn't JC was also said to be a descendant of Aaron, from the line of the tribe Levi ?

[Leonardo]

NOt meaning to offend anyone but isn't JC was also said to be a descendant of Aaron, from the line of the tribe Levi ?

There are claims made on Jesus' behalf in the bible, but did he claim this for himself?

Can we trust those claims made on his behalf?

[moonshadow60]

Wasn't Mary chosen to be the mother of the Christ because she was from the lineage of King David?

[Leonardo]

Wasn't Mary chosen to be the mother of the Christ because she was from the lineage of King David?

Did Jesus ever refer to his parents by name in the bible, or is this another claim made on his behalf?

[SHaYap]

There are claims made on Jesus' behalf in the bible, but did he claim this for himself?

Can we trust those claims made on his behalf?

There are documents outside of the Bible that made some mention of JC's ancestry by way of the lineage attached to the 'brothers' of JC namely :

Desposyni

Main article: Desposyni

Desposyni (Greek δεσπόσυνοι, desposynoi, “those of the master”) is a term used uniquely by Sextus Julius Africanus^[29] to refer to the relatives of Jesus. The Gospels mention four brothers of Jesus—James, Joses, Simon, and Jude^[91]—along with sisters, named by Epiphanius^[92] as Mary and Salome. These and their descendants were prominent in the early Church down to the 2nd century.^[93] Muslim authors extend family members to the 7th century.

Since ancient times, it has been debated precisely how these siblings were related to Jesus, or rather to Joseph and Mary, with her perpetual virginity at issue. There are three principal views on who these siblings were, named for their respective proponents:^[93]

• The Helvidian view—subsequent children of Joseph and Mary.
  
• The Epiphanian view—children of Joseph by a previous marriage.
  
• The Hieronymian view—first cousins of Jesus, and that Joseph was himself a virgin.^[94]
  

There is no suggestion in ancient sources that Jesus himself had any physical children, but the theory that a bloodline of Jesus, through Mary Magdalene, survived down through the ages has been popularized in recent decades, most notably in the^[95] book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

• wiki link
  

Question: "Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?"

Answer: Jesus' genealogy is given in two places in Scripture: Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38. Matthew traces the genealogy from Jesus to Abraham. Luke traces the genealogy from Jesus to Adam. However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. For example, Matthew gives Joseph's father as Jacob (Matthew 1:16), while Luke gives Joseph's father as Heli (Luke 3:23). Matthew traces the line through David's son Solomon (Matthew 1:6), while Luke traces the line through David's son Nathan (Luke 3:31). In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27).

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html#ixzz2oycnMorS

The brothers of Jesus is a designation based upon the New Testament's description of James, Joseph (Joses), Judas (Jude) and Simon as "brothers" of Jesus Christ. Also mentioned, but not named, are "sisters" of Jesus. Some scholars argue that these brothers, especially James,^[1] held positions of special honor in the early Christian church. Antidicomarianites and many critical scholars claim that these "brothers" and "sisters" refer to the biological children of Mary and Joseph. Followers of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox traditions, as well as some Anglicans and Lutherans, accept the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary and therefore reject the claim that Jesus had blood siblings. They maintain that these "brothers" and "sisters" received this designation on account of their close association with the family of Jesus, but are actually either cousins or children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

In the third century blood relatives of Jesus, without explicit reference to "brothers" or "sisters", were called the desposyni,^[2] from the Greek δεσπόσυνοι, plural of δεσπόσυνος, meaning "of or belonging to the master or lord".^[3] The term was used by Sextus Julius Africanus, a writer of the early 3rd century.

• wiki link
  

~

[Phaeton80]

Mahmoud Abbas: "Jesus was 'Palestinian"

..Seems about right.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Phaeton80

[Leonardo]

There are documents outside of the Bible that made some mention of JC's ancestry by way of the lineage attached to the 'brothers' of JC namely :

True, but they do so by using the bible as the source of that information, so they are not truly independent sources.

[SHaYap]

True, but they do so by using the bible as the source of that information, so they are not truly independent sources.

Well ... seeing that most if not all the independent sources were pretty much purged by Herod (?) and Early Christendom ... I guess there isn't any is there ?

~

[Erikl]

It would be quite correct to refer to Caesar as "Italian" - as correct as it would be to refer to the native inhabitants of what we call Arabia, Arabs.

No, sorry, your logic is wrong. This is precisely the concept of anachronism. Julius Ceaser, other than being born in what is today referred to as the "Italian peninsula", is not under any definition Italian. He was a polytheist, Latin-speaker Roman citizen. Italy as a state, something that was created in the 19th century, didn't exist at the time. The Catholic Church didn't exist at the time. The very culture or language of Italy would have been totally alien to poor Julius, should he found himself suddenly in the 20th century.

What others call someone is merely a label of reference, it does not define that person. What is more important is what that person calls themself. To that end, can I ask, did Jesus ever refer to himself as a Jew?

This is jibber-jabber. The point is, if Palestine was a state, which existed some 500 years, and Jesus was born 300 years ago in that state, to the same people who lived in that area, then maybe, you had a case. For example, someone who was born in London back in 1750 was British. Someone who was born New-Amsterdam back in 1660, was not a United States citizen. Someone who was born in Beirut in 1800, was an Ottoman citizen, not Lebanese.

And when Jesus was born, the area was not called Palestine, and I'm not even including here the fact that the people who lived there didn't speak Arabic or adhered Islam, so even culturally they had nothing to do with modern Palestinians. Jesus was born in a place called Provincia Iudaea.

You have made the argument that Jesus, being a native inhabitant of Judea, could be called a Judean - but not all Judeans were Jews. So, in the earliest texts we have of the relevant scripture, did Jesus ever refer to himself, or name himself, as Jewish?

Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that Jesus existed as a real person, the way he's described in the NT (let's put his divinity aside, if you happen to be an atheist or something, and let's try to look only on the historical Jesus).

So first of all, we know Jesus was born in Roman Judea. We know he was circumcised:

"Luke 2:21: And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child,[a] His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb."

Which eliminates the possibility he was a Roman or a Greek (because we know that they didn't circumcise). We also know that Jews circumcised their boys when they are 8 days old, and in the same ritual they name them. So this is the first hint he's Jewish.

We also know that he was called Rabbi, a Jewish religious title:

"John 3:1-2 (NIV) Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”"

So this is another hint he was Jewish.

And finally, in John 4:21-26, Jesus somewhat identifies himself as a Jew to a Samaritan woman:

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

Jesus states tell the Samaritan woman that the salvation will come from the Jews and the Samaritan woman tells him that the salvation will come from the Messiah. Jesus then goes on and tell her that he is the Messiah and is therefore, indirectly claiming to be a Jew.

So ofcourse we can never 100% prove it, there is a very high certainty that he was a Jew from 1st century Judea. What is certain, though, is that he was not a Palestinian - first and foremost because the area was not called Palestine yet when he lived there and was renamed to Palestinian decades after he no longer lived there anymore.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Erikl

[Erikl]

Yes perhaps he will. Just not Israelis.

Judging from the foundation of the Palestinian national movement in the 1920s, then this is rubbish. Palestinians have been attacking Jews who were not Zionist before Israel was established in 1948. Palestinians exchange between "Jews" and "Israelis" as if the two meant the same thing. Palestinian hate propaganda uses the word "Yahud", which means Jew.

If the settlements were inhabited by Israeli Arabs (which are basically Israeli Palestinians), he would not insist on evacuating them. The future Palestine you support will be free of Jews. This is what they want, and they don't even try to hide it.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Erikl

[Leonardo]

No, sorry, your logic is wrong. This is precisely the concept of anachronism. Julius Ceaser, other than being born in what is today referred to as the "Italian peninsula", is not under any definition Italian. He was a polytheist, Latin-speaker Roman citizen. Italy as a state, something that was created in the 19th century, didn't exist at the time. The Catholic Church didn't exist at the time. The very culture or language of Italy would have been totally alien to poor Julius, should he found himself suddenly in the 20th century.

No, it's not an anachronism. An anachronism would be if I referred to a modern-day Italian as a "Roman" (assuming they weren't born in, or live in, Rome). Calling Caesar 'Italian' could be seen as a parachronism, but that still doesn't make it technically incorrect.

And that the modern Italian state didn't exist then is of no consequence, because that label only refers to a geographical area, and that area hasn't changed in fact, only in name. Unlike your reference to Catholicism, which required the invention of something new to exist, the renaming of that geographical region to Italy did not require the creation of anything new.

This is jibber-jabber.

That you might not appreciate or understand a concept only makes it "jibber-jabber" to you - unless you can demonstrate how that concept is nonsense, which you have not done.

As for the argument you make regarding the Jewishness of Jesus, nothing in the bible is of the hand of Jesus. That is why I asked "Did Jesus claim himself to be a Jew?"

Jesus himself has made no claims whatsoever about anything, because nothing we read was written by that person - or by anyone who was travelling with him as he spoke the words as written.