This is completely false and contradicts scripture. Where do you get your garbage information? How are you so easily deceived?
It clearly says Jesus was a Jew, and not just any Jew, but the KING of Jews, right in the Bible. Scripture refers to Christ's people as Jews, as well as those most antagonistic to Christ.
John 11:
Jesus was a Jew, who fulfilled the prophecies of the messiah of Moses, and went to the synagogues with the rest of the Jews, went to Passover with the rest of the Jews, the feast of the Tabernacles with the rest of the Jews.
These verses are from
John 11:45-55 but they are from a translation that inaccurately renders
Ἰουδαῖοι (Ioudaios) as "jews" instead of
"Judeans." The translation you are using is likely from the
Revised Standard Version (RSV) or a similar English Bible that follows this pattern of mistranslation.
John 11:45-55 Greek (Original Koine):
45 Πολλοὶ οὖν ἐκ τῶν
Ἰουδαίων οἱ ἐλθόντες πρὸς τὴν Μαρίαν καὶ θεασάμενοι ὃ ἐποίησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐπίστευσαν εἰς αὐτόν·
46 τινὲς δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπῆλθον πρὸς τοὺς Φαρισαίους καὶ εἶπαν αὐτοῖς ἃ ἐποίησεν Ἰησοῦς.
47 Συνηγαγον οὖν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι
συνέδριον καὶ ἔλεγον· Τί ποιούμεν, ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος πολλὰ σημεῖα ποιεῖ;
48 Ἐὰν ἀφῶμεν αὐτὸν οὕτως, πάντες πιστεύσουσιν εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ ἐλεύσονται οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι καὶ ἀροῦσιν ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν τόπον καὶ τὸ ἔθνος.
49 Εἷς δέ τις ἐξ αὐτῶν Καϊάφας, ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου, εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε οὐδέν,
50 οὐδὲ λογίζεσθε ὅτι συμφέρει ὑμῖν ἵνα εἷς ἄνθρωπος ἀποθάνῃ ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ μὴ ὅλον τὸ ἔθνος ἀπόληται.
51 Τοῦτο δὲ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ οὐκ εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ ἀρχιερεὺς ὢν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου ἐπροφήτευσεν ὅτι ἔμελλεν Ἰησοῦς ἀποθνῄσκειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους,
52 καὶ οὐχ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους μόνον, ἀλλ’ ἵνα καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ διεσκορπισμένα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν.
53 Ἀπ’ ἐκείνης οὖν τῆς ἡμέρας συνεβουλεύσαντο ἵνα ἀποκτείνωσιν αὐτόν.
54 Ὁ οὖν Ἰησοῦς οὐκέτι παρρησίᾳ περιεπάτει ἐν τοῖς
Ἰουδαίοις, ἀλλὰ ἀπῆλθεν ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τὴν χώραν ἐγγὺς τῆς ἐρήμου, εἰς Ἐφραὶμ λεγομένην πόλιν, κἀκεῖ διέτριβεν μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν.
55 Ἦν δὲ ἐγγὺς τὸ πάσχα τῶν
Ἰουδαίων, καὶ ἀνέβησαν πολλοὶ εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἐκ τῆς χώρας πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα ἵνα ἁγνίσωσιν ἑαυτούς.
Which translates directly to:
45 Many of the
Judeans, therefore, who had come to Mary and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him.
46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. (The word
συνέδριον (Strong’s # 4892) is literally a
council. It is the Greek source of the bastard jewish word
sanhedrin, which is really closer to Yiddish than Hebrew. Their word
synagogue is also originally a Greek word.)
48 If we let him continue, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our holy place and our nation.”
49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all!
50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, rather than for the whole nation to perish.”
51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,
52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who were scattered abroad.
53 So from that day on they planned to put him to death.
54 Jesus therefore no longer walked openly among the
Judeans, but went from there to the region near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim, and he stayed there with his disciples.
55 Now the Passover of the
Judeans was near, and many went up from the countryside to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves.
-"jews" → "Judeans"
-Greek: Ἰουδαῖοι (Ioudaiōn) contextually means "people from Judea," not a religious group as understood today.
-"The nation" → "The people of Judea"
-Greek: τὸ ἔθνος (to ethnos) refers specifically to the people of Judea under Roman rule, not a broad religious identity.
-"Jesus no longer walked openly among the jews" → "Jesus no longer walked openly among the Judeans". The phrase means geography, not an entire religious category of people.
The context of the verses you posted were just after Christ raised Lazarus from the dead. Whether they went off to report Him or to boast in Him is immaterial as Paul had later expressed to the Philippians,
“15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretense, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.”
In any event when the matter is reported to the Pharisees the nature of the act of raising Lazarus could not be doubted. The enemies of Christ, as it is even apparent in the jewish Talmud, must nevertheless acknowledge Him even when they profess to hate Him, which is what they continue to do to this very day.
The word "jew" is the most confusing word in the English lexicon, and it is that way by both design and carelessness. If you would read my sources, you would see that I get everything from the Scriptures themselves with a deeper linguistic analysis on said Scriptures.
If you are as dedicated to Christ and God as you claim to be you should endeavor yourself to learn the languages of those times and dedicate yourself to translation to uncover the many errors and assumptions that the Queen's tongue has bastardized Christian theology with.
The term "jew" has evolved significantly over time. Initially in the Bible it referred to people from Judea or descendants of Judah. This was long before the religion of judaism as we know it existed. The word as used back then didn't imply following specific religious practices that are associated with judaism today.
In the 18th century around 1775 the word "jew" began to be used in English, which meant nothing more than someone from Judea. Over the years this meaning changed due to various influences and "jew" came to describe someone who practices judaism, a religion that has its roots in the traditions of the Pharisees from ancient times not the law of Moses. Christ points this out numerous times.
As evidenced by many faulty beliefs today, this change has caused confusion especially among Christians. Some think that when they say Jesus was a jew, they're linking him to modern-day judaism which isn't accurate. Jesus was from Judea making him a Judean not a jew by today's definition. The Judeans were not "jews".
By translating Ioudaios as "jew" instead of "Judean," English Bibles create the false impression that Jesus was avoiding or opposing all "jews" as a religious group, rather than specifically dealing with the Judean leadership and people of that region under Roman rule. The Roman occupation and the Pharisaic elite's political concerns are central to this passage. The fear of Roman retaliation (John 11:48) is clearly a geopolitical issue, not a religious dispute against a universal "Jewish" identity. Jesus himself was a Galilean, not a Judean, which adds another regional distinction.
To understand the current situation with Talmudic Jews is to understand it's proper religious and political context.
Christ is the KING of JEWS. Thus, for someone to claim they are Jewish, yet do not believe in Christ, makes them a TRAITOR to the KING. How can someone be a Jew, yet not follow the King of Jews? That is the winning question, and it cuts through all the nonsense Talmudic Jews say.
Jews who reject the Christ have the blood curse upon them, which is the murder blood of Christ that they willing took upon themselves.
Matthew 27:
To claim that "jews" who reject Christ today are still authentically Israelite in the true, covenantal sense misses a key element in understanding the bloodline of Jesus and the corruption of Israel's heritage in Judea that happened long before the crucifixion.
The "jews" did not exist back then as they do now. Judea at the time of the Romans, or Iudea, was a multicultural society filled with Israelites, Edomites, Canaanites, Hasideans, Syrians, Romans and more.
Jesus' bloodline was pure Israelite, unmixed because Israel's purity was paramount to God’s original plan, which it states numerous times in Scripture. Jesus' lineage is not just a matter of spiritual inheritance, but a physical one too. His mother Mary came from a region where the purity of Israelite blood had been preserved well before the time when groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees began mixing their line with foreign influences.
Regarding the blood curse you reference from Matthew 27:25, this is an important point, but it's crucial to understand that the curse you mention applies specifically to those who were responsible for the death of Christ: the Pharisees who rejected Him because of their own rebellion and corruption of the true Israelite heritage.
But there’s a deeper point here being the preservation of Israelite bloodlines which was always a crucial part of the covenant. The priesthood and the people of God were meant to remain genetically pure to fulfill the promises of God. When John Hyrcanus around 125 BC forcibly converted the Edomites and other Canaanites dwelling in large numbers in the lands formerly belonging to the ancient Israelites,, this was a breach of God’s laws on purity. Flavius Josephus relates in several passages of his histories that after this they were considered citizens of Judaea and adherents to what was then a corrupted form of the Old Testament worship at the temple of Yahweh.
Among the Pharisees and especially among the Sadducees were many of these converts who were not “Judaeans by birth” in spite of the fact that their own ancestors were explicitly excluded from any communion with the Israelites, and forbidden by law to join the congregation. Jesus, the pure Israelite, came to fulfill and purify not just the faith but also to challenge the genetic corruption that had taken root in Judea, especially among the Pharisees and Sadducees who were more concerned with their own power than preserving the integrity of Israel.
Only Jews who believe in Christ will be spared of hellfire. They have a higher standard than any other people, due to this curse and of being of the chosen bloodline that was to deliver the Messiah.
The Israelite bloodline was the pure Adamic lineage that Christ hails from through His earthly mother, but you are missing several things here. You give these cursed Edomites too much credit. The people who call themselves jews alive today are all bastards, literally in their own tongue and the laws of the Old Covenant they are "mamzers". While Jesus' lineage was pure given that His mother was in Galilee and not in Judea, the Pharisees, Sadducees, and other groups of the time, however, were not pure and this is one of the key reasons why Jesus had such harsh words for them. The Edomites and other foreigners who had been forcibly converted during the time of the Hasmoneans were seen as having contaminated the bloodline and the cultural heritage that should have remained distinct. The talmudic jews you speak of today are heirs to this tradition of racial mixing among their continued disobedience to Gods laws, which is why Jesus as a true Israelite rejected them then, because they had brought foreign elements into the Israelite heritage.
Thus, it's not that Christ is not a Jew, it's that Talmudic Jews aren't really Jews. They are traitors to the King of Jews, which means they forfeit their claim to Judaism, since Moses clearly prophesied in the coming of the messiah (as did Daniel as well).
That's why they are TALMUDIC Jews, which is a reference to their betrayal, and that they are false Jews who call themselves Jews, but actually belong to the synagogue of Satan.
Revelation 3:9
By linguistic and historical accuracy, Jesus was an Israelite, Galilean, and Davidic heir but not a "jew". Talmudic judaism didn't exist during Jesus' time. The Talmud was compiled centuries after Jesus (c. 200-500 AD). The Pharisees were one sect among many in Judea. Jesus opposed their legalism but was not aligned with them. The Hasmoneans and Herodians had already altered "Judean" identity, incorporating Edomites and non-Israelites into Judea long before Jesus.
If talmudic jews are "false jews", then what exactly were the real jews? Your argument relies on modern theological views rather than historical realities.
You cite Revelation 3:9 to argue "real jews" are those who accept Jesus, while "talmudic jews" are frauds. But Revelation 3:9 refers to a specific group of people in the 1st century not modern Jews. "Those who say they are Ioudaios but are not" means political imposters in Judea, possibly Edomites or Herodian converts rather than an eternal indictment against all post-Temple Judeans. The early Christian church still saw itself as part of Israel even as it broke with the corrupt practices of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Scripture is the authority. Anything else is a lie.
Perpetuating false translations that lead to today's predicament of imbuing a religious connotation onto a genetic description betrays the original Scriptures. So when we talk about "jews" in the Bible, it's more accurate to think of them as Judeans or Judahites, people from a specific region or lineage, rather than followers of the religious practices we associate with judaism today.
Jesus was descended from the Israelite tribe of Judah, as the Scripture says that He is because the Scriptures do not lie. The people known as jews today are not of the tribe of Judah nor are they even of the tribe of Benjamin or Levi. So how can Jesus be a "jew" then? The Bible itself tells us this. You mistake me for ignoring Scripture when the original Scripture forms the basis for all of my analysis on this.
Every time you see the word "jew" in the Bible you need to cross it out of your mind as a reference to a religious practice and replace it with the historically and linguistically accurate description Judean, or one who lived in Judea.
So who is deceived by the jews here? Not me. I don't hold you at fault for being deceived, millions are presently. Millions like you who have never read the original documents used for translating purposes. I know few people here have because no one ever references them. Christian men should not be lazy in their research.
1. Codex Alexandrinus (A)
-Date: Early 5th century (c. 400–440 AD)
-Contents: Almost the entire Bible (Old & New Testament), though parts are missing.
-Text Type: Byzantine for the Gospels, Alexandrian elsewhere.
-Significance: One of the earliest
complete copies of the Greek Bible.
2. Majority Text (Byzantine Text)
-Date: Derived from manuscripts mostly dating from the 9th century onward.
-Contents: A Greek New Testament text family that forms the basis of later Byzantine copies.
-Text Type: Byzantine (used by the Greek Orthodox Church).
-Significance: The Majority Text
reflects the text found in the most surviving manuscripts but is not the oldest form of the text.
3. Strong’s Concordance
-Author: James Strong (published in 1890).
-Purpose: A
lexicon and numbering system that assigns numbers to every Greek and Hebrew word in the Bible to help readers study the meanings of original words.
-Significance: It is
not a manuscript but a
translation aid that allows people to trace biblical words back to their
Greek (Koine) or
Hebrew roots.
4. Early Papyri (P44, P66, P75)
These are some of the oldest surviving fragments of the New Testament, written on papyrus rather than parchment.
P44
-Date: 6th–7th century AD
-Contents: Small fragments of the Gospels (Matthew)
-Text Type: Likely Alexandrian
P66
-Date: c. 200 AD (one of the earliest copies of John)
-Contents: Nearly complete Gospel of John
-Text Type: Alexandrian
P75
-Date: Late 2nd to early 3rd century (175-225 AD)
-Contents: Large portions of Luke & John
-Text Type: Alexandrian
-Significance: Very close to Codex Vaticanus, confirming an older Alexandrian tradition.
5. Codex Sinaiticus (א)
-Date: Mid-4th century (c. 330–360 AD)
-Contents: The
entire New Testament and large parts of the Old Testament.
-Text Type: Alexandrian
-Significance: One of the
oldest and most complete copies of the New Testament.
6. Codex Vaticanus (B)
-Date: Early 4th century (c. 300–325 AD)
-Contents: Almost the entire Bible, but missing parts of Genesis, Hebrews, and Revelation.
-Text Type: Alexandrian
-Significance: One of the most
reliable manuscripts for reconstructing the original Greek New Testament.
7. Codex Bezae (D)
-Date: 5th century (c. 400–500 AD)
-Contents: The Gospels and Acts (Greek on one side, Latin on the other).
-Text Type: Western (known for expanded readings and paraphrasing).
-Significance: Shows
textual differences from Alexandrian and Byzantine traditions.
8. Codex Washingtonensis (W)
-Date: Late 4th or early 5th century (c. 400 AD)
-Contents: Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)
-Text Type: Mixed (Byzantine & Western)
-Significance: One of the oldest manuscripts in the United States (kept in Washington, D.C.)
Now try and tell me again that I am not referencing Scripture. I am not fluent in Hebrew but I am learning it, as one should always learn the language of one's present enemy, but I am competent in Latin and Greek. All Christians should seek to become polyglots as our Priests and Bishops did for the last two millennia, so that we are not confused by the wiles of the fallen one and it's servants in the flesh.
