Jesus Was Not a White Conservative; Jesus Was a Jewish Palestinian Dissident.
*Forensic anthropology, a sub-discipline in physical anthropology, draws from archeology, physical and biological sciences, genetics, auxology (the study of human growth and development), primatology, paleoanthropology (the study of primate and human evolution), human osteology (the study of the skeleton), nutrition, dentistry, and climate science in order to understand what human beings would have looked like long ago.
With the understanding that, according to the incident in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus looked like his Galilean Semite peers, . .
Jesus the Political Radical
Contemporary representation of historical Jesus’ physical appearance is not the only thing that is inaccurate; popular portrayal of his politics is often very misguided too.
Jesus was a political dissident and radical. Jesus was murdered for being an enemy of the state. He was not just punished for preaching “blasphemy”; most empires could frankly care less about the religious beliefs of their subjects. Jesus was so dangerous to the Roman empire because he challenged its legitimacy. . .
Jesus was a radical nonviolent revolutionary who hung around with lepers, hookers and crooks; wasn’t American and never spoke English; was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty, and even anti-public prayer (Matthew 6:5); but was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes, never asked a leper for a copay; and was a long haired, brown-skinned, homeless community-organizing, anti-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew. . .
Jesus the Palestinian Jew
Jesus was also a Palestinian. Yes, he was Jewish, but he was also Palestinian. He was both.
Before the creation of Israel in 1948, this was not an oxymoron; there were thousands of Palestinian Jews. The modern land of Israel has been called Palestine for thousands of years, and Jews have lived there for this time.
In fact, in the mid-19th century, under the Ottoman empire, scholars estimate 5-7% of the approximately 600,000 people who lived in historic Palestine were Jewish. . .
Jesus Referred to God as ‘Aalah’
But wait, there’s more! The cherry on top is linguistic in nature.
Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic. The Old Testament is written in both ancient Hebrew and Aramaic (most of the text is in Hebrew, but approximately 250 verses are in Aramaic). The word for “God” in Aramaic, Jesus’ language, is “Aalah.” The Old Testament uses the word Aalah in the Aramaic passages. Jesus referred to God as Aalah.'>>>
http://bennorton.com/jesus-was-not-a-white-conservative-jesus-was-a-palestinian-dissident/
Shalom
= new reply since forum marked as read
Forgive me, if I'm out of line.
The article states, rightly, that Jesus's historical existence itself is actually legitimately in doubt, of course they fall back on "scholars agree he existed"- those scholars, of course, are invariably "Biblical historians" - Biblical including the NT, mind you - and people with a vested career interest, by definition, in the historical veracity of the Bible.
There is pretty much zero legitimate evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, outside the New Testament.
Jews, of course, don't tend to ascribe any special mojo to the guy, either way. So why the Jewish Group? 
There a quite a lot of references to a Nazarine being born of an illicit affair between a Roman centurion and a Jewish girl who grew up to be a rather solid amateur rabbi in the Hillel school of thought (e.g., "Love thy neighbor as thyself"
, including in the Talmud.
Where the rubber meets the road historically is where the later supposed miraculous events and what happened after being crucified. Jewish sources say he was a bit of a magician. And his body was stolen and a rather elaborate story concocted. Christian sources obviously differ.
What this has to do with Judaism, I agree: nothing.
Regarding the OP: not sure why a bastard (no offense meant by this, using in the literal sense of "not married parents" child of a Roman (or, if you so believe, G-d) and a Jewish girl would be somehow considered a "Palestinian" when that concept was changed to describe Arab occupants of the area (in contrast to all occupants of the British Mandate, including Jewish occupants) some 2,000 years later, is a bit of a stretch.
