>>83
I think the easiest rebuttal would be to discuss categorization.
For example, if you are the leader of an entire group of people, then any sub-group within that group of people is technically under your command. For Christ, he was ostensibly the ruler of all mankind. Therefore, he is the king of Jews, since Jews are a sub-category of "mankind".
Since Christ was born in a small town in the Kingdom of Judea, he was of the Judeans. Like many Judeans, he was brought up with the teachings of the Hebrews. The religion of that time was substantially different from the religion of modern Jewry, not only in its general practices, but also its liturgy (Torah as the central text vs. Talmud as the central text). Therefore, Christ was born a Judean, and educated in the religion of the Hebrews. However, he self-professed to be the Son of God, with absolute power and authority. This gives him authority over the Jews (or Hebrews) as much as authority over all others.
To say he was "the King of the Jews" would be like saying that the king of a hypothetical United Kingdom of East Asia is "the King of China" -- they *are* the King of China, but they are also the King of Japan, Mongolia, Laos, Cambodia, etc... It's a correct statement, but no more correct than to say that Christ is "King of Kings", "King of Earth", "King of the gentiles", and so on.
Something else worth considering: it is very difficult to find theological discussion on the relationship between modern Jewry and the ethnic identity of a historical Jesus without those theologians involved fervently and emphatically claiming that any investigation of this connection (to attempt to "wrench Jesus from his Jewish roots") is tacitly antisemitic, plausibly pro-Nazi, a "dogwhistle" for Aryan sympathizers, and so forth. This is concerning to me, because whenever I read an article discussing a topic of history which is immediately parameterized by a small, insular group of academics who decry any heterodox opinion as "Nazi speak" or the like, I assume that they're hiding something. Were more of these academic theologians open to the idea of a serious, circumspect discussion of Jesus' ethnic background, and were willing to publicly discuss the evidence that supports a "Jewish Jesus" versus a "gentile Jesus", I would be far more likely to view those advocates of a "Jewish Jesus" in a positive light. As it stands, I *strongly* suspect that the hysteric assertion that "Jesus was CERTAINLY JEWISH!" is more like a desperate demand -- one that very likely comes from the same spiderweb of demagoguery that nearly every other desperate echo chamber in modern society can find its roots.
One more thing, the first time I ever heard the "Christianity is actually a Jewish plot to overthrow Rome" idea was about a decade ago, straight from the pages of none other than a very powerful Zionist Jew, one Marcus Eli Ravage.
Ravage, who wrote the biographies of several prominent Rothschild's and was a first-order journalist which documented much of the early Jewish perspective on the World Wars (and this perspective has come to dominate the general European narrative regarding those wars) created "Commissary to the Gentiles". Published in 1928, it posits that Paul was an infiltrator in early Christianity, planted to convert the odd messianic cult of Jesus into a subversive force to slowly gnaw away at the ubiquitous polytheistic faith which had dominated the Roman Empire by offering the restless peasant masses a spiritual alternative. In Ravage's view, this culminated in the decline in spiritual fortitude requisite for a unified Roman populace, and served as the deathstroke to the Empire.
It's worth noting that "Commissary" is written in a venomous, scathing tone, was published in a journal almost exclusively written for (and by) Jews, and that nearly all of his (Jewish, frequently Zionist) contemporaries considered it as fictitious as it was unwarranted -- they knew that even regardless of its veracity, writing an article essentially proclaiming that the adherents of the most popular religion on the planet was a stupid thing to do. In other words, Jews who knew Ravage viewed his writing as fanfic... dangerous fanfic, since it portrayed Jews as ancestral enemies to gentiles, and at a time where Jewish/gentile tension was rising.
Whenever I hear this "Christianity is a Jewish scheme" argument, I can't help but think back to Ravage, and wonder to what his motivations were for writing "Commissary to the Gentiles". I often assume the argument kind of desperate, misguided attempt to demoralize those Christians who are either unsteady in their faith, or smart enough to recognize the groundswell of a spiritual conflict two-millennia in the making. In any case, I'll have to side with the Jews from 1928 on this one -- it's bad fanfic.