What do you think?
Rate this book
Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church
Dr. Moseley never flinches from showing “Jesus was a Jew, who was born, lived, and died, within first century Judaism.” He explains idioms in the New Testament.
198 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
4 people are currently reading
137 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 27, 2025
I enjoyed this book. But it could be that it found its way into my hands at the right time. i was seeking. a deeper, clearer understanding of the Bible. what i found most interesting were the illustrations he gave of various stories and parables and expanding understanding through a Jewish lense. I agree that our English Bible is seriously lacking in its Jewish roots. we have lost a lot of meaning, and understanding of scripture because we dont know the culture it was written in. this book helps in that understanding.
May 31, 2020
Good book on the early church and its Jewish roots. It does not cover alot about Jesus but is a fascinating book about the times He lived in.
October 4, 2023
A great book that bridges the transition from the Jewish culture of worship to what the original church became. Great book to read.
January 3, 2017
The author looks at the social and religious dynamics of the cultural and political backgrounds of Jesus' time. This book was particularly helpful for specific details and helpful insights that have been missed in the many other sources I have read on this topic and era.
He especially provides important perspectives on the character and relationship between the various Jewish factions and movements of the time. He discusses more about the actual mechanics of synagogue operation than I have been able to find from other specialists.
From his study of the synagogue pattern of the era, he develops here his focus on how the synagogue pattern was carried over to become the church pattern. This will be enlightening to any students of the first century dynamics affecting the development of the Christian movement and the Rabbinic Judaism in the first few centuries of the Common Era of our calendar.
He is also helpful in seeing more stage-by-stage details of the gradual movement form the Jewish character of the Christian movement to the more Greco-Roman patterns and structure. One thing I found puzzling or confusing in the latter is his reference several times (usually in a negative fashion) to the Roman Church. Moseley contrasts the growing changes in terms of the "orthodox" and the Roman church.
It was not clear why he thinks the church at Rome was the focus of what he describes concerning the developing Europeanizing and anti-Jewish trends. His usage and terminology sound like he means the congregation Paul wrote to in Rome, the church that Clement (and two others named Clement) served in the late 1st century and early 2nd century.
But sometimes it seems he has something more suprahistorical in mind. He might have been reading back into the first century the much later rift between "Rome" and the Protestants of the late Middle Ages. That would not be relevant to the stated topic. The Church of Rome was "orthodox" in regard to all the decisions of the early councils. His time references are sometimes vague, also, in regard to later characteristics of Rabbinic Judaism that he references for some insights into the first century.
He refers to the Roman Church almost like a movement or an "official" entity in an era when that church was not particularly influential as far as I can tell. Overall in the teaching and doctrinal movements, Alexandria and Antioch were the most important patriarchates. Once Moseley even attributes to "the Roman church" ideas, events and specific persons who were in Alexandria (a traditionally Greek and heavily Jewish city), not Rome.
The weight and centre of the Empire shifted to Constantinople under the new Emperor Constantine from the early 4th century, which he identifies as the definitive period of structural and ideological change for the Christian movement. The author seems to ignore the Eastern axis of the church, which was much more influential than the church of Rome.
Moseley seems unaware of any of the persons or movements of the Eastern Mediterranean churches and Asian movements that even today still exist in Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox institutional and cultural structures. The Church in Rome was considered one of the original "patriarchates" only in an honorary sense, because that city was the original capital of the Empire.
The association of Rome and that patriarchate with Peter came only very late in western history (in the 900s AD), as a dynamic of consolidation of the Roman structure in western Europe in light of the political chaos in Europe. After the Germanic invasion, Rome and Europe got cut off from the center of activity of the Roman Empire in Constantinople and the Christian movement in the eastern Mediterranean and the Asian territories.
This book will be a positive value for anyone desiring to understand the context of Jesus' teachings and the discussions in the Gospels as well as the discussions with the new churches in the other documents of the New Testament.
He especially provides important perspectives on the character and relationship between the various Jewish factions and movements of the time. He discusses more about the actual mechanics of synagogue operation than I have been able to find from other specialists.
From his study of the synagogue pattern of the era, he develops here his focus on how the synagogue pattern was carried over to become the church pattern. This will be enlightening to any students of the first century dynamics affecting the development of the Christian movement and the Rabbinic Judaism in the first few centuries of the Common Era of our calendar.
He is also helpful in seeing more stage-by-stage details of the gradual movement form the Jewish character of the Christian movement to the more Greco-Roman patterns and structure. One thing I found puzzling or confusing in the latter is his reference several times (usually in a negative fashion) to the Roman Church. Moseley contrasts the growing changes in terms of the "orthodox" and the Roman church.
It was not clear why he thinks the church at Rome was the focus of what he describes concerning the developing Europeanizing and anti-Jewish trends. His usage and terminology sound like he means the congregation Paul wrote to in Rome, the church that Clement (and two others named Clement) served in the late 1st century and early 2nd century.
But sometimes it seems he has something more suprahistorical in mind. He might have been reading back into the first century the much later rift between "Rome" and the Protestants of the late Middle Ages. That would not be relevant to the stated topic. The Church of Rome was "orthodox" in regard to all the decisions of the early councils. His time references are sometimes vague, also, in regard to later characteristics of Rabbinic Judaism that he references for some insights into the first century.
He refers to the Roman Church almost like a movement or an "official" entity in an era when that church was not particularly influential as far as I can tell. Overall in the teaching and doctrinal movements, Alexandria and Antioch were the most important patriarchates. Once Moseley even attributes to "the Roman church" ideas, events and specific persons who were in Alexandria (a traditionally Greek and heavily Jewish city), not Rome.
The weight and centre of the Empire shifted to Constantinople under the new Emperor Constantine from the early 4th century, which he identifies as the definitive period of structural and ideological change for the Christian movement. The author seems to ignore the Eastern axis of the church, which was much more influential than the church of Rome.
Moseley seems unaware of any of the persons or movements of the Eastern Mediterranean churches and Asian movements that even today still exist in Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox institutional and cultural structures. The Church in Rome was considered one of the original "patriarchates" only in an honorary sense, because that city was the original capital of the Empire.
The association of Rome and that patriarchate with Peter came only very late in western history (in the 900s AD), as a dynamic of consolidation of the Roman structure in western Europe in light of the political chaos in Europe. After the Germanic invasion, Rome and Europe got cut off from the center of activity of the Roman Empire in Constantinople and the Christian movement in the eastern Mediterranean and the Asian territories.
This book will be a positive value for anyone desiring to understand the context of Jesus' teachings and the discussions in the Gospels as well as the discussions with the new churches in the other documents of the New Testament.
September 13, 2012
The book comes from a very Jewish mindset, so many of the things he says are impossible to comprehend from an evengelical paradigm. Despite my inability to appriciate much of it, this book does have some useful gems, such as the role of the Pharisees, the reliability of the New Testament, and the Jewishness of the New Testament Church. The last of these really changed my understanding of the church and society.
December 31, 2014
Great explanation of the Jewish roots of Christ's church - although I disagree with his dispensationalist point of view. I love the way he points out that the meaning of scripture is often missed without understanding Jewish culture and history. A bit dry in places but a great resource that I will definitely reference more in the future.
January 18, 2016
This was a good historical background of the Jewish/Hebraic influence and origins of our faith written in a pretty easy to read manner. This is a good synopsis of how the church lost it 19s Jewish heritage. I really enjoyed the chapter on idioms/parables. The information on Pharisees was interesting too.
September 7, 2008
Jesus was Jewish, and He practiced Judaism if you can believe that. Moseley does well to describe the realities of Jesus' life.
March 10, 2009
A good book on teaching the Jewishness of Jesus. I enjoy Moseleys writing and he does a great job explaining the practices of Jesus.
October 19, 2011
Interesting, but not in agreemant with the author's view of the Messiah.
June 9, 2012
Not quite what I expected...hard to read. But I learned A Lot about the Pharisees I never new. Puts them in a whole new light!
February 21, 2015
Readable adaption of Flusser, Young, et al. The Jewish origins of Jesus, the Pharisees and the early Church, which was jewish at first, then seperated gradually into a more gentile organization.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews