What would be considered to be Jesus' nationality?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

1) No, the authors of the Greek Gospels were translating from Aramaic the oral traditions and notes of events as they were remembered. I don't know how old the author of Mattew was.

2) The Ebionites and Marcionites were two of the different groups that developed after Jesus left. Jesus left no writings and there was no single official written record produced during the times of his public ministry. The fragmented Gospel of the Ebionites was written in the middle of the 2nd century. The Marcionites emerged in 144, they had their own opinions.

I reject the Ebonites "belief" that Jesus was Just a man becuse he was both human and divine in one miraculous personality. The things that Jesus did were not simply human. I do however agree that Jesus was conceived that natural way as the first born son of Joseph and Mary, a married couple living in Nazareth. The miracle of miracles was how the preexisting Son of God and creator of this world became the person of Mary's baby at the instant of "conception".

The virgin birth story must have come from preexisting pagan beliefs.

Name one miracle that didn’t get done by other people in the Bible.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus left no writings that's how we know

No, we don’t have any. That’s not the same as he didn’t write any.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Luke 23:6 appears to answer the OP question. Apologies if already posted, i haven't read the whole thread.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The sources for much of the Gospels were there.

But some events have one person, a person, like Jesus, who couldn’t be interviewed after the execution. So, who witnessed the unwitnessed events?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Certainly the cross is not mentioned in the OT and I am not sure if the Jews had ever heard of such a thing.
But David's and Isaiah's suffering themes are certainly relevant - they aren't talking about themselves, nor
did they rise from the dead and have their name preached throughout the world.

David is suffering because he is tasked with a coup.

 

[Colt]

But some events have one person, a person, like Jesus, who couldn’t be interviewed after the execution. So, who witnessed the unwitnessed events?

There are no unwitnessed events in our life. The Father is within us, we may also have guardian angels assigned to us and in the case of Jesus legions of celestial beings were present with him on earth. Events such as Jesus praying alone when the apostles fell asleep were witnessed by any number of beings.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

There are no unwitnessed events in our life. The Father is within us, we may also have guardian angels assigned to us and in the case of Jesus legions of celestial beings were present with him on earth. Events such as Jesus praying alone when the apostles fell asleep were witnessed by any number of beings.

The Father told me that He didn’t say that stuff. Now what?

 

[Colt]

The Father told me that He didn’t say that stuff. Now what?

You are sol!

 

[PruePhillip]

David is suffering because he is tasked with a coup.

So did they crucify him? Did his brothers and sisters not believe in him? Did they give him vinegar and gall to drink?
Did they part his garments? Did God forsake him? Did he die? We are resurrected? Is his name spoken on in all
the world.?
No, David had a prophecy of Jesus, the son of God.

 

[DNB]

True, and it is not the Matthean genealogy which I would say is Mary's genealogy.



Luke 3:21-23 shows that the genealogy is of Jesus and that Joseph was not the real father of Jesus but God is the Father, so maybe we should expect at that point that the genealogy would be swapping to the mother's genealogy if indeed the genealogy is to continue as the genealogy of Jesus with Jesus having a direct lineage to Heli and the rest of those mentioned.
But of course this is speculating and with the notion that both the Matthean and Lukan genealogies are correct.

But, again, no mention of Mary, but rather of Joseph, denotes that Joseph is the trajectory that we are following. Despite the fact that the author is explaining that, ultimately, God is the Father, the author is still defining that it is acceptedly perceived as Joseph being the ancestor, as far as the lineage to King David is concerned.

Luke is an extremely competent historian, and I therefore would question very little as to how accurate his accounts are. Equally, Matthew would have had access to such genealogies, as such record keeping appears to be an extremely Hebrew thing to do, common knowledge to any student of the TaNaKh. Thus, although different, and seemingly irresolvable, I trust the accuracy of both, regarding each as having a unique technique and convention in defining the lineage.

 

[DNB]

Matrilineal descent is from the biblical text, itself. The child of an Israelite mother is an Israelite. This is easily findable if you do a quick search. Do you need me to get the verses for you? Just say the word. Hint - Ezra 9 might help, especially if you have read Deut 7.

Sorry rosends, neither Ezra 9 nor Deut. 7 either infer or intimate what you are proposing? I couldn't for the life of me construe a single line as imparting that a child's tribal ancestry is determined by the mother?

 

[rosends]

Sorry rosends, neither Ezra 9 nor Deut. 7 either infer or intimate what you are proposing? I couldn't for the life of me construe a single line as imparting that a child's tribal ancestry is determined by the mother?

So you don't get it. That doesn't mean it isn't there. Ezra says to send away foreign wives and children as the children attain "foreign" status through the wives.

Deut talks about the idea of a non-Israelite influencing an Israelite child and it is clear that the determining factor is the gender of the parent. And I didn't say that TRIBAL identity is from the mother.

 

[DNB]

So you don't get it. That doesn't mean it isn't there. Ezra says to send away foreign wives and children as the children attain "foreign" status through the wives.

Deut talks about the idea of a non-Israelite influencing an Israelite child and it is clear that the determining factor is the gender of the parent. And I didn't say that TRIBAL identity is from the mother.

Seriously???
They are not talking about gender rosends, not at all. Hebrews were not allowed to marry outside their tribes, and especially not outside their nation. God was not attempting to preserve their ancestry , but prevent them from being influenced by their pagan spouses to violate the first commandment: you shall have no other gods before me. Also, to keep one's inheritance within the clan, it had nothing to do with determining the tribe of the children, or that it is done so by the woman's lineage.
I'm sorry, but you entirely mistranslated the verses.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So did they crucify him? Did his brothers and sisters not believe in him? Did they give him vinegar and gall to drink?
Did they part his garments? Did God forsake him? Did he die? We are resurrected? Is his name spoken on in all
the world.?
No, David had a prophecy of Jesus, the son of God.

David sure thought that his target was mean.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You are sol!

I’d rather believe God than human propaganda

 

[rosends]

Seriously???
They are not talking about gender rosends, not at all. Hebrews were not allowed to marry outside their tribes, and especially not outside their nation. God was not attempting to preserve their ancestry , but prevent them from being influenced by their pagan spouses to violate the first commandment: you shall have no other gods before me. Also, to keep one's inheritance within the clan, it had nothing to do with determining the tribe of the children, or that it is done so by the woman's lineage.
I'm sorry, but you entirely mistranslated the verses.

I never said it had to do with the tribe. Hebrews could certainly marry outside their tribe which is why there was a rule of tribal affiliation which was patrilineal. If both parents were of the same tribe, there would be no concern for people like the daughters of Tzlofchad. Look at Num 32:3.

As for issues of matrilineal descent determining religious affiliation, I could go through it with you in the Hebrew if you wanted and we can discuss the exact translation and the gendered words within the verses. Just let me know.

 

[DNB]

I never said it had to do with the tribe. Hebrews could certainly marry outside their tribe which is why there was a rule of tribal affiliation which was patrilineal. If both parents were of the same tribe, there would be no concern for people like the daughters of Tzlofchad. Look at Num 32:3.

As for issues of matrilineal descent determining religious affiliation, I could go through it with you in the Hebrew if you wanted and we can discuss the exact translation and the gendered words within the verses. Just let me know.

the man determines one's lineage. Numbers 32:3 has nothing to do with anything, i have no idea why you even brought it up.
Extremely bad exegesis, extremely!

 

[Viker]

Every so often, I drive past a church that has a sign that says "Jesus was a refugee," and I've seen similar messages around the internet as well. While I'm not addressing the political aspects of such a message in this thread, it got me to thinking about what Jesus' actual nationality would have been and how he would have been considered a refugee. At the time of Jesus' birth, wasn't the territory under Roman control? Would he be a subject of the Roman Empire? Was he actually a refugee? Just curious what other thoughts there might be on this.

Israeli, in a modern context. His law would have been under Greco-Roman context. He would be no refugee. He would be a subject under Roman rule. Making him "Roman".

 

[rosends]

the man determines one's lineage. Numbers 32:3 has nothing to do with anything, i have no idea why you even brought it up.
Extremely bad exegesis, extremely!

No, the man determines the tribe. The text discusses inheritance of tribal property when one marries out of the tribe. Sorry - I typed the wrong verse. Num 36 discusses how a woman who has brothers can marry out of the tribe but a woman who doesn't and therefore has land inheritance cannot. So your claim that intertribal marriage wasn't allowed ("Hebrews were not allowed to marry outside their tribes") is provably false.

People are counted "l'beit avotam" when the census happens -- that means "to the house of their father". This is called a "mateh" (one of the words for tribe, though it means "staff" or "stick"). See Num 17 and Josh 2 for examples. Ezra 2:59 is also interesting as it distinguishes between "father's house" and "ancestry."

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Israeli, in a modern context. His law would have been under Greco-Roman context. He would be no refugee. He would be a subject under Roman rule. Making him "Roman".

He wouldn’t be a citizen unless he became one. Romans didn’t even give citizenship to fellow Italians until much later and after many revolts.