What would be considered to be Jesus' nationality?

[Viker]

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.

Didn't remember. Today he'd be Israeli.

 

[DNB]

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."

No, Moses established a law binding to all Israelite families, male and female. It was not restricted to daughters who had no brothers, despite the fact that Moses initially enacts the command while addressing the daughters of Zelophehad. He clearly in the end extends the injunction to all Israel.

5 Then at the Lord’s command Moses gave this order to the Israelites: “What the tribe of the descendants of Joseph is saying is right. 6 This is what the Lord commands for Zelophehad’s daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within their father’s tribal clan. 7 No inheritance in Israel is to pass from one tribe to another, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal inheritance of their ancestors. 8 Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father’s tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of their ancestors. 9 No inheritance may pass from one tribe to another, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits.”

 

[rosends]

No, Moses established a law binding to all Israelite families, male and female. It was not restricted to daughters who had no brothers, despite the fact that Moses initially enacts the command while addressing the daughters of Zelophehad. He clearly in the end extends the injunction to all Israel.

5 Then at the Lord’s command Moses gave this order to the Israelites: “What the tribe of the descendants of Joseph is saying is right. 6 This is what the Lord commands for Zelophehad’s daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within their father’s tribal clan. 7 No inheritance in Israel is to pass from one tribe to another, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal inheritance of their ancestors. 8 Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father’s tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of their ancestors. 9 No inheritance may pass from one tribe to another, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits.”

Reread verse 8. In terms of daughters this only applies if they inherit (have no brothers). If they don't inherit, and their marriage would not cause any inheritance to pass to another tribe, they may marry into another tribe. This is to avoid the possibility of inheritance passing because of a lack of male heirs who would otherwise retain the inheritance. Tribal inheritance goes through the men but when there are no men it goes through the women. So women who do NOT carry this inheritance, and their marriage out would not cause this problem can marry out. Black letter law.

 

[Colt]

No, Moses established a law binding to all Israelite families, male and female. It was not restricted to daughters who had no brothers, despite the fact that Moses initially enacts the command while addressing the daughters of Zelophehad. He clearly in the end extends the injunction to all Israel.

5 Then at the Lord’s command Moses gave this order to the Israelites: “What the tribe of the descendants of Joseph is saying is right. 6 This is what the Lord commands for Zelophehad’s daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within their father’s tribal clan. 7 No inheritance in Israel is to pass from one tribe to another, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal inheritance of their ancestors. 8 Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father’s tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of their ancestors. 9 No inheritance may pass from one tribe to another, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits.”

The so-called Israelites intermixed with the Canaanites anyway. Their descendants became the Jewish people.


Judges 3:5-7
King James Version

5 And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites:

6 And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Maybe "subject of Rome" would be a more accurate term.

The Gospels are contradictory on this point, but if Jesus really was born after the census was declared, then the territory was under the direct rule of Rome and the Kingdom of Judea had already been dissolved.

(That's why the census was called: when Rome took over direct rule, they wanted to take stock of their new province)

OTOH, if Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, then he was born in Judea, which was a Roman client state at the time.

... so Jesus may have been born Roman (though not a citizen, as you point out), depending on how we resolve the contradictions in the Bible.

 

[DNB]

Reread verse 8. In terms of daughters this only applies if they inherit (have no brothers). If they don't inherit, and their marriage would not cause any inheritance to pass to another tribe, they may marry into another tribe. This is to avoid the possibility of inheritance passing because of a lack of male heirs who would otherwise retain the inheritance. Tribal inheritance goes through the men but when there are no men it goes through the women. So women who do NOT carry this inheritance, and their marriage out would not cause this problem can marry out. Black letter law.

So, you're saying that only when an inheritance passes to the daughter, as in the case when there are no male inheritors alive or existed, she must marry into her own clan. Otherwise, any Israelite, male or female, may marry someone from any clan within the Israelite tribes?
You're right that verse 8 can be read that way, and that I've been compelled to look into this a little further, I must admit that I'm a little harder pressed to find the definitive text on the issue.
Thank you for your insights rosends, i may need more time to research this topic...

 

[DNB]

The so-called Israelites intermixed with the Canaanites anyway. Their descendants became the Jewish people.


Judges 3:5-7
King James Version

5 And the children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites:

6 And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods.

Yes, but that was clearly forbidden, and it became one of the main catalysts that lead to their downfall. Especially in the case of Solomon, or others who were lead astray by their foreign wivews pagan gods. Did not Ezra .get violent over such acts committed by the repatriated Jews?

 

[Colt]

Yes, but that was clearly forbidden, and it became one of the main catalysts that lead to their downfall. Especially in the case of Solomon, or others who were lead astray by their foreign wivews pagan gods. Did not Ezra .get violent over such acts committed by the repatriated Jews?

But they still intermixed and the descendants are Jewish. When the scripture implies that all the Canaanites were destroyed that simply isn’t true.

 

[Luchito Prays]

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.

The area was called Palestine. Even the Tractate Sanhedrin claims that it's the records of court cases from the second temple in the first century... in the land of Palestine.

Yeshu (Jesus) the Palestinian.

 

[DNB]

But they still intermixed and the descendants are Jewish. When the scripture implies that all the Canaanites were destroyed that simply isn’t true.

Ezra chased their wives away. But, either way, the bloodlines became corrupt somewhere, somehow, for sure, but not all married outside their Jewish heritage. Are there any pure Judahites, or Zebulanites, or Levites, Danites, Asherites, etc...? Possibly.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The area was called Palestine. Even the Tractate Sanhedrin claims that it's the records of court cases from the second temple in the first century... in the land of Palestine.

Yeshu (Jesus) the Palestinian.

It was not called Palestine in the day of Jesus. It was called Judea, Samaria, and Gallilee. And Jesus was a JEW.

When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and exiled the Jews, they renamed it Palestine as a kind of dumb attempt to make people forget that it belonged to the Jews. But it was only a territorial name. There was never a nation called Palestine.

 

[muhammad_isa]

When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and exiled the Jews, they renamed it Palestine as a kind of dumb attempt to make people forget that it belonged to the Jews..

Everything belongs to G-d, and we all return to Him..
..with no more than what we were born with.

Almighty God gives Sovereignty to whom He wills, and takes Sovereignty from whom He wills.

Human beings love wealth, and they often break G-d's laws to obtain it. He is aware of what is in the hearts of men.
He knows who strives to please Him, and whose intentions are not pure.
May G-d save us from jehannum .. Amen.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Everything belongs to G-d, and we all return to Him..
..with no more than what we were born with.

Almighty God gives Sovereignty to whom He wills, and takes Sovereignty from whom He wills.

Human beings love wealth, and they often break G-d's laws to obtain it. He is aware of what is in the hearts of men.
He knows who strives to please Him, and whose intentions are not pure.
May G-d save us from jehannum .. Amen.

And God gave Canaan to the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And God gave Canaan to the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

..when was that, exactly?
A lot has happened since then.

Law has to make sense. It has to apply to the here and now.
If we all went round making claims to the land of our ancestors on such a premise, the whole world would be at each other's throats.

Almighty G-d prefers those that make peace and follow His commandments.
Political 'land grabs' only show a desire for the life of this world.

 

[Colt]

And God gave Canaan to the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And then God took back the lease after the Son was rejected and killed!


Matthew 21:33-46 reads:

“Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower and he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit and the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first and they did likewise to them. Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?” They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.” Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected

Has become the chief cornerstone.

This was the Lord’s doing,

And it is marvelous in our eyes?’

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it and whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them, but when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet.”

 

[IndigoChild5559]

..when was that, exactly?
A lot has happened since then.

.

Genesis states that it is an everlasting covenant. So it will never matter how much time has passed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Genesis states that it is an everlasting covenant. So it will never matter how much time has passed.

You can believe that Genesis is an accurate document if you like.
I don't. Most people living over 2000 years ago could not read and write.
That leaves it wide open to fraud and manipulation.

In any case, an "everlasting covenant" can be broken if people do not behave righteously.
I do not believe in falsehood. I do not believe that G-d chooses to support people through "who they are" over what they are.

 

[Colt]

You can believe that Genesis is an accurate document if you like.
I don't. Most people living over 2000 years ago could not read and write.
That leaves it wide open to fraud and manipulation.

In any case, an "everlasting covenant" can be broken if people do not behave righteously.
I do not believe in falsehood. I do not believe that G-d chooses to support people through "who they are" over what they are.

So, are you saying that the Israelite priest class may have cooked the books in their own favor? Elevating themselves high above others? Apple of Gods eye? Chosen people while the Gentiles were dogs?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In any case, an "everlasting covenant" can be broken if people do not behave righteously.
It depends. Some aspects of the covenant are indeed conditional, as you say. But other aspects are UNconditional. For example, the Land belonging to Israel is unconditional. But being allowed to live on the land is conditional. IOW there are times in history where God has exiled Israel, but even during those times, the Land has still belonged to Israel.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the Land belonging to Israel is unconditional..

I don't even know what that means.

As far as I'm aware, in practice, the land "belongs" to whomsoever is governing it.
I'll leave that to nations squabbling with one another.
If we look at political maps of the world, we see that borders and nations are in a constant state of flux.

Ideally, nations should be governed by the people who reside in them in a democratic manner.
Saying that "Israel" must be governed by tribal Jews, even if it is against the majority's wishes, does not please G-d, imo. It is a recipe for disaster.