If Jesus was a Nazarene,in Galilee what was His ethnic back ground ?

[SINNERSAVED]

2 hours ago, Jayne said:

Hi, Sinnersaved - Use these notes as a start to your research and go from there. 

• Beginning when Moses first wrote down, "In the beginning....", the Old Testament was originally written in Old Hebrew with a little Aramaic showing up here and there.  Before Jesus was ever born [300 to 200 BC] and before the New Testament was even written, the entire Old Testament was translated into a common, everyday Greek called Koine Greek.  Why? People weren't really speaking Hebrew like they once did.  That Greek translation of the Old Testament is called the Septuagint.  According to every authority I can find - it contains a few errors - that's obvious because it was just a translation - not divinely inspired.  Only the originals were divinely inspired.  God's Words remains 100% perfect and true even with translation errors/corrections across the ages.  In my own opinion, everytime we find older and older manuscripts, our Bibles should be compared to them.

 

• Then the New Testament was written entirely in Koine Greek. [Between circa 30 to 60 AD]

 

• About 350 AD , the final and official canonization was made and the Bible was put together.  The only bone of contention was the Apocrypha which is still argued over today.

 

• Some Latin versions were beginning to pop up and around 400 AD (again, I don't remember the exact date) Pope Damascus asked a guy named Jerome to make an official Latin translation as Koine Greek was not the populate language anymore.  He did so and it is called the Latin Vulgate - vulgate meaning "vulgar" or "common" language of the people.  He made many, many edits over the years.  All GOOD translators do that because human frailty leads to error.

 

• Between 600 AD and 1380 AD, the Bible was translated into Arabic, Czech, Chinese, Hungarian, German, Slovik, and MUCH more.  For that I am grateful that God provides and HAS provided for all people of all languages to read his Word.

 

• IN 1380 or so, a man named John Wycliffe wanted to translate the Bible into English for those who spoke it.  The pope at that time was obviously not like Pope Damascus and forbade Wycliffe from translating the Bible into English.  He said, "Good grief!  Laymen are too illiterate too read and they will only trample on it like swine!  You'll even have WOMEN reading it!"  Wycliffe translated it anyway.

 

• Buy the time the printing press arrived, people were calling for scriptures to be translated BACK into Greek again.  So another man, Erasmus, did so and it was called the Textus Receptus.  He, too, made many revisions over many years.  The Scriptures were also translated into Russian, Spanish, Portuguese, Latvian, Finnish, and again MUCH more.

 

• There were many English translation going on:  Coverdale, Tyndale's incomplete translation, the Bishop's Bible.  But the Geneva was the first English translation made from the very oldest of manuscripts available at the time.  The Geneva was a private translation done that was popular with Protestants and other "rebels".

 

• By the time that the King James Bible came along, the translators put a preface in the King James that is no longer published in modern copies. I find that sad. They explained WHY the need for yet another English translation when there were some good ones already out there. They stated that it was an opportunity to revise and correct existing Bibles. Their exact words were “nothing is begun and perfected at the same time.” They included over 8000 marginal notes because at time the King James translator’s themselves weren’t sure of how BEST to translate very single word.

 

• They were convicted that they had the best translation for the time, but in no way asserted that theirs was an inspired translation (stating only the originals were) and no way asserted that their version of English would last forever - as they stated that the Word should be in the language of the common man. They did not condemn other translations, but claimed that only the original texts were inspired.

 

• Here are some of their verbatim words:  “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should needs to make a new translation, or yet to make a bad one, a good one. But to make good ones better or out of many good ones, one principal good one.”       “Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”        "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.”

so let me ask you this Jayne, which bible do you use as your main bible,  and why do you think yours is the best one? I use the kjv, but have others ?

 thank you for the info, much blessings to you  thank you

[Jayne]

2 hours ago, SINNERSAVED said:

so let me ask you this Jayne, which bible do you use as your main bible,  and why do you think yours is the best one? I use the kjv, but have others ?

 thank you for the info, much blessings to you  thank you

I like the King James.  I was raised on it and I was saved when someone was preaching from it.

Today, it's not my main preference.  I primarily use the ESV, but will also look at others from time to time.  I have a King James on my nightstand.  The ESV is a very close word-for-word translation.  But there is also nothing wrong with a phrase-for-phrase translation.  I use ESV for personal study and for preparation for teaching Sunday School and a community Bible class.

[SINNERSAVED]

5 minutes ago, Jayne said:

I like the King James.  I was raised on it and I was saved when someone was preaching from it.

Today, it's not my main preference.  I primarily use the ESV, but will also look at others from time to time.  I have a King James on my nightstand.  The ESV is a very close word-for-word translation.  But there is also nothing wrong with a phrase-for-phrase translation.  I use ESV for personal study and for preparation for teaching Sunday School and a community Bible class.

that's cool . I really like my large print king james , but I will try the ESV, and give it a try thank you

shalom

[Qnts2]

5 hours ago, SINNERSAVED said:

thanks brother that was really good, and with scripture to back it up, Hebrew is what many draw to , but i was thinking there be Aramaic involvement, prior to the bibles being translated, and then we see there is also a latin, translation, i don't even know how that was placed in there, but i am, trying to line up the dots,

 blessings  and shalom

Aramaic was the language in Babylon and was picked up by the children of Israel while in captivity. After that, some sections of the Tenakh were written in Aramaic.

Ezra 4:8-6:18, Ezra 7:12-7:26, Jeremiah 10:11, and Daniel 2:4-7:28

There were Aramaic translations with commentary called the Targums. They still exist but are used by very few.

 

 

[SINNERSAVED]

14 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

Aramaic was the language in Babylon and was picked up by the children of Israel while in captivity. After that, some sections of the Tenakh were written in Aramaic.

Ezra 4:8-6:18, Ezra 7:12-7:26, Jeremiah 10:11, and Daniel 2:4-7:28

There were Aramaic translations with commentary called the Targums. They still exist but are used by very few.

 

 

that was great thank you for that information,  blessings to you

[Retrobyter]

8 hours ago, Willa said:

He was Jewish of the line of David and Abraham.  He was both of the priestly line and the kingly line.  He inherited Josephs linage by adoption and Mary's linage is probably given in Luke 3:23-38.  This was the priestly line--Levi.  The Levites were priests.   Both are Hebrew.  However there are a couple of gentile women in that linage.  Ruth became Jewish, and Rahab also is given in the linage and she was from Jericho.  Matt 1:5 

Anyhow, they returned to Bethlehem for the enrollment--the city of David.  That was their citizenship, even though they had lived other places.

Shalom, Willa.

No, sorry, but that's not quite right. You have the kingly line correct (through Yosef's adoption), but you haven't thought through Miryam's lineage rightly:

Luke 3:23-33
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
KJV

He was NOT of the Levitical line; He was a JEW (of JUDAH)! He was a SON OF DAVID through His mother (just not through Shlomoh or Solomon)! Needing to enroll in the "city of David" CONFIRMS that David and therefore Judah were His heritage.

Hebrews 7:1-17
1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
KJV

I think you're somewhat confused by Luke 1, which calls Eliy-Shevah (Elisabeth) a "cousin" of Miryam (Mary):

Luke 1:5
5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
KJV

Luke 1:36
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
KJV

But the word "cousin" doesn't necessarily refer to CLOSE relationship, even though it is clear they knew each other.

NT:4773 suggenees (soong-ghen-ace'); from NT:4862 and NT:1085; a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman:
KJV - cousin, kin (-sfolk, -sman).

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

IF there was any closer relationship, it would have had to be through marriage, as a "cousin-in-law." However, nothing in the text so demands that interpretation.

[Willa]

I apologize, Retrobyter, I apparently was misinformed.  I was led to believe that people with the names of Levi and Cohen were of the priestly tribe of Levites.  Please forgive me ignorance and thank you for correcting me.

[Qnts2]

50 minutes ago, Willa said:

I apologize, Retrobyter, I apparently was misinformed.  I was led to believe that people with the names of Levi and Cohen were of the priestly tribe of Levites.  Please forgive me ignorance and thank you for correcting me.

Just a comment. The children of Israel often give first names from biblical people, so Levi and Cohen as a first name would not necessarily apply to tribal linage. Children of Israel were called by the first name, and then 'son of xxxx', but while dispersed in other countries, were required to take a last name. The people from the tribe of Levi often took the last name indicating their tribe, Levi, Levitt, Cohen, Katz, etc. So a Jewish person with the last name of Levi.. or Cohen, are usually of that tribe. 

[Ezra]

On 13/04/2016 at 1:30 PM, SINNERSAVED said:

okay , if Jesus came from Nazareth , what nationality  was He ?

The first response to this question is "Good grief!"  If the genealogies of Christ show His descent from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David, what *nationality* would that be? While Christ lived in Nazareth, He was born in Bethlehem, the city of David. He was born King of the Jews even though from everlasting to everlasting He is God.

Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:1,2).

It is significant that when verse 2 was quoted to Herod by those who supposedly knew the Scriptures, they omitted the last clause. Had they included it, Herod would have known that God had taken human form and been born a babe in Bethlehem.

[missmuffet]

Question: "Was Jesus a Jew?"

Answer: One needs only to search the internet today to determine that there is great controversy and disagreement over the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth was actually Jewish. Before we can answer this question adequately, we must first ask another question: who (or what) is a Jew? Even this question has its controversial elements, and the answer depends on who is answering. But one definition that each of the major sects of Judaism—Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform—would probably agree to is, “A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.”

Although the Hebrew Bible does not specifically state anywhere that matrilineal descent should be used, modern rabbinical Judaism believes that there are several passages in the Torah where this is understood or implied, such as Deuteronomy 7:1-5; Leviticus 24:10; and Ezra 10:2-3. Then there are several examples in Scripture of Gentiles converting to Judaism (e.g., Ruth, the Moabitess; see Ruth 1:16 where Ruth voices her desire to convert) and are considered every bit as Jewish as an ethnic Jew.

So, let’s consider two questions: Was Jesus a Jew ethnically? And, was Jesus an observant Jew religiously?

Was Jesus a Jew ethnically, or was his mother a Jew? Jesus clearly identified with the Jews of His day, His physical people and tribe, and their religion (although correcting its errors). God purposely sent Him to Judah: “He came to His own [Judah], and His own [Judah] did not receive Him. But as many [Jews] as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name... (John 1:11-12 NKJV), and He clearly said, "You [Gentiles] worship what you do not know; we [Jews] know what we [Jews] worship, for salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22).

The very first verse of the New Testament clearly proclaims the Jewish ethnicity of Jesus. “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1). It is evident from passages like Hebrews 7:14, “For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah,” that Jesus descended from the tribe of Judah, from which we get the name “Jew.” And what about Mary, the mother of Jesus? In the genealogy in Luke chapter 3, we see clearly that Mary was a direct descendant of King David which gave Jesus the legal right to ascend the Jewish throne as well as establishing without any doubt that Jesus was a Jew ethnically.

Was Jesus an observant Jew religiously? Both of Jesus' parents had “done everything required by the Law of the Lord” (Luke 2:39). His aunt and uncle, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were also Torah-observant Jews (Luke 1:6), so we can see that probably the whole family took their Jewish faith very seriously.

In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7), Jesus continually affirmed the authority of the Torah and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17) even in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 5:19-20). He regularly attended synagogue (Luke 4:16), and His teaching was respected by the other Jews of His day (Luke 4:15). He taught in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (Luke 21:37), and if He were not a Jew, His going into that part of the Temple would simply not have been allowed (Acts 21:28-30).

Jesus also displayed the outward signs of being an observant Jew. He wore tzitzit (tassles) on His clothing (Luke 8:44; Matthew 14:36) to serve as a reminder of the commandments (Numbers 15:37-39). He observed Passover (John 2:13) and went up to Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 16:16) on this very important Jewish pilgrimage feast day. He observed Succoth, or the feast of tabernacles (John 7:2, 10) and went up to Jerusalem (John 7:14) as required in the Torah. He also observed Hanukkah, the festival of lights (John 10:22) and probably Rosh Hashanah, the feast of trumpets (John 5:1), going up to Jerusalem on both those occasions as well, even though it isn't commanded in the Torah. Clearly, Jesus identified Himself as a Jew (John 4:22) and as King of the Jews (Mark 15:2). From His birth to His last Passover Seder (Luke 22:14-15), Jesus lived as an observant Jew.

http://www.gotquestions.org/was-Jesus-a-Jew.html