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

[SINNERSAVED]

okay , i have to bring this to the table, and its not to say , if our Lord Jesus walked the earth , it be good to know what we can about Him other then His words and that He was the son of God, we all know that He was a Nazarene  in a town of Galilee , and so it goes , that we have the bible, that has been translated from , greek , and Hebrew, and then to English, but was there a  Aramaic start to this , as far as language,. and ethnic back ground, ?

i am asking to try to clear this up for my research , and so i want to make it easy , and simple of what i am asking, and it may be a few questions, to get the right answers , if i do this right , okay  and thank you in advance i am not wanting to be rude , or discriminating at all, but to find answers.

okay , if Jesus came from Nazareth , what nationality  was He ? was He a Arabic, culture at the time,  jewish ? Hebrew ,  greek , or something else ?

was Jesus of a dark skin, or white skin, or a brown skin complexion?

was the bible first written in what language to what language  to English,

 what language would have Jesus spoken while here walking side by side with man ?

did He come for just one race, or all races  to the jew and the gentile?

just asking, and thank you , and blessings to you all this is for information  ,,or where can we get information or resources to these questions,

thank you  peace,........

[other one]

He is the son of God. He has no human male ancestors but God. 

[SINNERSAVED]

1 minute ago, other one said:

He is the son of God. He has no human male ancestors but God. 

yes , the son of God, but he came to a place, of calling and to a people , and spoke, and so He had to be of a origin with in the people of a ethnic race and language to communicate and to be able to fit in, ?

 there is still things that kept Him in with the people , and not stand out, for He had to grow up , and be part of the culture and belief system of the time, ?

thank you Otherone, 

[Willa]

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.

[Paradigm]

Good topic SS.

 

We know that he was from the tribe of Judah.  though nothing is mentioned specifically, He also was of Levite, but of the Kohenim. (Priests) For we know that he was related on his mother's side to John the Baptist which was the priestly lineage. 

Many believe that Aramaic was the common language spoken at the time. It is a very close sister language to Hebrew. However we that Hebrew was widely spoken or there would have been no reason to have the transcription on the stake in Hebrew. Neither does it say anything about Aramaic being written there either. 

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.

(Some time we can discuss why the superscription was so offensive to some)

Most believe that the NT was originally written in Greek. However, I think there is more and more evidence that was not the case. Part of it such as Paul's letters may have been, but many of the early historians claimed that Matthew was written in Hebrew. I believe many other books were originally written in Hebrew for a number of reasons. For one thing, the style of Hebrew as compared to proper Greek. Hebrew is very redundant and differs from the way Greek is written or spoken. For example:

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Also it is proper Hebrew to begin statements with "And." This is not proper Greek. Not only do we see this style in the Hebrew Tanakh throughout, but also in the NT. For example:

 

Genesis 1:2-4

² And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

³ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

⁴ And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

 

John 1:3-5

 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

⁴ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

⁵ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

Why would so many of these kinds of statements below be written if Hebrew was a dead language in the 1st Century as many have believed?

John 5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

John 19:17

And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

 

What language did Y'shua speak to Shaul?

Acts 26:14

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

 

What language did Paul use to speak to the crowd?

 

Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

 

Acts 22:2

(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Revelation is written in a very Hebrew style. The name below is specified in both languages. 

Revelation 9:11

And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

 

One thing that probably should be mentioned is this: The word "Jew" comes from the word "Judah." Judah was a tribe and also became a house/kingdom. The term Jew began to be used in a way that could refer to tribes of that southern kingdom or people of tribes that settled there. For example, Paul refers to himself as a Jew, but he also explains that he was of the tribe of Benjamin. He also refers to himself as a Hebrew. 

The first time the term "hebrew" is used refers to Abraham. His descendants began to be referred to as Hebrews. As Jacob's descendants grew they were called Israel so you see the term Hebrew used in Exodus as well as the corporate Israel. 

All roosters are chickens. Not all chickens are roosters. All Texans are American, not all Americans are Texans. All Jews are Israelites. Not all Israelites are Jews. However, modern day Judaism and Christianity use the terms pretty much in a synonymous way. 

Sorry I didn't get to all of your questions. 

 

 

[SINNERSAVED]

6 minutes ago, Paradigm said:

Good topic SS.

 

We know that he was from the tribe of Judah.  though nothing is mentioned specifically, He also was of Levite, but of the Kohenim. (Priests) For we know that he was related on his mother's side to John the Baptist which was the priestly lineage. 

Many believe that Aramaic was the common language spoken at the time. It is a very close sister language to Hebrew. However we that Hebrew was widely spoken or there would have been no reason to have the transcription on the stake in Hebrew. Neither does it say anything about Aramaic being written there either. 

Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.

(Some time we can discuss why the superscription was so offensive to some)

Most believe that the NT was originally written in Greek. However, I think there is more and more evidence that was not the case. Part of it such as Paul's letters may have been, but many of the early historians claimed that Matthew was written in Hebrew. I believe many other books were originally written in Hebrew for a number of reasons. For one thing, the style of Hebrew as compared to proper Greek. Hebrew is very redundant and differs from the way Greek is written or spoken. For example:

Luke 22:15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

Also it is proper Hebrew to begin statements with "And." This is not proper Greek. Not only do we see this style in the Hebrew Tanakh throughout, but also in the NT. For example:

 

Genesis 1:2-4

² And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

³ And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

⁴ And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

 

John 1:3-5

 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

⁴ In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

⁵ And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

Why would so many of these kinds of statements below be written if Hebrew was a dead language in the 1st Century as many have believed?

John 5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

John 19:17

And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

 

What language did Y'shua speak to Shaul?

Acts 26:14

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

 

What language did Paul use to speak to the crowd?

 

Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

 

Acts 22:2

(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Revelation is written in a very Hebrew style. The name below is specified in both languages. 

Revelation 9:11

And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

 

One thing that probably should be mentioned is this: The word "Jew" comes from the word "Judah." Judah was a tribe and also became a house/kingdom. The term Jew began to be used in a way that could refer to tribes of that southern kingdom or people of tribes that settled there. For example, Paul refers to himself as a Jew, but he also explains that he was of the tribe of Benjamin. He also refers to himself as a Hebrew. 

The first time the term "hebrew" is used refers to Abraham. His descendants began to be referred to as Hebrews. As Jacob's descendants grew they were called Israel so you see the term Hebrew used in Exodus as well as the corporate Israel. 

All roosters are chickens. Not all chickens are roosters. All Texans are American, not all Americans are Texans. All Jews are Israelites. Not all Israelites are Jews. However, modern day Judaism and Christianity use the terms pretty much in a synonymous way. 

Sorry I didn't get to all of your questions. 

 

 

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

[Paradigm]

20 minutes 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

I have an Aramaic NT that I like. Like I said, Aramaic is close to Hebrew. Some of the NT may have been written in Aramaic. 

I think that the Dead Sea Scrolls are also relevant to the discussion. By far, most of what was found was Hebrew texts. I think only about 3 percent was Greek. 

[SINNERSAVED]

2 minutes ago, Paradigm said:

I have an Aramaic NT that I like. Like I said, Aramaic is close to Hebrew. Some of the NT may have been written in Aramaic. 

I think that the Dead Sea Scrolls are also relevant to the discussion. By far, most of what was found was Hebrew texts. I think only about 3 percent was Greek. 

thats interesting  thanks, let me know when you have more info ?

thank you brother

[Jayne]

2 hours ago, SINNERSAVED said:

was the bible first written in what language to what language  to English,

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.”

Edited April 13, 2016 by Jayne

[RustyAngeL]

2 hours ago, other one said:

He is the son of God. He has no human male ancestors but God. 

Correct...