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

[Sister]

On 18/04/2016 at 0:35 AM, Ezra said:

There's always good old snail mail.

Yes funny.  But seriously,....I must admit that in the past I marked my bible, wrote notes in there, highlighted, and if I wanted to go back and find something, it would take me hours sometimes to find that exact verse and scripture , so I wrote down in my back pages all the important ones under their subjects, but I ran out of space.  When I discovered the KJV online search, I could find scriptures in seconds, it was incredible, all that frustration gone.  But last week, my internet coverage kept dropping out for about 5 days, and still ongoing, and I felt a bit lost.  The good thing about it was the scriptures I needed were already in my head and in my heart.  I realised that when I am looking up something on the KJV online search, I already know what I am looking for from all those years of actually reading my bible to the point where the pages are falling out.  I always try to encourage Bopeep to search those scriptures out for herself instead of relying on the internet, and someone else's interpretation also.  If she needs a scripture, it should already be in her heart, memorised, and she can just go to the online search for that particular bible verse to save time, and just show the verses straight from herself, what she knows.  It looks like I am picking on her, but I am not.  One day there is going to be no internet available for us, and we are going to have to use what we have been already given, what we have personally read, and use what the spirit has shown us in making important decisions.

 

[Qnts2]

25 minutes ago, inchrist said:

This curse was removed

The word of the LORD came to Haggai a second time on the twenty-fourth day of the month. 'Tell Zerubabel the governor of Judah that I will shake the heavens and the earth. I will overturn royal thrones and shatter the power of foreign kingdoms. I will overthrow chariots and their drivers; horses and their riders will fall, each by the sword of his brother. On that day,' declared the LORD Almighty, 'I will take you, my servant, Zerubabel son of Shealtiel', declares the LORD, 'and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,' declares the LORD Almighty." (Haggai 2:20-23)

Zerubabel, is the grandson of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Matthew 1:12) 

Just as Jeremiah said that Jeconiah was the signet ring that God would remove, so now this same man's grandson is the signet ring God wishes to put back on.

 

 

If Luke’s intention was to show Mary's genealogy, he would have clearly stated it. Luke brings out the Davidic descent of Joseph in other places too (Lk. 1:27; 2:4; 3:23)

Jesus was conceived and born in wedlock, Christ was not conceived before or born before wedlock but both in wedlock, when we marry we are one flesh, Christ is a product of this one flesh, even though its from a virgin process, still does not change the very nature of the one flesh. Joseph is Jesus father, from out of one flesh. Not adoption. Joseph did not adopt Jesus. Jesus came out of one flesh (im sorry i keep repeating this - but clearly needs to be hammered home). You can not have adoption out of that concept.

Christ did have inheritance rights through Joseph through levitical law and a case study of Boaz explaining the two genealogies, as well as through the marriage divine concept of one Flesh.

There is no indication at all that Luke has Mary in mind...in fact the Greek syntax of Lukes genealogy would agree with me on that.

Further I have the consistency of the bible continually counting males and male geneologies

 

I disagree about Jeconian curse.

It is so clearly shown in Luke that he is giving the view and history of Mary, I find it surprising that anyone would miss it.

Jesus did not have inheritance rights through Joseph. The right to a throne, or being a priest, etc. comes thru the physical father, and Joseph was not the father of Jesus. 

And you are incorrect using a levirate marriage as an example of two genealogies. The child of a Levirate marriage is counted as the offspring of the diseased husband. Read about Onan.

The marriage making a husband and wife one flesh also has nothing to do with inheritance rights which are counted thru the male linage, which is why the linage is always traced thru the male linage. Jesus is the exception as I have already shown, because inheritance rights comes thru the actual Father who is God, and the human linage can come through Mary since the linage does not carry the requirement of inheritance.

 

[Ezra]

57 minutes ago, inchrist said:

Based on forensic on skulls found in Galilee round the time of Jesus, this could be the closest description or features of Christ.

A very poor representation indeed.

[Qnts2]

7 hours ago, inchrist said:

Who are you, great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you are a plain; and he will bring out the capstone with shouts of Grace, grace, to it!”
Zechariah 4:7

 

 

You might want to look at Tamars twins. Considering Judah would descend from Perez

Even if that was the case, Luke being also the genealogy of Joseph...still strengthens my position as Joseph would inherit from that line.

 

 

Really? Show me exactly any where, where Luke specifically states it's Mary's genealogy? In fact show me any where, where Luke referes to Mary directly coming from the line of King David when he addresses her....can you show me something similar to this?

Luke 2:4
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.

Do you have anything that states that about Mary?

Can you show me exactly in the greek syntax Luke has Mary in mind?

 

 

Has everything to do with inheritence as God sees ONE not two. Joseph is not relegated to some mere pedestrian bystander

 

I see no reason that Tamars twins have anything to do with the question.

Genesis 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” ⁹ Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother

Genesis 38:8-9 is talking about a levirate marriage. The offspring are considered the offspring of the deceased brother.

Luke is consistently talking about Mary, not Joseph. The father of Mary was Heli, as listed in Luke. Jacob was the father of Joseph. (Mary is mentioned in the Talmud as the daughter of Heli)

I do not entirely agree with this article but it does that pretty good analysis of the linages from an OT understanding.

http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/v05-n06/genealogy 

[angels4u]

On 4/13/2016 at 4:30 PM, SINNERSAVED said:

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,........

 

How would you answer your own question?

[MorningGlory]

3 minutes ago, angels4u said:

How would you answer your own question?

I'd like to know that myself, angels.  A long time Christian who would ask this has never read Scripture because the answers are all in the Bible.

[missmuffet]

3 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

I'd like to know that myself, angels.  A long time Christian who would ask this has never read Scripture because the answers are all in the Bible.

A lot of times people deny what the Bible has to say and they give those words their own meaning. Unfortunately this has become quite common.

[Qnts2]

49 minutes ago, inchrist said:

Well, Judah lost two sons, then gets given two sons - twins, now the fact that these twins were to be for Judahs sons, legally yes in a levitical marriage its still rekend in the genealogies that Tamar's twins are listed as Judah's sons, obed is listed as Boaz son. The levitical marriage is a far more complicated process than what you're trying to make it out to be.

 

 

Lets assume you are right, this does not weaking my case Luke is Josephs genealogy from his deceased "father", from a Levitical union - so this is a moot point

Similarly where you've placed Matthew's genealogy as cursed, does not weaking Luke’s genealogy being Josephs from a Levitical union - this is a moot point.

 

 

Incorrect Luke talks of both:

Lk. 1:27: ‘to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the House of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.’ 

Lk. 2:4: ‘Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the House and Family of David.’ 

This is where your case is weak, no where does it ever say Mary from the House of David or Mary from the seed of David or Mary the daughter of David, yet it always refers to Joseph in Luke and in Matthew coming from the line of David.

Mt. 1:20: ‘But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”’ 

 

If that was Luke’s intention he would of clearly stated it.

Now the site you provided me, states the following

"In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article 'the' with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that this was not really Joseph's genealogy, but his wife Miriam's (Mary)."

This is nothing more than trying to force interpretation.

The fact the definte article is missing does not clearly indicate that Joseph is skipped in the genealogy, nore can it be taken as being intentionally skipped.

What you present has no strength in its merits.
 

The same Talmud that mentions the curse has been lifted Matthews genealogy?

The problem with your entire argument is first, you miss the entire point of a levirate (not levitical) marriage which is to carry on the name of the deceased husband who has no sons, and passing on his inheritance.

Deut 25:5“When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. ⁶ It shall be that the firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

If you will notice, only the first born son is of the name of the deceased, not the second born. In scripture, sometimes for historical reasons, it mentions the physical father, but in matters of inheritance for the first born, the deceased husband is the legal father.  

Again, the wife does not give the male children a tribe or and inheritance. So, it does not matter which tribe the wife was born into. Tribes are based on the father. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, and was not a Levite. If Jesus had been a Levite, He was disqualifed from being the Messiah, who was prophesied to be of the tribe of Judah. 

The Talmud is a book of debates, with a wide range of opinions, so yes, the Talmud says the curse was lifted, but the Talmud also says the curse was not lifted. However, in the Talmud, where it mentions Mary as the daughter of Heli, there are no differing opinions. Linage is very important in Judaism and the OT. If there were differing opinions of linage, that person is disqualified from certain things.

Now, no where is it mentioned that Jesus father was the product of a Levirate marriage, so your assumptions are extra-biblical.

[Qnts2]

2 minutes ago, inchrist said:

I dont know why you keep bringing up the tribe of levi? Its no where near my discussions with you.

Again with the Talmud, the same Talmud that aslo argues for rights the child has with the biological father....listen the Talmud is interesting on the one hand but Im not bothered by it on the other hand. Since it's used to discridit Jesus genealogy all together. So really I wouldnt put to much faith in it as weight of evidence.

I've asked you repeatedly from scripture not the Talmud where does it ever say Mary from the tribe of David?

You cant provide any....that is extra biblical. In fact you have to depend on the Talmud to argue your case. Where I have used only scripture to argue my case.

Yet Luke and Matthew state Joseph and ONLY Joseph is from the tribe of judah, then we are presented with two genealogies to David from the tribe of Judah, that needs to be examined.

The fact that a levirate marriage is biblical, and using that law which is biblical to explain the two genealogies, which was still very much in practice at that time is not extra biblical, since there is glaring absence of evidence presented by you to state other wise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I brought up Levite's because you talked about them.

You said 'Well, Judah lost two sons, then gets given two sons - twins, now the fact that these twins were to be for Judahs sons, legally yes in a levitical marriage its still rekend in the genealogies that Tamar's twins are listed as Judah's sons, obed is listed as Boaz son. The levitical marriage is a far more complicated process than what you're trying to make it out to be.

 

 

Lets assume you are right, this does not weaking my case Luke is Josephs genealogy from his deceased "father", from a Levitical union - so this is a moot point

Similarly where you've placed Matthew's genealogy as cursed, does not weaking Luke’s genealogy being Josephs from a Levitical union - this is a moot point.

I have repeatedly said that Mary's linage comes from the book of Luke, since the book of Luke is about Mary and from Mary's perspective. To add additional information, I mentioned the Talmud which says Mary's father was Heli, just as the book of Luke says Mary's father was Heli. For example, it is only in the book of Luke that we read about the angel Gabriel visiting Mary, and about Elizabeth, and Mary's visit with Elizabeth. In Luke, Mary is the active role. 

The law concerning a levirate marriage is biblical, and I quoted the law from the OT, but the NT never, ever says that Joseph was the result of a levirate marrige. That is what is extra-biblical. Your claim that Joseph is from a levirate marriage. 

[Qnts2]

5 hours ago, inchrist said:

Was a spelling mistake on my side...

 

 

Yes you have repeatedly stated as such however with very little to no evidence for support, your only evidence you can supply is mere opinions, which is nothing more than pleading....yet Joseph the son of David speaks volumes by Luke and Matthew. The same cant be said about Mary.

 

 

Yet evidence of its practice is still evident in the NT

 

And yet never ever refers to Mary as the daughter of David like we see in Matthew

Mt. 1:20: ‘But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”’ 

Yet Luke also calls Joseph the son of David, never Mary....

Your view is also mere opinion, but mine is at least supported by scripture, and a large number of Christians who agree. To use a Jewish term, your view is a minority opinion. Very few hold to a levirate explanation as it is not mentioned in the NT as Joseph being the result of a levirate marriage.

In Judaism, it is uncommon for a woman to be referred to as a daughter in linage as inheritance does not come thru the mother. The linage of Mary in Luke makes it clear that Mary is the descendent of David. In a linage, the son is called the son of 'ancestor', not the supposed son, making it clear that the son is not really the son. 

Matthew is addressing the Jewish people using common Jewish terminology, but the linage given in Matthew is not a formal linage as women are not included in a formal linage for inheritance rights.

I think we are pretty much done, as we will not agree.