?Jesus was from Palestine?

lazydaisy

Forgive me, can someone please explain this to me. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, which was located in Judea which was an area that was a part of Palestine? Im talking at the time of his birth - clearly it is Isreal now.

How come no one talks about this? We all think he was an Isrealite but he was really Palestinian?

Asiaprod

lazydaisy wrote:

Forgive me, can someone please explain this to me?

I can answer that because I was reading about it earlier today on an Archeology web site I read regularly.

As Quoted, The answer is that nobody knows for sure.

Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 as one proof that Jesus was the anticipated Messiah. Micah predicted that out of Bethlehem would "come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel."

The picture drawn by Matthew is of an engaged couple from Bethlehem.

Luke describes how Joseph and Mary had to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in order to take part in the Roman census and taxation. Jesus was born while they were in Bethlehem. (However, this story seems a little strange since the status of a woman in 1st century Palestine was only slightly above that of a slave. Only Joseph would be required to register with the authorities, because only men paid taxes. The presence of his fiancé or wife would be redundant. Mary would hardly have made the 100 mile trip while 9 months pregnant unless it was absolutely necessary. Joseph would have traveled alone.)

There are numerous references in New Testament that identify Jesus as coming from Nazareth. The early Christians were called "Nazarenes."

Conservative Christians usually believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Since Matthew and Luke both refer to Bethlehem, then that must have been Jesus' place of birth.

Most liberal Christians believe that he was born in Nazareth, in the Galilee.

A new possibility has been suggested recently. There appears to have been a small hamlet in Galilee that was also called Bethlehem. It was located very close to Nazareth.

Excelsior

Great response Asiaprod.

Asiaprod wrote:

Mary would hardly have made the 100 mile trip while 9 months pregnant unless it was absolutely necessary. Joseph would have traveled alone.)

Mary however is distinct from other women at the time because she was bearing a child that her fiancé didn't conceive and yet he had not rejected her. Let me be cheeky here and say that you wouldn't let your wife out of your sight if she had claimed God had impregnated her and if God then sent a messenger to you to tell you to stand by her.

To answer the initial question, Jesus is always referred to as a Palestinian in academic circles. The traditional way to refer to him is as a Palestinian 2nd Temple Jew. I have never heard him called Israeli. The appropriate term would be Israelite seeing as Israel in his time was an entirely different conception from that controversial nation today. (seeing as he thought he was Israel....)

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

Great response Asiaprod.

Thanks, but understand, I don't have a clue to the answer. As I said, only moments before the post I was reading this on the Israel Archiology site, and was interested in their reasoning:)

Excelsior

I guess the answer to the initial poster's question is yes, Jesus is Palestinian. But also he is an Israelite.

But I wonder if they have had experience of Jesus being referred to as something other than Palestinian or is this a sense that they have of Jesus' roots being obscured? He was an Israelite in that he was a son of Israel and a member of the Abrahamic covenant. The Biblical concepts of Israelite and Palestinian have no direct mapping on to the nation of Israel and the political entity that is Palestine today. To say that Jesus was an Israelite says nothing about modern Israel and the same with Palestine.

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

Let me be cheeky here and say that you wouldn't let your wife out of your sight if she had claimed God had impregnated her and if God then sent a messenger to you to tell you to stand by her.

I would have to agree with that Logic:)

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

But I wonder if they have had experience of Jesus being referred to as something other than Palestinian or is this a sense that they have of Jesus' roots being obscured? .

here is the link, check it out

http://www.archaeology.org/0511/abstracts/jesus.html

UU

How ironic! The minister of the Unitarian Church I attend wrote an article on Christmas and in a part of it he said:

Rev. Bill Darlison wrote:

Was he born in Narareth or in Bethlehem, and, if Bethlehem, was it Bethlehem in Judea or Bethlehem in Galilee?

Now here's something else to start looking into! Go on Excelsior and Asiaprod (or anyone else), see who can get the most information the fastest - I'm just too lazy to bother:o (lol)!

Asiaprod

As already stated UU, no one knows the answer.

wiseones2cents

What do you people think about this Verse. Could it have been Syria?

Luke 2:1-3 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)And everyone went to his own town to register.

BrianCalgary

Actually wiseone the reference to Quirinius is just to give a time reference not to say that Bethlehem was in Syria. It is like saying that I was born in Toronto while Kennedy was the president. It doesn't mean that Toronto is in the USA.

With regard to Jesus' nationality, geographically Bethlehem is in present day Palestine, but back then you were identified racially, therefore Jesus was Jewish and a member of Israel. Just as I was born in Canada of Irish parentage, there are those who call me Irish because of my blood heritage, even though I am a Canadian.

So in concluion Jesus is a Jew of the nation of Israel, born in Bethlehem and since He spent his teen years in Nazareth in Galilee, where His dad is from, He is Galileen.

I was raised in the province of Ontario and have lived in Alberta for 15 of the last 18 years and consider myself an Albertan when I am in th econfines of Canada. My friends in Ontario would also classify me as an Albertan as the people of Jesus time would say that He was from Galilee.

wiseones2cents

BrianCalgary wrote:

Actually wiseone the reference to Quirinius is just to give a time reference not to say that Bethlehem was in Syria. It is like saying that I was born in Toronto while Kennedy was the president. It doesn't mean that Toronto is in the USA.

With regard to Jesus' nationality, geographically Bethlehem is in present day Palestine, but back then you were identified racially, therefore Jesus was Jewish and a member of Israel. Just as I was born in Canada of Irish parentage, there are those who call me Irish because of my blood heritage, even though I am a Canadian.

So in concluion Jesus is a Jew of the nation of Israel, born in Bethlehem and since He spent his teen years in Nazareth in Galilee, where His dad is from, He is Galileen.

I was raised in the province of Ontario and have lived in Alberta for 15 of the last 18 years and consider myself an Albertan when I am in th econfines of Canada. My friends in Ontario would also classify me as an Albertan as the people of Jesus time would say that He was from Galilee.

You say it has to do with time refference.I'm saying Galilee region was in Syria.There is no doubt Bethlehem is in present day Palestine. Though we are reffering to back then.

Since Jesus never lived in Bethlehem. He is not considered from Bethlehem. If I am an Irish Canadian and I was born in Hawaii while my parents were on vacation. Does that make me Hawaiian or Canadian or Irish?

UU

You would be Hawaiian-Canadian-Irish or more accurately American-Canadian-Irish as Hawaii is a state of the USA.

Sorry but Syria was and still is located to the north of Israel-Palestine. Jesus is said to have been born in Bethlehem which is in the West Bank area of Palestine just south of Jerusalem, back in the time of when Jesus lived the region was called Judea. Although there are a few different towns called Bethlehem but this was the main one so it seems more possible. Jesus them spend his life living in Nazareth in present day Israel territory, in Jesus' times, Galilee so therefor he would have been a Judean-Galilean Jew!

wiseones2cents

UU wrote:

You would be Hawaiian-Canadian-Irish or more accurately American-Canadian-Irish as Hawaii is a state of the USA.

Sorry but Syria was and still is located to the north of Israel-Palestine. Jesus is said to have been born in Bethlehem which is in the West Bank area of Palestine just south of Jerusalem, back in the time of when Jesus lived the region was called Judea. Although there are a few different towns called Bethlehem but this was the main one so it seems more possible. Jesus them spend his life living in Nazareth in present day Israel territory, in Jesus' times, Galilee so therefor he would have been a Judean-Galilean Jew!

No you are mistaken. The Assyrians either attacked or absorbed(without force) the entire northern state of Israel, they stopped short of Judea. So Syria extended well into present day Israel/Paletine.

So that would make Jesus A Syrian,born in the region of Galilee and the city of Nazareth. Whether Bethlehem is included in the Title also I do not know. Though Yes. Bethlehem was in Judea.

BrianCalgary

Hey UU I'm with you. Not sure on Syrian boundaries back then. I will check when I get home. I'm visual, got to see it.
Bottom line though Jesus was born in Bethlehem, ended up in Nazareth as a teen, lived there until about the age of 27, then embarked on a three year ministry, culminating in His crucifixion and subsequent resurrection.

As for wiseone2cents, the Americans would only take you if you renounced your Irish and Canadian claims.

The Irish would take you regardless and so would the Canadians. If you preferred hockey and Molson's you're Canadian, Guiness and GAA you're Irish.

wiseones2cents

BrianCalgary wrote:

Hey UU I'm with you. Not sure on Syrian boundaries back then. I will check when I get home. I'm visual, got to see it.
Bottom line though Jesus was born in Bethlehem, ended up in Nazareth as a teen, lived there until about the age of 27, then embarked on a three year ministry, culminating in His crucifixion and subsequent resurrection.

As for wiseone2cents, the Americans would only take you if you renounced your Irish and Canadian claims.

The Irish would take you regardless and so would the Canadians. If you preferred hockey and Molson's you're Canadian, Guiness and GAA you're Irish.

I see. Your with her even though your not sure your self? lol
Go check. You will see I am right.

Than That would not make Jeses a Judean. A Jew? Most definately. A descendant of David? Most definately.

Prophesy said he would be called a Nazarene. Matthew 2:23.
Though no such prophecy exists in our texts which leads me to the conclusion that more prophetic texts were available at the time.

Excelsior

Syria didn't control Judea. Rome did.

wiseones2cents

Excelsior wrote:

Syria didn't control Judea. Rome did.

What are you talking about and to whom are you speaking with?Who said Syria controlled Judea?

Excelsior

Sorry for the mistake. As I am sure you have deduced, I typed Judea when I should have written Israel.

Rome had authority over all these territories at the beginning of the common era. Jesus was from Palestine. He was a Gallilean Jew of the 2nd Temple.

wiseones2cents

Excelsior wrote:

Sorry for the mistake. As I am sure you have deduced, I typed Judea when I should have written Israel.

Rome had authority over all these territories at the beginning of the common era. Jesus was from Palestine. He was a Gallilean Jew of the 2nd Temple.

What I am saying is that the land, of the region of Galilee, was called Syria at the time. The Syrians took over northern Israel. I have shown a verse in Matthew that stated so.

The Assyrians also brought in Samaritans onto the land of Northern Israel that were also semetic, so the region between Judea and Galillee region was Samaria. Though it was still part of Syria.

Though yes. Rome ruled the Entire region. Later Rome changed the name of Judea to Syria Palaistina(After the Assyrians and Philistines.)

UU

...

UU

Actually the region was called Galilee back then as Jesus is referred to as a Galilean on numerous occasions. Does it really matter whether Jesus was Syrian, Judean or Galilean? He was a wise Jewish prophet from the Holy Land and that is all I need to know. Anyway, the Christian books aren't fully authentic and accurate. There are parts missing and some of it was changed etc.

wiseones2cents

UU wrote:

Actually the region was called Galilee back then as Jesus is referred to as a Galilean on numerous occasions. Does it really matter whether Jesus was Syrian, Judean or Galilean? He was a wise Jewish prophet from the Holy Land and that is all I need to know. Anyway, the Christian books aren't fully authentic and accurate. There are parts missing and some of it was changed etc.

Though Galilee was clearly in Syria. Why does it matter?I'm just answering thwe title on this thread.

There are many, many historical texts that back my position.

di11on

I agree, that He was Jewish and it is largely irrelevant what political entity you associate him with as He was profoundly apolitical.

Jesus grew up in a Roman governed province... yet the land He lived in has been called many things throughout history. What is unique about the Jewish people is that there is no single political entitly with which you can tie them down to. They have been geographically concentrated in various locations over the course of milennia, some of the most notable political associations being Judah, Eqypt, Syria, Assyria, Babylon and the ancient and modern kingdoms of Israel.

UU: You say He was a wise Jewish prophet. I believe He is God.

Laguna

He may have come from Palestine but Jesus was Jewish.

UU

di11on wrote:

UU: You say He was a wise Jewish prophet. I believe He is God.

I take the Islamic belief of Christ as a prophet and as a great teacher as I believe in God in a very different way to Jewish belief. I'm not Muslim if that's what you're thinking, I'm Unitarian and we look to Christ as a prophet rather than a god or son of god (well most of us anyway!).

BrianCalgary

Well, I checked my handy-dandy trusty maps, and Nazareth was not in Syria. Syria was further north with a port at Antioch. There were also two Antioch's to contend with as well.

I also did some reading on the deity of Christ wiseone and there is no doubt that the Jesus refers to himself as God as do Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews.

One last point on the Bible. Whenever historians or archaeologists throughout history have attempted to discredit the Bible on either ground of history or archaeology the Bible has always turned out to be right. There are no holes in the Bible whatsoever.

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

I also did some reading on the deity of Christ wiseone and there is no doubt that the Jesus refers to himself as God as do Peter, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews.

Thanks for the research Brian, now lets see what the wiseone has to say about that. If he has time before preparing for his new assignment that is.

UU

BrianCalgary wrote:

One last point on the Bible. Whenever historians or archaeologists throughout history have attempted to discredit the Bible on either ground of history or archaeology the Bible has always turned out to be right. There are no holes in the Bible whatsoever.

Are you sure the Bibles, both the Jewish Torah and the Christian Gospels, have no holes in them? They totally contradict themselves and there are sections which never got into the Bibles - the Dead Sea Scolls, the Gospels of Thomas and well as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, (although parts of both of these gospels are lost) and much others. I not degrading the Bibles as I'm not saying they're false, even though I refuse to take much of the Bibles literally. It's just that they're such an ancient books, especially the Torah, that there are chances of them being misinterpreted through translations and parts being altered and taken out. You don't need to be a historian to know that.

BrianCalgary

Hey UU

Whenever I have asked anyone to pint out a contradiction they can't do it (now I'm opening a can of worms here). Any apparent contradiction is usually because someone has taken the verse out of context.

The Dead Sea scrolls are actually in th eBible as a good portion of them is the Old Testament. The interesting thing about the find is that when they were compared to our copies of the OT in the Jewish language the only differences was the spelling of certain words (ie. colour vs. color). So the OT has come to us as it would have been given to the people of that time when the Dead Sea scrolls were written. The book we read now is the book that they read then.

With regard to the gospel of Thomas and other Gospels. The four that are in use today (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are there because the writers had direct contact to the apostles and they were written within 40 years of the events. The gospel of Thomas wasn't written until the 3rd century, and contains teachings that are at odds with Christ's teaching. One of the statements in Thomas' gospel is that in order to enter enter the kingdom of Heaven, you have to be a man (women not welcome?) whereas Christ ministered to and valued womens role within society and included them in His ministry.

The other books of the new tesatement were also written by Paul, John, Peter and Jude. All of whom were associated with the apostles and they were also widely read and used in the churches of the time. When the council of Nicaea was called people wanted to know which books were to be used and one of the results was the New Testament as we know it. The criteria used wasbased on time written, the writers relationship with the apostles and usage.

homah_7ft

BrianCalgary wrote:

One last point on the Bible. Whenever historians or archaeologists throughout history have attempted to discredit the Bible on either ground of history or archaeology the Bible has always turned out to be right. There are no holes in the Bible whatsoever.

:eek:

I would have to disagree with that.

Jesus was a jew and that really has tended to be a tradition rather than a distinct political entity.

Excelsior

I can't wait to get back into this thread when the busyness dies down. But Homah, can you clarify what you meant in that last post?

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

Hey UU

Whenever I have asked anyone to pint out a contradiction they can't do it

The four that are in use today (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are there because the writers had direct contact to the apostles and they were written within 40 years of the events.

Coming right up, one contradiction.
I think your dating is incorrect. None of the Gospels were written within 40 years of the events,


Matthew: c. 70–100
Mark: c. 68–73
Luke: c. 80–100,
John: c. 90–110.



I would also doubt very much that any of the Gospel writers ever met the actual 12 original apostles. As you will see from the approximate dates, the closest Gospel to the events would be Mark at 68-73. I will grant there is a small chance that the author could have met one of the apostles (John), but I think this unlikely. My understanding was that the Apostles immediately after the resurrection went about performing missionary duties and the majority of them ended up also being put to death. In the case of the Mark gospel, being generous and saying that which ever of the apostle directly imput information into the Mark Gospel was say 20 years of age when Jesus was crucified, he would have been 88-93 years of age when the Gospel was authored. As far as I can find out, the only apostle who`s death cannot be accounted for is John. All the rest seem to have accredited date of death well before this time.
It would appear that Peter lasted the longest with a date of 64-69.

Excelsior; Do you have an accurate list of the dates the original 12 died

Excelsior

Asiaprod wrote:

Coming right up, one contradiction.

When I first read this I thought you had found a contradiction in the Gospels and I was on the edge of my seat. Then I realised you meant Brian Calgary and the anti-climax was huge!

Asiaprod wrote:

I think your dating is incorrect. None of the Gospels were written within 40 years of the events,


Matthew: c. 70–100
Mark: c. 68–73
Luke: c. 80–100,
John: c. 90–110.

These are crazy figures. What is the source Asiaprod? These figures are distorted and stretched. Mark would have been in the 60s, around the middle. Matthew and Luke would have been simultaneous, (margin of error accounted for) in the 70s. John was mid 90s. I find all kinds of dates posted on websites but I've only ever found dates different from this in scholarly articles by those crazy fundies down at the Jesus Seminar.

Asiaprod wrote:

I would also doubt very much that any of the Gospel writers ever met the actual 12 original apostles.

I think John, as one of the 3 leaders of the apostles, probably met the other 11 having lived with them for 3 years. The book of Matthew is named after its author. Who was an apostle. John Mark is a student of Paul's who it seems wouldn't have been a disciple but I have read studies where it talks about him having heard Jesus preach. Luke is the doctor who went on to write the the Acts (often called Acts of the Apostles but I prefer Acts of the Resurrected Jesus).

Asiaprod wrote:

As you will see from the approximate dates, the closest Gospel to the events would be Mark at 68-73. I will grant there is a small chance that the author could have met one of the apostles (John), but I think this unlikely. My understanding was that the Apostles immediately after the resurrection went about performing missionary duties and the majority of them ended up also being put to death. In the case of the Mark gospel, being generous and saying that which ever of the apostle directly imput information into the Mark Gospel was say 20 years of age when Jesus was crucified, he would have been 88-93 years of age when the Gospel was authored.

I have to challenge this as well. Certainly apostles wrote the Gospels, nevermind being key interview subject for John Mark and Luke. But Jesus was crucified around 30AD. John Mark was a teenager at the time. By the time he gets down to writing his Gospel he would have been about 45 and so would many of the apostles. I don't know how you can get a figure if 88-93 years.

Asiaprod wrote:

As far as I can find out, the only apostle who`s death cannot be accounted for is John. All the rest seem to have accredited date of death well before this time.

John was on Patmos in the 90s, we know that. If he was a young man (at least by a 2nd Temple Jew's idea of young man) at the start of Jesus' ministry that means he would be about 75 at that time. He certainly lasted longer than Peter in that case.

I don't have an accurate list of the deaths of the apostles.

Brian is definitely pushing it to the extreme by claiming that John was written within 40 years of the crucifixtion of Jesus. But many of the 500 referred to in 1 Corinthians 15 would have still been alive when the apostle John wrote his Gospel.

And Paul was making radical claims about Jesus in the written word 15 years after the crucifixtion! Many scholars believe that there is an undiscovered Gospel we refer to as Q which would have been the source John Mark, Matthew and Luke all used and it would be earlier again.

robindch

> Whenever I have asked anyone to pint out a contradiction they
> can't do it (now I'm opening a can of worms here). Any apparent
> contradiction is usually because someone has taken the verse
> out of context.

Take a look at the fairly good list kept at:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

which lists 369 internal contradictions within the text of the bible. A few of these are debatable, but the vast majority are straight-forward, cut'n'dried instances of the bible saying one thing in one place, and something completely different somewhere else.

Or, by gospel:

Matthew - http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mt/contra_list.html
Mark - http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mk/contra_list.html
Luke - http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lk/contra_list.html
John - http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/jn/contra_list.html

Do take a look -- they make interesting reading.

BrianCalgary

Thanks Robin.

This is some great stuff to research.:cool: