And He Shall Be Called a Nazarene

[rosends]

but it wasn't greeks who wrote these books. it was 1st century judeans, jews. the romans wouldn't accept these writings for another 300 yrs. they didn't believe in a single god

What books, Numbers? 1st century?

Or do you mean the Greek gospels that were fabricated later on?

 

[dybmh]

your egos are getting in the way of the obvious.

the actions betray all the coverups


it was jews evolving into something else. to the essenes the worldly jews were the problem.


to all the prophets the worldly jews were the problem

Respectfully, I don't think evolved is a good description for this. It would be more like a pendulum. What you're describing is a snapshot in time. You may be correct about the trend, but that trend could be at an extreme such that shortly after the snapshot was taken the trend slows down and reverses course.

If so, it's difficult to tell from the arguments you've offered whether or not Hebrew is or is not important now. The past is the past after all. Now is what matters

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are two issues here:

1) He will be called a "nat-seret" (righteous branch from a dead tree, the stump of the kingly line of David, from the dead [cross] life and resurrection from the Son of David). He lived in the town of "natz-eret". Natseret and natzeret - common type of play on Hebrew (see Gematria, Zohar, etc., etc.)

2) My unsaved Jewish friends take HUNDREDS of Messianic prophecies that are either obviously about Jesus (will die with sinners then be buried with a rich man) or imply Jesus (natseret and natzeret) and make EVERY ONE of them non-Messianic, so they barely know who or what Messiah is!

There is nothing about Matthew 2:23 that is wordplay.The verse makes it very clear that it is the fact that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth that fulfills the prophecy. Therefore any prophecy in the Tanakh about the Messiah being called a Nazarene will have to do with the city of Nazarteth, not a branch. Nice try.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

According to Matthew 2:23, Jews had a prophecy that a Messiah would come from Nazareth. Apparently, that prophecy didn't survive to the present day.

Incidentally, I believe that the famous scientist, Galileo Galilei, was a Jew from the same region, whose family was likely forced to convert to Catholicism.

Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament - Wikipedia

We have all of the prophets who are part of the canon. If its not in the canon, it doesn't exist for us.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

He's the great light the people of Nazareth see according to Isaiah.

Genesis 1:3 is about the same light. The light that shines and destroys the great darkness that covers all the people. The "shadow of death" that is the fact we'll all die overshadows us.

And Jesus is the resurrection and the Life.

1. you didn't give the chapter and verse, nor did you quote.

2. how does being a light mean the same thing as being a Nazarene? It doesn't.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi,
Your right, this is a challenge since there is no mention of Nazareth anywhere in the the Hebrew or Aramaic scriptures.

Some suppose Matthew had made reference to some lost prophetic book or some unwritten tradition, but this theory can not be right, because "spoken through the prophets" is only used in reference to the same canonical Scriptures we have today.

It is conjectured that Matthew was referring to what Isaisah 11:1; Jer 23:5;33:15 have said concerning Messiah where the word "sprout" [we-net'ser] and [tse'mach] were used.
Zechariah describes a king-priest "whose name is Sprout" a prophecy that can only apply to Jesus.
Thank you for your thorough answer.

I don't think the "sprout" thing works at all. Matthew 2:23 makes it abundantly clear that it is the fact that Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth that fulfills the prophecy. Any prophecy, then, would have to refer to the city of Nazareth.
The key to understanding Matthews statement apparently lies in equating Nazarene and ne'tser with sprout.
Whether this is possible is the work of a Biblical Hebrew scholar and is at worst inconclusive for now.
This lack of a conclusive understanding of the scriptures is nothing new, many of the apparent Bible dissensions have been clarified, some have not.

I think, however, that it is only a big credibility problem for those that are looking for one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Could it be that the name for the town Nazareth comes from that there were Nazarites? And so, if you would be Nazarene, you would live in Nazareth?

B
No. Nazarites are a completely different animal. They are individual Jews who have taken voluntary vows. They have nothing to do with the city of Nazareth. The words Nazarene and Nazarite are different in all three languages.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The verse you gave us,does not say that it's "written" in the Old Testament

So, why you ask?

When we said that "it is said by the prophets" it means that it is written in one or more of the books of prophecy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There's even another problem in that the town of what we now call "Nazareth" wasn't even called by that name 2000 years ago.

Wouldn't it have had to have been called Nazareth when Matthew wrote his gospel?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Judges 13:5
For behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb.

The greek word in Matthew 2:23 for Nazarene means "to separate".
The hebrew word in Judges 13:5 for Nazirite means "to separate" too.

Both words have the same meaning, so Matthew is referring to this passage in the OT.

Hello. Actually Nazarite and Nazarene mean totally different things. The fact that they have the same root word word means nothing. A Nazarite is a Jew that has taken voluntary vows. a Nazarene is someone who comes from the city of Nazareth.

In Matthew 2:23, the author makes it abundantly clear that it is the fact that Mary and Joseph came from the city of Nazareth that fulfilled the prophecy. Therefore the prophecy would have to be about the city of Nazareth, not taking vows.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

not really. not much was known about the essenes until more recent discoveries


he was probably a naassene


Hippolytus did all he could to suppress knowledge of the naassene. but in refuting them he gave away their secret.


what better way to broadcast a message?



Their scrupulousness concerning "ẓiẓit" (Men. 40b) is probably only one instance of their strict observance of all the commandments. (5) Through their solicitude to avoid sin (whence also their name "Yire'e Ḥeṭ" = "fearers of sin": Sheḳ. vi. 6; Soṭah ix. 15) they had no occasion for bringing sin-offerings, wherefore, according to R. Judah, they made Nazarite vows to enable them to bring offerings of their own; according to R. Simeon, however, they refrained from bringing such offerings, as they were understood by them to be "an atoning sacrifice for the sins committed against the soul" (Num. vi. 11, Hebr.).


Deut. 13; Müller, "Masseket Soferim," 1878, p. 257, who identifies them with the Essenes). "The Watiḳim so arranged their morning prayer as to finish the Shema' exactly at the time when the sun came out in radiance" (Ber. 9b; comp. Wisdom xvi. 28; II Macc. x. 28); the Watiḳim closed the prayers "Malkiyyot, Shofarot" and "Zikronot" with Pentateuch verses (R. H. 32b). As holders of ancient traditions, they placed their own custom above the universally accepted halakah (Masseket Soferim, xiv. 18). Still another name which deserves special consideration is "ḳadosh" (saint). "Such is he called who sanctifies himself, like the 'Nazir,' by abstaining from enjoyments otherwise permissible" (Ta'an. 11a, b; Yeb. 20a; comp. Niddah 12a, where the word "Ẓanu'a" is used instead).

I don't see how being an essene or not has anything to do with being a Nazarene (from the city of Nazareth) or whether you can find a prophecy to this extent.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

My understanding is that it says "What the prophets had said" because apparently it was not a written prophecy.

The thing is, Batya, if it wasn't written down, then the prophecy is not for us to remember. None of the prophecies that weren't written down were messianic, for example, since messianic prophecies are for more than the day they are in. No, for this to work, the prophecy has to be in the canon of the sacred texts.

 

[Neuropteron]

Hi Neuropteron. Good morning. You beat me to it. Having never looked in to this subject myself, I would agree with your conclusion. Yahshua was the branch (Isaiah 11:1) , that grew up after a time of dormancy. The word for "Nazareth" and the hebrew word for "branch" sounded almost identical. I just did a quick search for the meaning of Nazareth and Google brings up this definition: "The traditional view is that this word is derived from the Hebrew word for Nazareth (Nazara) that was used in ancient times. "Nazareth", in turn, may be derived from either na·tsar, נָצַר, meaning "to watch," or from ne·tser, נֵ֫צֶר, meaning branch." Of course, that's just Google search. I may be wrong. If such a definition is correct, the prophesies relating to the Branch (the Messiah) relate to Nazareth.

Good morning, thanks for your comment.

 

[74x12]

1. you didn't give the chapter and verse, nor did you quote.

2. how does being a light mean the same thing as being a Nazarene? It doesn't.

It says Galilee in Isaiah 9.

It just proves a great prophet would be in Galilee. So yes he could be a Nazarene.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Matthew 2:23
So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said: “He will be called a Nazarene.”

Here is my challenge. Where in the Tanakh (OT) is this so called prophecy that he will be called a Nazarene? Now I really must insist that this prophecy be concerning the town of Nazareth, since Matthew makes it ALL about Nazareth. So please, no references about Nazarites -- that is something completely different. If you can't come up with a direct quote of "He shall be called a Nazarene," I will settle for any prophecy that the Messiah will come from the city of Nazareth.

The problem is that no such prophecy exists. The author of Matthew simply made it up out of whole cloth. It is a big, big, big problem for the credibility of the gospels.

There are many books of scriptures mentioned in our current versions of the Old Testament that actually do not exist in the current versions of the Old Testament.

It is reasonable that this prophecy is contained in one or many of these books that the author of Matthew had access to at the time - but have since been lost.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi Neuropteron. Good morning. You beat me to it. Having never looked in to this subject myself, I would agree with your conclusion. Yahshua was the branch (Isaiah 11:1) , that grew up after a time of dormancy. The word for "Nazareth" and the hebrew word for "branch" sounded almost identical. I just did a quick search for the meaning of Nazareth and Google brings up this definition: "The traditional view is that this word is derived from the Hebrew word for Nazareth (Nazara) that was used in ancient times. "Nazareth", in turn, may be derived from either na·tsar, נָצַר, meaning "to watch," or from ne·tser, נֵ֫צֶר, meaning branch." Of course, that's just Google search. I may be wrong. If such a definition is correct, the prophesies relating to the Branch (the Messiah) relate to Nazareth.

Nevertheless they are different words. Furthermore, Matthew 2:28 makes it clear that it is the fact that Joseph and Mary lived in the city of Nazareth that fulfills the prophecy, therefore the prophecy if you find it must be about the city of Nazareth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It says Galilee in Isaiah 9.

It just proves a great prophet would be in Galilee. So yes he could be a Nazarene.

Galilee is not the same as Nazareth. He could have been from umpteen other cities.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are many books of scriptures mentioned in our current versions of the Old Testament that actually do not exist in the current versions of the Old Testament.

It is reasonable that this prophecy is contained in one or many of these books that the author of Matthew had access to at the time - but have since been lost.

Any sayings of prophecy or other books of prophecy that didn't make it into the canon didn't cut the mustard because they do not have messages that are for more than their day. This is why we know they didn't have messianic prophecies.

 

[Teritos]

Hello. Actually Nazarite and Nazarene mean totally different things. The fact that they have the same root word word means nothing. A Nazarite is a Jew that has taken voluntary vows. a Nazarene is someone who comes from the city of Nazareth.

In Matthew 2:23, the author makes it abundantly clear that it is the fact that Mary and Joseph came from the city of Nazareth that fulfilled the prophecy. Therefore the prophecy would have to be about the city of Nazareth, not taking vows.

Why do you think you know more than Biblical dictionaries? It is not me who claims it, but Thayer and Strong's definition. Both words have the same meaning.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you realise how pompous and annoying this sounds?

Sorry, my friends who are my brothers, whom I grieve for, whom in my humble opinion are hellbound.