• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

And He Shall Be Called a Nazarene

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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.
 

Batya

Always Forward
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.
My understanding is that it says "What the prophets had said" because apparently it was not a written prophecy. Not that that really gives any more clarity, since anyone could say something had been "said" or foretold by word of mouth. I know of at least one more instance like that where it is not actually found in the tanach I don't believe, Matthew 5:43:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

The first part obviously was there, but not the second, so the idea is that it was a saying or something rather than a written prophecy. I don't know of anything to specifically back that up, that that was the case with either of those, particularly example you mentioned, so it's admittedly speculative, but perhaps it is a possibility.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
My understanding is that it says "What the prophets had said" because apparently it was not a written prophecy. Not that that really gives any more clarity, since anyone could say something had been "said" or foretold by word of mouth. I know of at least one more instance like that where it is not actually found in the tanach I don't believe, Matthew 5:43:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

The first part obviously was there, but not the second, so the idea is that it was a saying or something rather than a written prophecy. I don't know of anything to specifically back that up, that that was the case with either of those, particularly example you mentioned, so it's admittedly speculative, but perhaps it is a possibility.
I agree...not everything every prophet ever said was written down.

Jesus said the Jews had heard, “You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy,” but he did not say they had heard all that from the Law of Moses. The first part, about loving your neighbor, was a part of the Law. But the second part, about hating your enemy, was not. It really was contrary to the Law, which said: “If you chance upon your enemy’s ox or donkey going astray, you must be sure to take it home to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying prostrate under its load, you must refrain from deserting him; you must be sure to help him get it up.” (Exodus 23:4-5) The Hebrew Scriptures forbade any feeling of malicious joy when an enemy met with disaster, and even commanded that he be assisted when in trouble: “If your enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink.” (Job 31:29; Proverbs 24:17; Proverbs 25:21)

The part about hating your enemy was something added by the teachers of tradition, and it was this addition that invalidated God’s Word that Jesus condemned. Since they were told to love their neighbors, the Jewish teachers inferred that in contrast they were to hate their enemies. To them “friend” or “neighbor” meant one of their fellow Jews, and all others were considered natural enemies. To rout this false idea from one of the learned scribes or lawyers of his day Jesus used an illustration....."The Good Samaritan". A hated Samaritan was the hero of the story, whereas the Jews who passed by unconcerned for a fellow human being in need, were condemned.
 
Last edited:

Teritos

Active Member
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.
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.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
This is about Samson.
 

Teritos

Active Member
You forgot that Nazerene in Hebrew is נצרי or נוצרי while Nazirite is נזיר. Not quite spelled the same, you see.
"נצרי or נוצרי" do not appear in the Old Testament. But of course, the Greek word Nazarene is spelled differently, but the meanings of both words are the same. This proves that the word Nazarene in the NT is the Greek form of the Hebrew word Nazirite.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
"נצרי or נוצרי" do not appear in the Old Testament. But of course, the Greek word Nazarene is spelled differently, but the meanings of both words are the same. This proves that the word Nazarene in the NT is the Greek form of the Hebrew word Nazirite.
Uh, that's where you're wrong, bucko. "הַזְכִּירוּ לַגּוֹיִם הִנֵּה הַשְׁמִיעוּ עַל יְרוּשָׁלִַם נֹצְרִים בָּאִים מֵאֶרֶץ הַמֶּרְחָק..." Jer. 4:16
"כִּי יֶשׁ יוֹם קָרְאוּ נֹצְרִים בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם..." Jer. 31:5
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Uh, that's where you're wrong, bucko. "הַזְכִּירוּ לַגּוֹיִם הִנֵּה הַשְׁמִיעוּ עַל יְרוּשָׁלִַם נֹצְרִים בָּאִים מֵאֶרֶץ הַמֶּרְחָק..." Jer. 4:16
"כִּי יֶשׁ יוֹם קָרְאוּ נֹצְרִים בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם..." Jer. 31:5
I was patiently (no I wasn't patient) awaiting this post :D
 

Teritos

Active Member
Uh, that's where you're wrong, bucko. "הַזְכִּירוּ לַגּוֹיִם הִנֵּה הַשְׁמִיעוּ עַל יְרוּשָׁלִַם נֹצְרִים בָּאִים מֵאֶרֶץ הַמֶּרְחָק..." Jer. 4:16
"כִּי יֶשׁ יוֹם קָרְאוּ נֹצְרִים בְּהַר אֶפְרָיִם..." Jer. 31:5
The two words Nazarene and Nazirite have the same meaning. That is what it is all about in the end. It is irrefutable proof.
The Greek word "Nazarene" means "to separate" according to the Thayer lexicon.
And according to the Strong's definition, the Hebrew word "Nazirite" means "separate, that is, consecrated"
If it has the same meaning, then both words must be the same. That is absolutely logical.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
The two words Nazarene and Nazirite have the same meaning. That is what it is all about in the end. It is irrefutable proof.
The Greek word "Nazarene" means "to separate" according to the Thayer lexicon.
And according to the Strong's definition, the Hebrew word "Nazirite" means "separate, that is, consecrated"
If it has the same meaning, then both words must be the same. That is absolutely logical.
Your own scripture links it to Nazareth,

And he came and dwelt in a city
called Nazareth: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
The two words Nazarene and Nazirite have the same meaning. That is what it is all about in the end. It is irrefutable proof.
The Greek word "Nazarene" means "to separate" according to the Thayer lexicon.
And according to the Strong's definition, the Hebrew word "Nazirite" means "separate, that is, consecrated"
If it has the same meaning, then both words must be the same. That is absolutely logical.
So Jeremiah lied?
 

Teritos

Active Member
Your own scripture links it to Nazareth.

And he came and dwelt in a city
called Nazareth: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
So what? I don't see any contradiction. Judges 13:5 says he will be called "a separate one" and in the NT Jesus is called "a separate one".
See how both Bible passages would agree if all the words were translated,
Judges 13:5
...for the boy shall be a "a separated one" to God from the womb.
Matthew 2:23
...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a "a separated one".
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
So what? I don't see any contradiction. Judges 13:5 says he will be called "a separate one" and in the NT Jesus is called "a separate one".
See how both Bible passages would agree if all the words were translated,
Judges 13:5
...for the boy shall be a "a separated one" to God from the womb.
Matthew 2:23
...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a "a separated one".
Judges is about Samson.

Your own scripture cites Nazareth the place as the reason for his being so named.

It's in the words themselves.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
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.
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).
 
Last edited:

Teritos

Active Member
So Jeremiah lied?
No. It is just about the Greek word Nazarene and the Hebrew word Nazir. I have brought forward evidence that these two words have the same meaning. Even if the passage in Judges 13:5 were referring to Samson, in this case Samson would be a shadow for Jesus. I don't need to say more, because now we are talking about faith, who believes in what and who believes in what is right? I am convinced that I am on the right side.

The word does appear in Jeremiah, but nevertheless Nazarene from the New Testament agrees with Nazir from Judges 13:5, since both terms carry the same definition.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Just wondering -- does this mean that any two separate words that have overlapping meanings are the same word?

I mean, once it is asserted that any mention of anything that later is connected to Jesus must, perforce therefore have been retroactively about Jesus, it is just as reasonable to say that any word that shares a meaning with a later word must therefore be identical with that word. Equally unreasonable, but still, you know, "equally."
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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's even another problem in that the town of what we now call "Nazareth" wasn't even called by that name 2000 years ago. :shrug:
 
Top