And He Shall Be Called a Nazarene

[Teritos]

It's more than obvious that Samson's life is an allusion to Jesus, see How Does the Story of Samson Point to Jesus?

 

[Rival]

It's more than obvious that Samson's life is an allusion to Jesus, see How Does the Story of Samson Point to Jesus?

Nah man, it's clearly an allusion to Baha'u'llah.

 

[rosends]

It's more than obvious that you think that as a valid understanding. Confirmation Bias.

 

[firedragon]

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.

So Matthew is referring to Samson?

 

[firedragon]

It's more than obvious that Samson's life is an allusion to Jesus, see How Does the Story of Samson Point to Jesus?

So Samson killed so many men with the jawbone of a donkey, and "went unto" a prostitute, and you say "IT IS AN ALLUSION" to Jesus Christ?

 

[Fool]

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."

not that far fetched given the fact that the modern version of hebrew is not exactly the same as the ancient version. so many cultures influence modern day hebrew and at one time it was considered a dead language, like latin.


languages evolve and meanings can get lost in translation and evolution.


the word nazareth was probably a forced greek name for a city in judea that wasn't necessarily used by the hebrew even though maybe by the greek/roman invaders did


the essenes definitely wouldn't have used the name but most of what we know is from 2nd party individuals and qumran, or treasure troves of hidden libraries, about them.


they didn't generally mingle with noncommunal types.

 

[rosends]

not that far fetched given the fact that the modern version of hebrew is not exactly the same as the ancient version. so many cultures influence modern day hebrew and at one time it was considered a dead language, like latin.

But the claim was about 2 biblical era words, nothing modern.

 

[stvdv]

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?

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

So, why you ask?

 

[Harel13]

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

Interesting. So where was it written?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I think that just speaks to how we date the Gospels.

Presumably, they were written after the town got the name "Nazareth."

 

[stvdv]

Interesting. So where was it written?

It only says "what the Prophets have said"

So, might take a long time searching for "where it was written"

 

[Harel13]

It only says "what the Prophets have said"

So, might take a long time searching for "where it was written"

So your guess is that it was transmitted as an oral tradition?

 

[Dogknox20]

Interesting. So where was it written?

Had Matthew intended to cite an exact prophetic quotation from the Old Testament, he would have cited a specific prophet, instead of saying summarily, as he does, “the prophets”.
23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

 

[stvdv]

So your guess is that it was transmitted as an oral tradition?

Oh, I did not go that far yet, but now you ask me, yes, that might be true, but need not be.

Sometimes Prophets say things, but people don't listen, let alone start "oral tradition".

But when Prophets make predictions then usually people listen (people seem to love predictions; understandable even). So, I would be surprised if there would not be some "oral tradition" about this

 

[1213]

....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....

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?

 

[Harel13]

Had Matthew intended to cite an exact prophetic quotation from the Old Testament, he would have cited a specific prophet, instead of saying summarily, as he does, “the prophets”.
23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.

I find that to be a convenient explanation. For all we know, the author of Matthew walked down the street, found a scrap of paper, liked what it said, decided to put it into his book and figured that if he said it in the name of "the prophets", that would legitimize the claim.

 

[Dogknox20]

I find that to be a convenient explanation. For all we know, the author of Matthew walked down the street, found a scrap of paper, liked what it said, decided to put it into his book and figured that if he said it in the name of "the prophets", that would legitimize the claim.

.
Harel13 The facts are there for all to see. You question how it all came about by rejecting the early Christians as a source to understand events! I know in the early church there were hundreds of letters kicking around but no one knew if they were truly inspired words of God or not. The Holy Catholic Church guided by God the Holy Spirit helped the Church to pick out of the hundreds the truly inspired letters thus rejecting the many phony uninspired letters! Then the Church put all the letters into one book she named "The Bible"! There is no scripture that says.. "This is the inspired words of God"! There is NO list of the inspired letters found in the scriptures!

 

[Neuropteron]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

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.

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.

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.

 

[blü 2]

That would not be a problem. Then, in this case, Samson would have been a shadow for Jesus. The whole Old Testament is a shadow of Jesus, everything points to him.

This notion is a strictly Christian invention.

Jesus is never mentioned in the Tanakh, and bears no resemblance to the Jewish concept of a messiah.

It's true, though, that the authors of the gospels liked to play with such a notion. To take a couple of the baldest examples, the author of Matthew─

invents the unhistoric 'Taxation Census' story to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to “fulfill” Micah 5:2, and

invents the unhistoric 'Massacre of the Innocents' story to get Jesus into Egypt to “fulfill” Hosea 11.1.

Wall to wall retrofit, as you can see.