He will be called a Nazarene

[Mysteryman]

Free

Nothing you have shared has any consistency by which one can conclude any reasoning from your explanation here.

First, Jesus didn't say John was drinking. He said he was not drinking. Jesus said he was drinking.

The comparison is between drinking (Jesus) and not drinking (John).

They said that John had a devil when he was not eating nor drinking. And since Jesus said he was eating and drinking (water, because there is no mention given here of anything but water). That those who thought John had a devil who was not eating nor drinking. But just because they , meaning those who saw only what they wanted. Saw John as having a devil, and they saw Jesus as being drunk and gluttunous. Which neither was true ! < If you agree with this last comment of mine, then you would have to agree that he was not drinking wine !

Even if one drinks just a little wine, he is not drunk, but most definately is under the influence whereas others could say he was drunk. But he wasn't, not even in the smallest degree !

He was said to be a Nazarene, that was the prophecy. And the prophecy is true. He was a Nazarite in that he made a vow, because that is what a Nazarite is. The Word never calls him a Nazarite in the gospels. He is called a Nazarene. But what most people fail to realize, is that it was prophesied of him to become a Nazarite - Judges 13:5 & 7

Now, when can a Nazarite drink wine ? One needs to look at Numbers 6:16 - 21 -- Jesus said that he would not drink nor eat until he comes into his Father's kingdom. At that time he will drink, and not until.

This is what I believe to be true, in that all of the scriptures are in harmony with all and everything pertaining to the prophesies and fulfillment of those prophesies.

Bless - IN Christ - MM

 

[handy]

I think that if you could show where Jesus made the Nazarite vow, then your theory would hold water. As it is, you seem to be extrapolating the fact that Nazarite sounds a lot like Nazarene. I find no place in which the gospels or anywhere else in the Scriptures tell us that Jesus took the vows of the Nazarite.

 

[Mysteryman]

I think that if you could show where Jesus made the Nazarite vow, then your theory would hold water. As it is, you seem to be extrapolating the fact that Nazarite sounds a lot like Nazarene. I find no place in which the gospels or anywhere else in the Scriptures tell us that Jesus took the vows of the Nazarite.

The two are connected by what we read in Numbers chapter 6 and Jesus who vowed to only do the will of the Father who sent him.

Hebrews 1:9

Jesus was the anointed one - the messiah.

When after reading Numbers 6:3 did Jesus finally drink vinegar ? When it was finished, right ? The vow of a Nazarite was over .

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[logical bob]

Mysteryman, you're still not giving us anything that connects the Nazrite sect with the town of Nazareth. Jesus may have been a Nazrite, but whatever prophecy Matthew 2:23 refers to, the author clearly thinks it is fulfilled by Jesus being from the town.

 

[Mysteryman]

Mysteryman, you're still not giving us anything that connects the Nazrite sect with the town of Nazareth. Jesus may have been a Nazrite, but whatever prophecy Matthew 2:23 refers to, the author clearly thinks it is fulfilled by Jesus being from the town.

Hi Bob

The scriptures tell us that he was a Nazarene because he came from Nazareth. Luke 1:26 -- Mark 1:9

Mark 1:24 - Jesus of Nazareth ( a Nazarene )

You do not have to be from Nazareth in order to take the vow of a Nazarite.

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

Free

Nothing you have shared has any consistency by which one can conclude any reasoning from your explanation here.

First, Jesus didn't say John was drinking. He said he was not drinking. Jesus said he was drinking.

The comparison is between drinking (Jesus) and not drinking (John).

You are not following my reasoning at all because it is entirely consistent and what you just stated above is precisely what I have stated.

They said that John had a devil when he was not eating nor drinking. And since Jesus said he was eating and drinking (water, because there is no mention given here of anything but water).

Here you have placed an interpretation into the text: there is absolutely no mention of water. All Jesus says is that John wasn't drinking and he was; no mention of water.

That those who thought John had a devil who was not eating nor drinking. But just because they , meaning those who saw only what they wanted. Saw John as having a devil, and they saw Jesus as being drunk and gluttunous. Which neither was true ! < If you agree with this last comment of mine, then you would have to agree that he was not drinking wine !

Let's look at Luke 7:33-34 for further clarification:

33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. 34 The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!

Important also is Matt 3:4, "And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey."

Here are the points we get from these passages:

1. John obviously ate and drank (we can assume this in Matt 11 and Luke 7 actually gives his diet) but he ate something that was perhaps unacceptable to the Jews and wouldn't eat what they would, and his drink was not wine. As a result, they thought he was not normal and was possessed.

2. The parallel then is Jesus' "eating and drinking." Since verse 33 makes it clear that wine is what is in view, verse 34 is also speaking about wine. There is zero warrant for stating that verse 33 is talking about wine and 34 is talking about water.

3. That verse 34 is speaking of wine is not only consistent with verse 33, but it is also consistent with the people's (likely Jewish authorities) claim that Jesus was a drunkard. Again, I have to ask how one could get drunk from water? And again, this passage isn't saying Jesus was a drunkard. This is just a poor attempt at character assassination as they also looked down on Jesus for being "a friend of publicans and sinners."

Even if one drinks just a little wine, he is not drunk, but most definately is under the influence whereas others could say he was drunk. But he wasn't, not even in the smallest degree !

I made it clear in my last post that the passage is not saying that Jesus was a drunk. But it was his act of drinking wine that gave the people their basis for calling him a drunkard, albeit erroneously. Again, it makes zero sense for people to even begin thinking of calling Jesus a drunkard if all he drank was water.

He was said to be a Nazarene, that was the prophecy. And the prophecy is true. He was a Nazarite in that he made a vow, because that is what a Nazarite is. The Word never calls him a Nazarite in the gospels. He is called a Nazarene. But what most people fail to realize, is that it was prophesied of him to become a Nazarite - Judges 13:5 & 7

This is not the proper way to do biblical exegesis. There was no specific prophecy that he would be a
Nazarene; there is no prophecy to fulfill. There is no connection between a Nazarite and a Nazarene. Judges 13:5, 7 are about Samson and there is no reason to see these as a prophecy about the Christ.

I know what a Nazarite is, I have made that clear, and we are in agreement. And since you agree that the NT never refers to Jesus as a Nazarite, I am very curious to just how you can then claim that Judges 13 is a prophecy regarding the Christ. Also, since the NT doesn't even use the word "Nazarite," how is it that you know that Jesus took the vow of the Nazarites?

Now, when can a Nazarite drink wine ? One needs to look at Numbers 6:16 - 21 -- Jesus said that he would not drink nor eat until he comes into his Father's kingdom. At that time he will drink, and not until.

Ah, yes, thank you for providing that reference. Let's look closely at what Matt 26:29 says:

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

All he is saying is that he will not drink wine until that day. Most versions say "again" or "henceforth" which indicates that he did but he will not until that day. There is no way to use this verse to say that he didn't drink wine previous to that moment.

This is what I believe to be true, in that all of the scriptures are in harmony with all and everything pertaining to the prophesies and fulfillment of those prophesies.

In all honesty and with all due respect, your position on this matter is fraught with inconsistency and eisegesis. You have yet to show 1) a prophecy that states the Messiah would be a Nazarite, 2) that Jesus drank only water, and 3) that one can get drunk from water.

 

[Free]

I was involved in a discussion on the Richard Dawkins forum where there was considerable disagreement on Matthew 2:23 "... and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." "

It seems that nowhere in the Old Testament does it say "he will be called a Nazarene." Does anyone know what the Gospel is referring to here?

Yes, I do.

The record is in Judges 13:5 threw verse 7 < This was the prophesy of Jesus Christ who was a Nazarene.

The child that she bare was Samson.

The child that Mary bare was Jesus the Christ.

Love IN Christ - MM

I think this is where a lot of the confusion is coming from.

 

[logical bob]

You do not have to be from Nazareth in order to take the vow of a Nazarite.

Indeed not. And you don't have to take them if you are from Nazareth. The two are separate things and Matthew 2:23 refers to a prophecy saying "he will be called a Nazarene" i.e. someone from the town of Nazareth.

 

[Mysteryman]

Free

There is no confusion, except the confusion you bring to the conversation. Now I say that with all due respect. Because you are still making a claim that can not be substanciated. You are claiming that they saw Jesus drink wine , so that you conclude that they wanted to say he was a drunkard. You absolutely have no scriptural references to this fact. All they saw him doing was drinking something and eating something. They assumed that Jesus was gluttonous and a drunkard. And you yourself have "assumed" likewise that he was drinking wine.

My question is this, why assume anything ?

The scriptures are clear that Jesus made a vow and it was a vow of a Nazarite. He also never drank wine with his disciples, nor did he drink any wine at the last supper.

IF you read the story of the woman at the well, a Samarian woman, at the well of Jacob. Jesus words should make things even more clear - John 4:9 - 14. He was the well of water springing up into everlasting life.

A Prophet was only to drink water, and I have shown in a previous post of this.

Everything lines up with only one conclusion -- he only drank water !

Until , they gave him a spong with vinegar . Then he said - "It is finished" - The vow was over !

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

The confusion I was referring to was that your answer to the OP, as per the bolded sections, implies that Judges 13:5-7 is what Matt 2:23 is referring to. That is where the initial confusion of Nazarene being equated to a Nazarite came from.

 

[Mysteryman]

You do not have to be from Nazareth in order to take the vow of a Nazarite.

Indeed not. And you don't have to take them if you are from Nazareth. The two are separate things and Matthew 2:23 refers to a prophecy saying "he will be called a Nazarene" i.e. someone from the town of Nazareth.

Hi Bob

That is correct ! The two are totally seperate, but could be both a Nazarene and a Nazarite , as was in Jesus' case. Although he was born in Bethlahem. But the prophecy had to come true, as he came out of Nazareth, which made him a Nazarene. His vow made him a Nazarite. As it was the vow of a Nazarite.

IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

My question is this, why assume anything ?

The scriptures are clear that Jesus made a vow and it was a vow of a Nazarite. He also never drank wine with his disciples, nor did he drink any wine at the last supper.

Like you just asked, "why assume anything?" You have continually argued that Jesus took the vow of the Nazarites, despite your admittance that the NT doesn't ever use the word "Nazarite." On what then do you base this argument?

 

[logical bob]

What kind of plant would be expected grow in parched soil? What would you expect from said plant as far as edible fruit? Cities took on an identity, much like today. For instance, LA is called "Shakey" because of all it's earthquakes while whole states like Washington for instance is called the "Evergreen State". As such, each city held it's own reputation and in the scheme of things, "Nothing good comes out of Nazareth" was the general consensus. Thus, Nazareth would have been considered "parched" for at the sages exclaimed, John 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

So you're saying people thought that nothing good came from Nazareth, therefore any reference to parched land would be understood as referring to Nazareth even though it was a tiny place in something of a backwater. Sorry, but that's way too tenuous.

It's interesting that you raise John 7:52 though. You'd think that if there was a prophecy that said the Messiah would come from Nazareth, the Pharisees would have known about it.

I'm curious, is this a particular stumbling block of yours, Logical Bob? Something that makes it harder for you to accept the Scriptures? It would be somewhat amazing if everything written in a book like the Bible was crystal clear, at least it would seem so to me.

Not a stumbling block, no. Like I said in the OP, it came up in a discussion on RDF (it was a discussion on whether Jesus existed or not, but I’m not going there on this site ). Opinion split the same was as here on whether there are grounds to connect Nazareth with the Nazrites and the connection to roots and shots came up too. I wondered if we’d missed anything so I thought I’d ask you guys as you know your Bible pretty well.

 

[Mysteryman]

Okay, I guess I should clarify something here. It seems that Bob misunderstood me, and probably for good reason. Of which Bob, I apologize.

The two are seperate. Nazarite and a Nazarene

Why it is difficult to find in the OT is for this reason >

A "Nazreth" is not found in the OT in this written form. It does exist under the name of "el-Nazirah"

A city in Zebulun, in Lower Galilee, seventy miles north of Jerusalem, six miles west of Mount Tabor, and twenty four S. E. of Accho of Acre.

One needs to look up "Zebulun" and or "Zebulonites"

A "Zebulun" is the tenth son of Jacob.

The prophecy is in Psalms 68:26 - 28

IN Christ - MM

 

[Mysteryman]

My question is this, why assume anything ?

The scriptures are clear that Jesus made a vow and it was a vow of a Nazarite. He also never drank wine with his disciples, nor did he drink any wine at the last supper.

Like you just asked, "why assume anything?" You have continually argued that Jesus took the vow of the Nazarites, despite your admittance that the NT doesn't ever use the word "Nazarite." On what then do you base this argument?

A Nazarite is one who makes a vow to seperate one's self from all others. The vow of a Nazarite is given on Numbers chapter 6, which means to seperate one's self unto the Lord.

Jesus Christ told us that he did not come here to do his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him. < This was his vow , it was a vow of a Nazarite in which one serpeates one's self unto the Lord.

I truly do not know if I can explain it any better than this, so I will not try. Even though there are many records of him doing just that, including when Jesus went up to pray and asked his Father if this cup could be removed from him. We know that the cup was not removed. The vow was such that it was a blood covenant . This vow even is shown when he was 12 years old, when he told his mother that he was about doing his Father's buisness.

Beyond this, there should be no need of further explanation.

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

Like you just asked, "why assume anything?" You have continually argued that Jesus took the vow of the Nazarites, despite your admittance that the NT doesn't ever use the word "Nazarite." On what then do you base this argument?

A Nazarite is one who makes a vow to seperate one's self from all others. The vow of a Nazarite is given on Numbers chapter 6, which means to seperate one's self unto the Lord.

Jesus Christ told us that he did not come here to do his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him. < This was his vow , it was a vow of a Nazarite in which one serpeates one's self unto the Lord.

I truly do not know if I can explain it any better than this, so I will not try. Even though there are many records of him doing just that, including when Jesus went up to pray and asked his Father if this cup could be removed from him. We know that the cup was not removed. The vow was such that it was a blood covenant . This vow even is shown when he was 12 years old, when he told his mother that he was about doing his Father's buisness.

Beyond this, there should be no need of further explanation.

Love IN Christ - MM

There indeed does need to be a lot of further explanation. That he came to do the will of the Father in no way means that he took the vow of the Nazarites. In light of the evidence given that he most likely drank wine, in addition to his touching and nearness to dead people, and the total silence in the entire NT on Jesus ever having taken the Nazarite vow, it is highly unlikely that he was a Nazarite.

 

[Mysteryman]

Like you just asked, "why assume anything?" You have continually argued that Jesus took the vow of the Nazarites, despite your admittance that the NT doesn't ever use the word "Nazarite." On what then do you base this argument?

A Nazarite is one who makes a vow to seperate one's self from all others. The vow of a Nazarite is given on Numbers chapter 6, which means to seperate one's self unto the Lord.

Jesus Christ told us that he did not come here to do his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him. < This was his vow , it was a vow of a Nazarite in which one serpeates one's self unto the Lord.

I truly do not know if I can explain it any better than this, so I will not try. Even though there are many records of him doing just that, including when Jesus went up to pray and asked his Father if this cup could be removed from him. We know that the cup was not removed. The vow was such that it was a blood covenant . This vow even is shown when he was 12 years old, when he told his mother that he was about doing his Father's buisness.

Beyond this, there should be no need of further explanation.

Love IN Christ - MM

There indeed does need to be a lot of further explanation. That he came to do the will of the Father in no way means that he took the vow of the Nazarites. In light of the evidence given that he most likely drank wine, in addition to his touching and nearness to dead people, and the total silence in the entire NT on Jesus ever having taken the Nazarite vow, it is highly unlikely that he was a Nazarite.

I have laid a foundation from which many can come to what I would call the right conclusion. But if you think he drank wine, that still remains your own burden of proof, not mine. And the same with touching , which again IMO and biblical studies, never come up with him touching , other than his walk with his disciples. So now the burden of proof actually falls back on you. For indeed he was a Nazarite.

Love IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

Here is the problem Mysteryman:

Take away the argument of mine that Jesus did drink wine. That's fine since it isn't even really necessary, although it is most plausible. However, you want to shift the burden of proof onto me to prove that Jesus wasn't a Nazarite when you have yet to provide evidence that he in fact was a Nazarite. So far your position is completely unsupported; it's all speculation. And for what reason I cannot see a purpose.

There is no prophecy in the OT that the Messiah would be a Nazarite and there is no mention of him being a Nazarite in the NT. While I will not say in any absolute terms that Jesus wasn't a Nazarite, the evidence is such that the most logical conclusion is that he most likely was not.

Anyway, this is no longer relevant to the topic of the thread since the Nazarite/Nazarene confusion was cleared up.

 

[Mysteryman]

Here is the problem Mysteryman:

Take away the argument of mine that Jesus did drink wine. That's fine since it isn't even really necessary, although it is most plausible. However, you want to shift the burden of proof onto me to prove that Jesus wasn't a Nazarite when you have yet to provide evidence that he in fact was a Nazarite. So far your position is completely unsupported; it's all speculation. And for what reason I cannot see a purpose.

There is no prophecy in the OT that the Messiah would be a Nazarite and there is no mention of him being a Nazarite in the NT. While I will not say in any absolute terms that Jesus wasn't a Nazarite, the evidence is such that the most logical conclusion is that he most likely was not.

Anyway, this is no longer relevant to the topic of the thread since the Nazarite/Nazarene confusion was cleared up.

Maybe you missed something that I had stated before. Which is worthy of consideration.

We know that the OT was full of the prophesies of Jesus Christ. This I am sure you are aware of and in agreement with. What I proposed, was this record in Judges 13:5 & 7 < which was a prophecy of Jesus Christ.

The other thing that no one has considered as well. Was the answer I gave Bob pertaining to his question about the OT declaring that he shall be called a Nazarene. I gave the prophecy that is in Psalms 68:26 - 28. I was wondering why no one addressed this. Maybe you would be willing ? If not, so be it. I still enjoyed our conversation nonetheless.

Bless - IN Christ - MM

 

[westtexas]

As for the connection between the "root out of parched soil" this is based upon the theory that Nazareth was a Greek name rooted in the Jewish word "Nazara" which means "a shoot" referring to a branch which shoots up from the trunk of a tree. This is a pretty solid theory.

I have always understood it to be similar to your explanation. My understanding is that Nazer or Netzer (Strongs 5342) is translated "the branch" with Nazarene literally translated "the one who is the branch"

Matthew 2:23-- (which was spoken by the prophets,"He shall be called a Nazarene")
literally Matthew 2:23--(which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called THE BRANCH")

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah all spoke of the coming Branch with Zechariah saying "Behold, the Man whose name is THE BRANCH" (Zech. 6:12)

Westtexas