Nazareth

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:46 am

http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm

Archeologists have now proven that the city of Nazareth did not exist until three centuries after his death, and questions long debated in scholarly circles are now coming to the forefront. Armed with ancient sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the papyrus books of Nag Hammadi, and the long overlooked writings from the early church, modern scholars and theologians are reconstructing the life and times of Jesus, and what they are finding is very different from the life and teachings we have been "led to believe."

What we do know is that 'Nazarene' was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem'. There is no mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings. The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.

So, there was no Nazareth after all? Probably no Jesus also...

And Christians still believe?

youngborean · Post by **youngborean** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:17 pm

The Bethlehem Prophecy, you mean where Matt. mixes up clan with town?

Mark does not say where Jesus was born. So logic compels us to not call this a contradiction. Instead both converge on the evidence of Jesus's clan.

A minority opinion is not always wrong. The logic might include that Anointed One(messiah) could be a priest, a king, a prophet, Israel, or the Persian Cyrus.

Then it will be on you to give me another example of someone who was definitely not from the davidic line that was called a son of david. This type of messiah (as you have correctly cited other types) which I will call The Messiah was interpreted by Jews at the time to be a physical decendant of David.

Why should they have to follow that rule they didn't follow all of them.
Most of the prophesies where about Israel not a person.

By your modern interpretation it seems that anything you want is possible. The ancient israelites, the Rabbis, the early christians and I will all disagree with you.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:27 pm

youngborean wrote:

Your etymology may be off here as well

IA
Maybe, maybe not.

So the only condition under which you have suggested would work is under the made up one you have proposed. However, the etymology of the Hebrew doesn't lend to much weight to your perspective.

I didn't make it up. So we are talking about etymology(word game)?
At least we are not talking about Jesus' divinity.
Most scholars agree Matt. was using a pun on the words.
Judges 13:5-7
"The child shall be a Nazarite unto God"
and
Judges 16:7
"I have been a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb"
We are Talking about Nazareth right? Or are we in Bethlehem?
Maybe the NT authors got Judas the Galilean and his revolt mixed up with Jesus.
Thanks for the Greek and Hebrew lesson, it really helped the discusion.

youngborean · Post by **youngborean** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:33 pm

No. You missed the point completely. And the Hebrew lesson didn't seem to get through to you. There is no modern etymological evidence to support your assertion. Nazarite = Nazareth is something that can only be inferred by guessing. Modern Nazareth in Hebrew is from the word Netser which means branch and is not in any way the same as the word for Nazarite. Judges has nothing to do with the Messiah. There is no evidence to link the words as you suggest, only made up guesswork. Nice guessing, but it can hardly be regarded as solid linguistic scholarship.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:39 pm

youngborean wrote:

Mark does not say where Jesus was born. So logic compels us to not call this a contradiction. Instead both converge on the evidence of Jesus's clan.

How nice good thing Mark was written first. I thought we were talking about Nazareth not contradictions.

The Messiah was interpreted by Jews at the time to be a physical decendant of David.

Not all Jews, and there were many different interpretations. The Essens for one.

By your modern interpretation it seems that anything you want is possible. The ancient israelites, the Rabbis, the early christians and I will all disagree with you.

No they don't! Not all and not most.
Now you speaking for everyone?
I was discussing your preaching.
Maybe some mental masterbating going on too.
Did I break any rules?

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:40 pm

youngborean wrote: only a physical decendant of David would be considered a messicanic candidate.

Therefore a messiah must be a descendent of David (regardless of his actual ancestry). This is the same sort of logic that determines that the messiah must be born in Bethlehem!
I don't think "Bartimaeus" was so picky. How would he know whether Jesus was descended from David or not?
How about Simon ben Kosiba? He was a "Son of David" too...
"Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai taught: 'Aqiba, my master, used to interpret a star goes forth from Jacob as a Kozeba goes forth from Jacob.' Rabbi Aqiba, when he saw Ben Kozeba, said: 'This is the King Messiah.' Rabbi Yohanan ben Torta said to him: 'Aqiba! Grass will grow on your cheeks and still the Son of David does not come!' (Palestinian Talmud, Ta`anit 4.5)"

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:48 pm

How about Simon ben Kosiba? He was a "Son of David" too...

Why didn't I think of him?

I think there were others too. Didn't a few thousand follow some guy into the desert, and another was going to part the sea. The Romans killed thousands of their followers. One of them got away while the followers
got slatered. The Messiah Son of David was supose to kick butt and not die. They got around that problem.
I guess all the Jews don't agree with any one.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:55 pm

No. You missed the point completely. And the Hebrew lesson didn't seem to get through to you. There is no modern etymological evidence to support your assertion. Nazarite = Nazareth is something that can only be inferred by guessing. Modern Nazareth in Hebrew is from the word Netser which means branch and is not in any way the same as the word for Nazarite. Judges has nothing to do with the Messiah. There is no evidence to link the words as you suggest, only made up guesswork. Nice guessing, but it can hardly be regarded as solid linguistic scholarship.

No you missed the point. It dosn't matter. His followers were called Nazarenes and Paul was supose to take a nazarite vow.
As far as your opinion on scholarship, tell that to Robert H. Eisenman.

youngborean · Post by **youngborean** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:58 pm

This is the same sort of logic that determines that the messiah must be born in Bethlehem!

If the intention of the prophet is such then yes. Yes Simon ben Kosiba was a physical son of david. I don't believe personally that he was the messiah though. But this was why the Jews presented him as a candidate. R. Yohanan was telling Aquiba not to be presumptous. Matthew and Luke present Jesus born in Bethlehem, Mark is silent about Jesus's birth. All agree that he is a son of David. No actual contradiction.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:15 pm

youngborean wrote:No actual contradiction.

Yeah, I know. The whole "Bartimaeus" thing is just so cheesy...Technically 'Mark' is calling Jesus a "Son of David" but I don't think that phrase, spoken by that character, in that context is particularly strong evidence for Jesus' ancestry, and especially not for the purpose of supporting the 'Bethlehem' tradition. I wish that I could explain why not. I don't think it's just bias on my part. I think that it has something to do with the name "Bartimaeus". It kinda makes the whole pericope seem artificial.
Anyhow, this guy has an interesting take on the phrase "Son of David". I'd be interested to hear your opinion of it

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 11:17 pm

Of course Jesus was not the

physical son of David

Because he was God's Son. Good thing he was born in Bethlehem or he wouldn't have much going for him.
youngborean wrote:

All agree that he is a son of David. No actual contradiction.

And Christianity and the bible are saved!
What about being born during Herod before 4 BCE and the taxation in 6 CE in Galilee and having to go to Bethlehem which was under someone else's authority?
Let's see if your as cleaver as Matt..