Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That makes sense, Arequipa. I went to the web and did some searching on Nazorite/Nazarite. Here is part of what is explained and it can also tie into what I study for my church. It would make sense as to why Jesus would become a messiah as He was entirely dedicated to God.
Prophet, Nazorite, High Priest, and Son of God (http://www.americanunitarian.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=41 - broken link)
Exactly what I was attempting to show Fundy...being a Nazarite has absolutely nothing to do with living in a town called Nazareth. Why is it so hard for people to see that Jesus may have been a Gnostic...there are a lot of Gnostic scriptures in our bible. How do they think they got in there?
Last edited by Miss Blue; 10-14-2009 at 08:50 AM..
Exactly what I was attempting to show Fundy...being a Nazarite has absolutely nothing to do with living in a town called Nazareth. Why is it so hard for people to see that Jesus may have been a Gnostic...there are a lot of Gnostic scriptures in our bible. How do they think they got in there?
Maybe there were Gnostics who did some of the editing when compiling the book. We really don't know, at least for me. I'm not sure what the answer would be. i've not tried to find where it comes from as it's not really something I'm interested in knowing since it doesn't help me get to heaven. Could be some research I may need to do sometime.
Thank you for the vindication...it's amazing the dogma some people hold to when there is plenty of historical evidence out there that says otherwise. I am a very firm believer that there is so much more spiritual information to be given to us by God but we will never receive it until we kill the "carnal man" in us all along with all of the man made myths we believe in.
Do you know...I see where you are coming from on that. I think we need to first suppose that this 'spiritual' thing is in our heads (perhaps affected by our body chemistry, too) rather than outside, but I can't be too dogmatic about it. In any case I don't want to introduce 'doors of perception' onto a Nazorene thread.
That makes sense, Arequipa. I went to the web and did some searching on Nazorite/Nazarite. Here is part of what is explained and it can also tie into what I study for my church. It would make sense as to why Jesus would become a messiah as He was entirely dedicated to God.
"Nazirites may or may not have also been prophets. Nazirites where those uniquely dedicated to God and singled out as special gifts to his people. These individuals were out side the Levite priesthood and were used by God through word and example to call his people to faithfulness.
Moderator cut: eited to comply with copywrite rules which say that a short snipped is about two sentences
Prophet, Nazorite, High Priest, and Son of God (http://www.americanunitarian.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=41 - broken link)
to look at that link
Prophet, Nazorite, High Priest, and Son of God (http://www.americanunitarian.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=41 - broken link)
"In our New Testament, Nazirite is changed to Nazarene; "anointed one" is changed to the Greek term "Christ" which means the same."
It is assumed that Nazirite is changed to Nazarene or Nazorene. Since we weren't there we can't be sure there were no etymological distinctions that meant that no-one would confuse the terms. Still, the Nazirite link looks stronger than the Nazareth one, the more one looks.
The site goes on to explain the Priesthood through the order of Melchizedek which appears to indicate that Jesus was priest appointed by God rather than elected by priests.
That of course, cannot be substantiated since God does not give press conferences so there is an element of 'if you succeed they your claim is valid. which is really the way Messiahs tended to be identified. Succed and you are a messiah. The Hasmoneans were, John wasn't Bar - Kochba was but it didn't last long.
Jesus didn't succeed and so isn't recognised as a messiah except by the Christians who have altered the meaning of what a messiah is or should be. Obviously dedication to God is one aspect but one might as well say that it's dedication to the democratic party makes Barak president.
No. A messiah had to rule Judea and rule Judea alone, not under foreign rule. Thus, in the 1st century, being an aspirant messiah inevietably had and element of 'Romans go home' about it. Jesus' chumminess with the occupying forces had more to do with the pro Roman views of the gospel writers than any views that Jesus might have had.
Exactly what I was attempting to show Fundy...being a Nazarite has absolutely nothing to do with living in a town called Nazareth. Why is it so hard for people to see that Jesus may have been a Gnostic...there are a lot of Gnostic scriptures in our bible. How do they think they got in there?
Not only was there not a city of Nazareth and hardly a case for a town or even a farm called Nazareth but Jesus' parents had to travel to Bethlehem for the prophecy about him to be true.. so I guess it's kind of weird for bible fundamentalists to really fight this one. Why does it matter... if he was not from Nazareth but was from Bethlehem..doesn't that mean he fulfilled the prophecy and so what is the difference?
Why hang on to the "Nazareth" part so emphatically?
While the fuss here is whether or not Nazareth existed way back into antiquity (which I do NOT believe, by the way), the bigger fuss should be over the fact that the "prophecy" in nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. Not surprising for the writer of Matthew, by the way. He took some serious liberties in his book.
Next, the mention in the book of Timothy referring to the scriptures as being "god breathed" in the second post in this thread ONLY refers to the Hebrew OLD Testament as the New Testament books were NOT canonized as yet and considered "inspired." Takes us back to the age old obvious question. Who determined what was inspired and what was not ESPECIALLY when you consider the New Testament? Christians will often say that Jesus/New Testament writers quoted jut about every book in the Old Testament and upon this alone, they claim this PROVES the Old Testament was inspired, but which great figures beyond that do we look to to find endorsement for the New Testament?
The conventional understanding is that Nazareth was a fairly small community, of no great historical importance, which is why it is not mentioned outside the New Testament. But there is plenty of archaeological evidence that Nazareth existed before, during and after the time of Christ. And the latest discoveries may completely overturn the idea that it was small and insignificant. Either way, the idea that it did not exist, and therefore that Jesus could not have existed, is out of date, and not supported by contemporary evidence.
The most natural method was to bury one's dead near the house on one's own land, as is clear from 1 Samuel 25:1 and 1 Kings 2:3, while the latter passage, which refers to Joab, shows that this custom was not restricted to the burial of kings and prophets, as Winer ("B. R." i. 444) has supposed. The custom of interring Jewish kings in their castles, close to the Temple wall, is severely condemned by the prophet (Ezekiel 43:7-9), this criticism showing that graves were considered unclean, and were therefore not to be made near human habitations (Numbers 19:16). Graves were, accordingly, outside the cities (Luke 7:12; John 11:30), or, according to rabbinical precepts, fifty ells from the town (B. B. ii. 9).
It is a fact that there are tombs in the area. This does not mean that the area was uninhabited. In fact, there must have been people living in the area to provide the bodies to go in the tombs.
Prophet, Nazorite, High Priest, and Son of God (http://www.americanunitarian.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=41 - broken link)
"In our New Testament, Nazirite is changed to Nazarene; "anointed one" is changed to the Greek term "Christ" which means the same."
It is assumed that Nazirite is changed to Nazarene or Nazorene. Since we weren't there we can't be sure there were no etymological distinctions that meant that no-one would confuse the terms. Still, the Nazirite link looks stronger than the Nazareth one, the more one looks.
The site goes on to explain the Priesthood through the order of Melchizedek which appears to indicate that Jesus was priest appointed by God rather than elected by priests.
That of course, cannot be substantiated since God does not give press conferences so there is an element of 'if you succeed they your claim is valid. which is really the way Messiahs tended to be identified. Succed and you are a messiah. The Hasmoneans were, John wasn't Bar - Kochba was but it didn't last long.
Jesus didn't succeed and so isn't recognised as a messiah except by the Christians who have altered the meaning of what a messiah is or should be. Obviously dedication to God is one aspect but one might as well say that it's dedication to the democratic party makes Barak president.
No. A messiah had to rule Judea and rule Judea alone, not under foreign rule. Thus, in the 1st century, being an aspirant messiah inevietably had and element of 'Romans go home' about it. Jesus' chumminess with the occupying forces had more to do with the pro Roman views of the gospel writers than any views that Jesus might have had.
While Jesus may not have been the Messiah in a material sense, he was the messiah in the spiritual sense. He didn't rule anything because He was here to show the spiritual upliftment and not the material upliftment. And from what I understand from my own ministry, Jesus falls under the same rule as the Melchizedeks. He was actually the first to bring the commandments from God. There is more to the story but I'll stop there so I won't go off topic any more.
At this stage in our development, I really don't think it matters what order Jesus was under. What matters is His teachings to At-onement with God.
I've sent a note to one of my teachers with this question. I have checked if he answered yet as he is far more knowledgeable on this subject than I.
While the fuss here is whether or not Nazareth existed way back into antiquity (which I do NOT believe, by the way), the bigger fuss should be over the fact that the "prophecy" in nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. Not surprising for the writer of Matthew, by the way. He took some serious liberties in his book.
Next, the mention in the book of Timothy referring to the scriptures as being "god breathed" in the second post in this thread ONLY refers to the Hebrew OLD Testament as the New Testament books were NOT canonized as yet and considered "inspired." Takes us back to the age old obvious question. Who determined what was inspired and what was not ESPECIALLY when you consider the New Testament? Christians will often say that Jesus/New Testament writers quoted jut about every book in the Old Testament and upon this alone, they claim this PROVES the Old Testament was inspired, but which great figures beyond that do we look to to find endorsement for the New Testament?
Last paragraph is a little off topic, but...
The Church of Rome and Constantine decided what was canon and what was not....the very same ones who rewrote and edited the bible to suit their political purposes. The only thing I consider "inspired" are the original autographs and what we have...ain't them. It takes some serious mining and revelation from God to know what true and what isn't.
While Jesus may not have been the Messiah in a material sense, he was the messiah in the spiritual sense. He didn't rule anything because He was here to show the spiritual upliftment and not the material upliftment. And from what I understand from my own ministry, Jesus falls under the same rule as the Melchizedeks. He was actually the first to bring the commandments from God. There is more to the story but I'll stop there so I won't go off topic any more.
At this stage in our development, I really don't think it matters what order Jesus was under. What matters is His teachings to At-onement with God.
I've sent a note to one of my teachers with this question. I have checked if he answered yet as he is far more knowledgeable on this subject than I.
That's what alot of carnal men miss completely and will always miss as long as they remain carnal in their understanding....Jesus came to show us The Way to be at one with The Father, just as he was...and it isn't as easy as "Christians" think it is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
