The Hebrew root word for the town name "Nazareth" is Netzer.
Yes it is. And a netzer is a particular and peculiar thing directly related to an olive tree. An olive tree can seemingly grow old and die - For many years, there is nothing there but a stump... Suddenly, maybe a very long time later, and some distance from the stump, a shoot will spring up out of the ground. This particular branch, a netzer, has been growing out of the root of the dead stump, underground, all the way along. It is not a clone, it is not a seed, it is genetically, and physically, the very same tree as the old stump.
Thus, as this Is 11:1 passage predicts, the House of David, long nothing but a stump, would grow an underground Branch that would spring up unexpectedly, some distance from it's root, both in time and geography.
But there is more:
The Jews call Christians 'Notzrim', or as we would say 'Nazarenes'. Our FRiend vlad looks only to the transliterated Greek word, instead of relying upon what any Jew could tell him. And that He should be called a 'netzer' has much more to say. The 'Branch prophecies' distinguish between the netzer, the trunk or shoot, and the branches above ground once the tree has grown - A very interesting study, too long for this missive. But that is one way that one finds Christianity in the Old Testament prophets.
[from your quote:] But “Netzer” also means “to keep”, which may refer to the city’s location on a mountain watching over the Jezreel Valley, frequently a scene of battle in earlier times.
This is also true, and extremely amazing, as another meaning for 'notzrim' is 'watchmen' - Now, understand that Nazareth hadn't even been established when the prophets wrote about the 'notzrim', and one must be careful to rightly divide (watchmen class angels, for instance), but understanding this bit again, points right to the followers of the Nazarene.
To wit: It is also highly necessary, according to the Prophets, that He be called a Nazarene, the 'Netzer', in order to have a following called Notzrim (Nazarenes). So whether 'netzer' or 'watchtower, or watch keeper', the result is exactly the same.
“Hello Alamo-Girl! Well, sleep eludes me, i think because of this thread running around in my head - So I will write this bit, fleshing out in the process, my position for vlad:”
Nothing you said in your post in any way changes the truth and accuracy of anything I have posted in this thread. All you’re doing is proving that Matthew used an extrapolation. That was my point. You keep proving me right. Unless you can find an Old Testament verse used by Matthew that says “Nazarene”, you’re done. It’s over. I was right all along. I was the one who brought up Matthew 2:23 in the first place precisely because it proved my point and that point was indisputable. It still is. It always will be. You can keep posting to prove me right again, and again, and again, as you already have, but I don’t see the point. I have been right all along in this thread anyway.
And He can and does also recast words which He inspired previously, as well as expand or contract words of Christ Himself. If you examine the duplicate accounts of the trial of Christ in the synoptics it seems rather obvious that all the words attributed to the speakers were not all spoken as such, or necessarily in the order given, but the Spirit expanded them to provide fuller revelation of the Truth of them, or contracted them in consideration of the audience.
|
(Mark 14:57-64) |
||
|
At the last came two false witnesses, And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. |
And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. But neither so did their witness agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. |
And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth. |
There are more, and sometimes it can be postulated that the sayings were duplicate, but in others it seems clear that the words were not always recorded exactly verbatim, yet as the words were by the Holy Spirit in the first place, then God has the freedom to expand upon them.
But which is in contrast to a church presuming to be able to decree it is speaking with the same authority as the same level as wholly inspired Scripture, even channeling doctrine out of amorphous oral tradition, which is not wholly inspired of God, nor are the words of the presumed infallible magisterium.