Nazarene Space

What is the position of a Nazarene Jew in light of this total onslaught that is marching toward Israel?

Views: 464

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ok Pieter, I am understanding your point of view and the only realism I can stand on is the scriptures and history that backs up the text. To say that there were no Jews 2000 years ago is in fact incorrect. The first time the word Jew is mentioned in the Tanakh is 2 Kings 16:6 and at that time King Achaz was ruling and the time was 732/731-716/715 BC which would be 3029 according to the Hebrew calander in which we are currently at 5774 from Adam. This would have been 2745 years ago that the Tanakh is teaching us that there were in fact Jews being identified as Jews. To say Yeshua was not a Jew would be throwing out the Brit Chadasha all together. Matt 2:2 says that the magi were looking for the King of the Jews and they were speaking to Herod looking for a child. Again Matt 27:11 teaches that Yeshua agrees to Pilates question of "are you the King of the Jews". Also I understand Rabbinic idea of Ben Joseph and Ben David, but there are two other craftsman that you need to study up on to understand what is being taught through 4 craftsmen in these writings. I believe in one Messiah two comings. Saul was very much a Jew and he expresses that in Acts 21:39.

Genesis 14 is teaching us about the war of the nations that is fought in the Siddim Valley. Avram had no need to get involved until it became grievous to him in which his nephew Lot had been taken captive along with his family and possessions. Elohim never told Avram to not fight. Elohim told Avram to get out of the land, away from your kinsmen back at Genesis 12 pertaining to the Chaldeans ruled by Nimrod, not get away from Lot and his family as they are being lead away in captivity, that is very farfetched and wrong. Elohim blessed Avram by defeating his enemy and retrieving Lot. The Torah uses the word slaughtering to describe Avram's victory and his 318 trained fighters. Finally for Avram's effort and show of faith that Elohim is his protector, Avram's was blessed by the arrival of Malki-Tzedek the King of peace! Please read 1 Macc 2:32-41, which one are you?

You bring up Avraham but do not agree with the blessing of Avraham that Elohim had blessed him with that we are blessed with. Avraham was blessed and was given land to his children forever (Genesis 13:14-17), not to divide it are despise it (Joel 3:2) , that is the role of the nations and the enemy. Don't you see, it's not about the land or the sea, not the country but the dwelling of his majesty and I am desiring to hasten that day 2 Peter 3:12. A responsible Israelite would join his brother in building up, edifying, and encouraging not persuading to do the opposite of Elohim's will. I would suppose this stance is one of fear that you have latched onto, but cleave unto HaShem and find refuge in Him by trusting His word.

I will comment in short, on the Nazerene Jew remark, you have your own opinion on titles. I am a Nazerene Jew, because I am a Jew that follows the one from Nazareth just the same as a Breslov Jew is a Jew who follows their Rebbe from the town of Breslov Ukraine. Brother, I love you and I pray that just as you would fight for yourself and that (if you've been blessed with a wife and children) you would fight for your brothers and sisters who are trusting in the blessings of a land that was given to Avraham for eternity.

Be strong and courageous.

Thank you Zechariah for bearing with me… may I put forward the following points:

  1. The letter J only came into use about 500 years ago. The generic term Jew as it is used today could not have been used 2000 years ago. To say that 2 Kings, Matt., Shaul, Ester, Philo, Josephus, etc. used that term is factually incorrect and impossible. I would be very interested to find out what original word (term) they used and if they all used the same word. There are not only identity implications but also political and religious assumptions we could make to help us understand their worlds better.
  2. In Acts 21 and 22, my understanding is that Shaul was speaking in Greek to the figure confronting him and would then have used the term Ioudaios to describe himself. This could in context refer to him being from Judea and not from Egypt. Or him being from the Yahudim which seems to be used as a generic term generally. He would not have meant that he was from (the tribe of…) Yudah as we know he was from Benyamin. It could also have meant that he was practicing Judaism; which is unlikely as he would have been specific (Pharisee; Sadusee; Essene). When he “introduced” himself to his own people he said he was a Hebrew. There may be much deeper implications in this which may lead us into understanding the 1st century mindset better.  
  3. The argument about Yeshua being a Jew raise another hurdle: If we agree on calling today the tribe of Yudah or the people that lived in Judea (Yudea), Jews, why do we want to call Him Yeshua and not Jeshua or Jesus. It is not just a spelling matter, the phonetics also changes. I agree with the one Messiah and 2 comings but there is also the matter that the first coming was offered as the final coming, then when rejected, the 1st coming became the “Suffering Servant” coming and we now have to wait for His coming as “King”.
  4. Consider Avram and Lot very carefully. Avram was drawn to become involved when Lot was in a place he should not have been. Later again Avraham had to become involved again when Lot was again in a place he was not supposed to be. This time Avraham interceded by pleading with YHWH, he did not intervene on his own (maybe he had some more wisdom now) and YHWH executed judgment. Lot was only saved because he moved out of where he should not have been in the first place. 2000 years ago, the “King of Peace” was sacrificed. The King that is to come will not need our military input, it will be done by angels. At this point I expect you may want to quote Rev.12:17 to me but if you read on, there is no indication of the remnant fighting opposing successfully on their own. In Maccabeus the opposing elements were much clearer than is now the situation. Being responsible, I caution about whom to trust and is therefore making issues with what may seem to be trivial matters. I have seen how people eager to fight and anxious to defend themselves ended up fighting on the wrong side. We are entering very uncertain times.  
  5. Insisting on being called a Nazarene Jew opposed to just be a Nazarene, make me think of someone called Shaul who challenged Kefa to his face. It also bring up remembrance of all the altercations between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. Looking at the history of the early church, especially from Shaul’s letters, divisive ideas and traditions kept coming forward as problems amongst the new believers.

In any case, I want to thank you as I enjoy these discussions very much because it challenge one to keep studying.  


That is a bit like saying there was no such thing as a "jaguar" before until 500 years ago, because that is when "J" was introduced in English,  The fact is that we speak English and the English word in the English texts of Ester, Philo, Josephus and the "New Testament" is "Jew". 

In acts Paul is asked if he can speak Greek and he replies "I am a Jew..."  If someone asks me if I can speak German and I reply "I am an American..." I am saying by implication "no"

By argument three we should also not use terms like "Jerusalem" or worse yet, make ridiculous statements that Jerusalem did not exist until about 500 years ago.

See: Are Nazarenes Jews?

Thanks James,

More than 500 years ago, you would also not have been: Both literally and figuratively. But Yakov would have been.

The Jaguar would have been Yaguareté and Jerusalem would have been Yerushalayim.

But someone seeing the animal may also have called it in error a Leopard or Panther. Depending on who you have asked the Set Apart City may have been referred to as Salem, Yevus, Rušalim or even Yhwh Yir'eh Shalem. So changing names even to accommodate translations or transliterations cause inevitable confusion at best and deception at worst.

I have had many arguments trying to convince people to refrain from using the name Jesus and rather use Yeshua. Can you see that my same fundamental approach to this is why I kept going on about “who are the Jews”?

However, during my research I have come to an interesting conclusion: After the fall of Jerusalem in 70CE and the dispersion of the believers, the term Ioudaios (Jew) came into general use referring not only to the true believers from the Yahudim / Judeans but also to those new "converts" in all 12 the tribes. So to use the word Jew today for those in all the tribes who follow and trust in YHWH / Yeshua seems to be correct. This was quite a revelation to me and has now laid to rest in my mind the issue and I will be happy to be called Jooste the Jew. With the hope that the following are about to come to fruition:

 “And He will set up an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the dispersed of Yisra’el, and gather together the scattered of Y’hudah from the four corners of the earth. The envy also of Efrayim shall depart, and they that harass Y’hudah shall be cut off. Efrayim shall not envy Y’hudah, and Y’hudah shall not vex Efrayim.” (Is.11:12,13)


Zechariah, I cannot speak for others but I can speak for myself.

I hate what is going on, I greatly dislike what is happening to my brothers and sisters. Words cannot express just how much I hate what is happening.

But I have to remember that this is all written in The Book. It is all laid out. The enemy MUST do what they are doing. If they do not, Adonai will drag them by hooks in their noses to fight Israel. That gives me comfort in knowing that Adonai has this all figured and planned out.
Of course I am going to mourn or be enraged when my fellows are being persecuted and killed, but blessed are they that they chosen to help bring about Elohim's Will.

Reply to Discussion













© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service