Recently i have been told by two born-Jews who both speak fluent Hebrew that the word "netzari" is a hoax and does not exist in Hebrew at all... the only real word to describe someone from Nazareth would be "Notzri" (sing) and "Notzrim" (plural).
The word Netzar is indeed visible in Yesheyahu 11:1 but that word means Branch and not "someone from Nazareth - a Nazarene" same for the word Netzarim which means Branches and not "people from Nazareth".
I read the Aramaic gospel fluently and the Aramaic gospel uses Natzaria (sing) and Natzara (plural) to describe someone or people from Nazareth but keep in mind the Aramaic of the gospel is the Syriac dialect and not the Chaldee (biblical) dialect of Aramaic therefore i can't really pinpoint what the Hebrew equivalent would be of Natzaria and Natzara, one thing is for sure the Gospel uses these terms to refer to a person or people from Nazareth and NOT as branch/branches..
So i hope someone can help me figure out where the false term "netzari" stems from then ??? And should we use the gospel terms rather than invent hebrew terms for ourselves ??
Read Romans 11
yes, notzri and notzrim.
but what has it to do with the historical Yeshua Hanotzri?
the correct adjective for a man from Peru is "peruvian" but not "latin-american" because the word "american" is already patented by every "u.s. citizen" under the patent laws of nowhere.
but what has it to do with the historical Jew in Peru by the name of Che Guevarra? none.
so does the play of adjective... it cannot undo what history has done. that's nothing.
---by the way where have you been Yshmael, for long time we've been missing your posts, hope it's been fine with you---
i have read everywhere notzri is a derogetary term and not a good term to use also the Aramaic gospel does not use "notzria" or "notzara" therefore i have to conclude they are bad names to insult us believers in Yeshua.
i agree with Andrew and Baruk that we are to call ourselves Natzarim not notzrim..
about where i've been, you will read it in the PM i sent you, shlom
yea i have read already just today.
WE ARE HA NATZARIM!
First of all, why would you believe anything that two who claim to being "two born Jews", would have to say, or state, when there is no such thing as a Jew? There was no letter "J" in any language on earth until the 14th century, and it was not in use until the 15th to 16th centuries. It is a modern fiction.
If you desire, and you need more knowledge, you can go and buy a copy of Shlomo Sands book "THE INVENTION OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE", who is a professor with a PhD in Israel.
Secondly, the word "neytzari" or, as I perfer, "natzari" [long aa] is indeed a true word, so you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. In fact, NatZRat [צֶמַח] is the name of the city that bears that name to this day. It is a very popular name in Israel. If any doubt this, please go to any of Israel's [the State of Israel] websites, such as ISRAELNATIONALNEWS.COM, and see how they use the root word for "natsar" or "natzar", in all of their news stories, regarding the City of "NatZRat".
Here, for your convenience, I have pulled up their website's search engine, to NatZRat, just for You!
In closing, the scriptures do indeed support that the word NatZRat [צֶמַח] is referring to those who were "watchmen" in NatZRat, which is why NatZRat was an outpost. If you will go to Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah 31:6, the same exact word that was later translated by the "Jews" to mean "branch", as you pointed out, was also translated into "watchmen", as well as the word "keep" in the Psalms.
What I believe beryl is stating, is that "the bachiyr, and later the eklektos, were referred to as 'natsarim' or 'natzarim' because the very arguments that led to the creation of the B'rit Hadasha, came about, because the bachiyr approached the religious leaders [ha P'rushim], who dared anybody question there authority, with the objective that the word for "branch" was not translated properly, as it was also translated to mean "watchmen", of which the men of NatZRat were. This is why it is written, that Paul was a "ring leader of the NatZRim sect", because of the defense the bachiyr made over the truth. The bachiyr were drawing a parallel, which is what wisdom is all about: dichotomies and parables.
This is why we see the scriptures referring to Yahusha coming from NatZRat:
"The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of NatZRat, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of NatZRat? Philip saith unto him, Come and see." [Yohanan/John 1:43-46]
It is the same argument today, as men try to pimp other men, and convert other people's ignorance over religion into capital. Why do you think all of the books are written? It is a basis of Babylonomics. What you need to remember, is that "men do not teach the truth, it is the Father" [Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah 31:34, Yohanan/John 6:45, I Yohanan/John 2:27], and this as well was a basis of the tumult, leading to those who were of darkness, and were trying to enslave men with Transmutative physics, to kill the NatZRim and Yahusha shel NatZRat, so men would not comprehend the truth, then and now, that they were/are liars and deceivers!
The writers of the New Testament were not Christian [as the writers of the Old were not "Jews"] though we’ve been referred to as “Christian” and “Christians”, nor did they consider themselves to be Christians, and there is nothing in history which shows that they were; on the contrary, history shows that these g-dly men and women, these saints, and followers of Yahusha shel NatZRat, were ashamed to be considered as a part of this apostate religion.
Here is what Epiphanius of Salamis (inter 310–320 – 403), the early Christian historian who is considered a saint and a Church Father by both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, wrote about the NatZaRim in his first book of his Panarion:
"For these people did not give themselves the name of Christ or Jesus' own name, but that of Nazoraeans [NatZaRim]. But at that time all Christians alike were called Nazoraeans. They also came to be called Jessaeans for a short while, before the disciples began to be called Christians at Antioch."
Let history speak the truth, and these fictions [Jews] be silent!
That's like saying there is no such thing as a "frog" because English is an invented language that did not exist even two thousand years ago. My name is "James" does that mean I do not exist?