xjwsforChrist

Didn't want to hijack another post, so figured I'd start a new one. In that other post, AGuest said:



Doesn't "Nazarene" mean he was from Nazareth? Matt 2:22-23: "Moreover, being given divine warning in a dream, he withdrew into the territory of Gal′i·lee, 23 and came and dwelt in a city named Naz′a·reth, that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets: “He will be called a Naz·a·rene′.”"

The Law for the Nazarite:
Numbers: 6:2-5:
Speak to the sons of Israel and you must say to them, ‘In case a man or a woman takes a special vow to live as a Naz′i·rite to Jehovah, 3 he should keep away from wine and intoxicating liquor. He should not drink the vinegar of wine or the vinegar of intoxicating liquor, nor drink any liquid made from grapes, nor eat grapes either fresh or dried. 4 All the days of his Naziriteship he should not eat anything at all that is made from the wine vine, from the unripe grapes to the skins.
5 “‘All the days of the vow of his Naziriteship no razor should pass over his head; until the days that he should be separated to Jehovah come to the full, he should prove holy by letting the locks of the hair of his head grow.

It would seem that if Christ was a Nazarite, he would not have drank wine. John the Baptist may have been a Nazarite since his father was told by the angel that he must drink no wine or strong drink at all.

I think you are right on the money there LQ. I think the references to Jesus being a Nazarene refer to his location of birth rather than any vow he had taken. Perhaps he could be considered Nazirite-ish in that he lived a simple life, but he was no camel skin wearing, honey and locust eating wine avoider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite

The Wiki article above mentions that any reference to Jesus being a Nazirite are ambiguous. Besides one key part of being one was not touching dead bodies, and Jesus certainly did.

_________________
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.” - Dr Seuss

Greetings, dear LQ and WS, and peace to you, both! A WONDERFUL topic, thank you!

My Lord was not a Nazirite because of where he lived; he withdrew to and lived in Nazareth because that is where were Nazarites/Nazarenes, of which he was the FOREMOST, lived. Why there? To show those there who considered themselves Nazirites, by means of having taken the vows associated with such... the TRUTH. Those folks were SINCERE about their vow; however, they had been MISLED about what the vow required. Here is how. First, let's look at what the vow "required." The following is from the link posted by dear WS:



If this was the TRUE vow, then my Lord violated it not only by drinking wine, but also by RESURRECTING... the daughter of Jairus, the son of the widow of Nain, his disciple and apostle, Lazarus (NONE of whom he touched)... and others. He would still be violating it... by resurrecting US. Yes?

Yet, surely, if ANYONE was consecrated... or separated... to the MOST Holy One of Israel, it was His Son and Christ, the HOLY One of Israel, yes? So what gives?? Two (2) things:

1. MAN, tampering with the requirements of the vow and deciding the terms. This is one of the very reasons for my Lord's words that:

"You heard it was said... but I say to you..."

2. MAN'S... LACK of love! For example, shouldn't one have enough love... so as to have pity... so as to have compassion... so as to be MERCIFUL? Yet, if one will not even touch a corpse, how can one have such love, pity, compassion... and mercy... to resurrect the one that has died? True, my Lord didn't need to touch a single corpse but to simply call out to the deceased to "rise", "get up", etc. What, though, if he had HAD to touch such a one? Would he have let the Law stop him... and so the one remain dead? Or would he have SURPASSED the Law... with LOVE... and touched them, so as to give them life (again)?

HE is the FULFILLMENT of the Law, dear ones! Including what it means to BE a "Nazarite"! Just as he is the fulfillment of truth... life... wisdom... love... peace... and more! For the very reason that the vow denoted a consecration and separation to God, is not HE is the One who should... would... can... and does... SHOW us how to fulfill that vow? Who better to do so??

And so, for example, he compared himself to John (the Baptizer) who was also a "Nazir" or "Nazarite". John refrained from wine; Christ did not. Yet, who was "greater"? John... or Christ? Well, what did JOHN say about himself in comparison to Christ?

"There is one who is coming, whose sandals I am not fit to tie."

So, even though he (John) had adhered to every aspect of the Nazarite "vow" (that he was TAUGHT/"heard" was in effect!), HE (John) said that there was One coming that was even greater than him! He was referring to the Christ. Why would John adhere to one law, however, and Christ another? They didn't. John adhered to the Law. Christ... FULFILLED it.

And so, if the Law was FULFILLED in him... how can HE... transgress it?? When HE came, dear ones, and fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 61:1-2, then HE became the "Law," so that whatever HE said and did... NOW was "law." Hence, again, his words "You HEARD it was said... but I say..."

The Law, then, as it had been tampered with was no longer in effect - it was not be looked to because HE was the One to be looked to. The MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, said:

"This is my Son, the beloved. Listen to HIM."

Not... "listen to Moses/the Law."

So, under the Law (actually, pursuant to what Israel by this time thought was the Law, because they had "heard" such was the Law, but the Law had been tampered with by the scribes; hence, my Lord's "Woe to you... scribes!" Jeremiah 8:8)... a Nazarite could not such and so. Under CHRIST, however, wine was not only allowed; it was REQUIRED. At least to the point of representing his blood, which HAD to be drank in order to be in union with him, yes? But would he have his followers do something HE wouldn't do? Would he have THEM "violate" the Law by drinking wine, while he himself refrained from it? How can that be?!

No, dear ones, what had occurred is that some had taken it upon themselves to make others adhere to laws, burdens even, that they themselves could not carry. In that light, they "overstepped" the commandments of God... WITH THEIR (written) TRADITIONS! Love, however, SURPASSES the Law. Indeed, there is no Law AGAINST love. In that light, if a Nazarite had the POWER to resurrect someone dead... what should he choose? Adherence to the "Law"? Or... MERCY?

Did not Christ show HIS love... by turning water to wine when the host ran out at a Cana wedding? He could have blown his mother off, let the celebration end, and say, "Hey, it's not my time, yet, and even if it was, I don't drink wine, so what do I care if there's none left?" He didn't do that, though - he showed his love for his mother by granting her request. Did he transgress the Law by doing so? There is no law against love, dear ones.

Heck, David and his men ate the showbread, did they not? And was that not a violation of the Law? Yet, he and his men wer shown mercy, yes?

Bottom line: who are we going to listen to? The "Law"... as such is presented, although tampered with? Or Christ? The "Law" says that in order to be consecrated to God, and separated to Him, one cannot drink wine. Christ said "UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man... AND DRINK HIS BLOOD... you have NO life in yourselves." And that his blood is represented by wine. Which is better, though? To abstain... or OBEY? Did not the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, say, through David:

"SACRIFICE and offering you did NOT want. But you prepared a BODY for me; these EARS of mine you opened up!" Psalm 40:6

So, okay, you take a vow... don't drink wine, don't cut your hair, don't touch dead bodies... BUT you don't listen, don't follow the Spirit, don't obey, don't show mercy, don't forgive, judge, keep account of injuries, have no natural or tender affection, no compassion, no pity, couldn't care less than your brother is hungry or homeless, see a man beaten by robbers and just step over him and keep on moving...

What, then, was the REAL point of your vow????????

But are not ALL of the holy ones... and faithful ones in union with Christ... to be consecrated and separated to God? Are we not to "QUIT touching the unclean thing" so as to be taken in as sons and daughters? Is that "unclean thing" wine? Really, is wine truly "unclean"? Really... a product of the vine; an "unclean thing"?

OR... is the "unclean thing" one is "touching" a particular "harlot", indeed, a daughter of the MOTHER of Harlots, Babylon the Great... and so an adulteress that one is consorting with?

If one wants to know how to FULFILL the Law, dear ones... AND one's "vow" to the MOST HOLY One of Israel, JAH of Armies... then one must look to the TRUE Nazarene: His Son and Christ, THE One FIRST consecrated and separated to Him, the HOLY One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah). Because THAT One will teach us how to SURPASS the Law... with LOVE... while "covering" when we transgress it. Even by drinking wine ( ).

That One not only drank wine (and said we must, as well, in symbolism of drinking his blood)... but did and will, by means of HOLY SPIRIT... touch corpses.

I hope you dear ones have ears to hear and get the sense of this truth. Christ is the True Nazarene, the ONLY One who can show mankind what it means... and is... to be TRULY consecrated and separated to God. More than any other "Nazarite" who may be such by some vow related to the Law. Because he is the image of God and the very representation of His being. As such, my Lord went and lived among those who considered themselves Nazarites... to show THEM what it truly meant to BE a Nazarite: NOT what one presents as such and "wears" as to their vow on the OUTSIDE... but what one presents... and "clothes" oneself with as to their vow to JAH... on the INSIDE.

I hope this helps and, again, peace to you, both!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellama

So to reduce this to a couple of easy to understand sentences: Are you saying that Jesus was a Nazirite in the literal sense in that he would have let his hair grow and have dietary restrictions? Or are you saying that he was Nazirite in a symbolic way, as in, he led a simple humble life not unlike those who had taken a Nazirite vow?

In the quote that LQ provided you seemed to indicate that it was in the literal sense.

Surely Nazarene would indicate someone from Nazareth and Nazirite would indicate someone under the vow? The words are different in Hebrew and I would not thiink they are interchageable.

This is the first time I've ever come across this.



When Jesus raised Jairus' daughter, didn't he take her by the hand, say some words, and then she was resurrected? This was certainly touching her no?

_________________
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.” - Dr Seuss

And is it correct to say that Jesus "withdrew to and lived" in Nazareth? Wasn't Nazareth just where he was raised? It might have been a base of operations when he commenced his ministry, but surely most of his time was spent on tour?

_________________
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.” - Dr Seuss

Thank you for that explanation.
Just wanted to add what I heard as regards to this point of the post.

1 Samuel 15: 22 " Does Jah have as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of Jah? LOOK! To OBEY is better than a SACRIFICE..."

And now obedience on our part is this.

Mark 9:7 " This is my son, the beloved. LISTEN to Him!"

Great comments
Love Justmom

Okay, I am utterly (peace to you ALL!). I was awoken at 3am this morning by my Lord with some things to share on this topic, important things... which I typed out from 3:15-5:15am. And when I went to hit "preview"... I found that I was logged out. Unlike the old forum, however, I was not able to go back to the previous screen and recapture my post.

Sigh. I will try to post the lion's share of it again, later. I am too cold and too tired to do so, now.

In the meantime, I wish to share with you, dear WS (good morning and peace to you!) what I was given to respond to you (the rest can wait a bit):

1. Yes, my Lord did touch Jairus' daughter's hand... and grew up in Nazareth, where he was trained AS a Nazarene. I was woken because I needed to correct the commeHowever, dear WS... peace to you, I will share what nt re Jairus' daughter - I had confused that "officer" of the synagogue with the army "officer" whose servant took ill... and I knew this. I had actually first posted that he did indeed touch such bodies, yet was not rendered unclean but the body was rendered clean by HIS his touching it... and for some reason posted the other. I truly cannot explain WHY I did, because I knew as I was typing it that it was an error - my Lord was telling me so. And I meant to correct it, had EVERY intention of doing so (I actually, I thought I had!). The only thing I can think of occurring is that I may have been distracted by puppy "bedtime". When I look back on it, I think I returned and simply hit "submit," thinking I had already made the correction.

But that was one of the reasons he woke me up this morning: I had posted an "error" and needed to correct it. So, I came right down to do so!

2. My Lord was raised in Nazareth, yes, but also returned there by way of the towns in Galilee and lived there for awhile after his time in the wilderness and before his first move to Capernaum. I should have posted "withdrew to Galilee" to follow what the Bible states; however, Nazareth is in Galilee... and he did return home for a bit. He had to... because it was there that he had to "come out" and announce his apostleship. Among those of his own community so that both Isaiah's prophecy about it was fulfilled, as well as his words that a prophet "is not welcome in his home territory." He had performed miracles all along the way back, including in Capernaum (which eventually threw him out, too)... and so his refusal to do so in his home town (because of their lack of faith) and his words to that effect, go him thrown out. He actually went back and then left again (fled, actually) when John was arrested. He almost had to sneak back to Capernaum... where he was also eventually thrown out. Between the two (Nazareth and Capernaum) he lived in the streets/outside... and again after Capernaum. But he spent as much time in Nazareth as he did in Capernaum. You don't hear/read much about the former because he lived in his parents' home, whereas in Capernaum, he lived in his own home.

3. The word "Nazarene" is interchangeable - it refers primarily to the sect of Nazirs/Nazarites that resided in Nazareth (Acts 24:5), more than the place where he came from. The word "Nazareth" has two meanings: Hebrew, Na'tse'reth) means "Sprout-town" and Greek Nazara means "guarded one." The word "Nazarene" also has two meanings: Hebrew Notsri, from the root ne'tser, meaning "sprout," and Greek Nazoraios, meaning "one separated." My Lord fulfilled both of these, in that he was "Sprout" (Isaiah 11:1; Zechariah 3:8 AND JAH's guarded one (Genesis 3:15; Psalm 16:9, 10; Acts 2:24, 27; 13:35

When referring to him with reference to where he CAME from, he was called "[Jesus] OF Nazareth"... such as Paul was "Saul OF Tarsus." That he was called a/the "Nazarene" was to identify him as one considered (by the Jews) as part of the Nazir "sect".

Okay, really cold now, so will share the rest (regarding consecration and separation... which is what Nazir/Nazarite/Nazarene truly means) later.

Peace!

Your servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellama, going back to bed at 5:58am to get warm (shivvvverrrr!)

Thanks for taking the time, Shelby, even in the middle of the night!!!

I usually take lots of time to "corroborate" what you say, since you give plenty of references. I have learned that there is much hiding in plain sight in the scriptures. Thus, what you present is often a completely new way of looking at things to me. Thus, I have felt for some time now that while I used to think I knew the scriptures, I now feel I am but a "babe".

In this case, Wikipedia has been helpful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
Scrolling down to "Nazarites in the New Testament", the first sentence says, in part: The practice of a nazirite vow is part of the ambiguity of the Greek term "Nazarene"

Seriously... I never knew that.

As for the rest of your post, I think I can widdle it down to one sentence:
Forget about the Law... love and mercy are more important.

In a previous post, this became plain to me when you cited 2 Cor 3:12-16:
Therefore, as we have such a hope, we are using great freeness of speech, 13 and not doing as when Moses would put a veil upon his face, that the sons of Israel might not gaze intently at the end of that which was to be done away with. 14 But their mental powers were dulled. For to this present day the same veil remains unlifted at the reading of the old covenant, because it is done away with by means of Christ. 15 In fact, down till today whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon their hearts. 16 But when there is a turning to Jehovah, the veil is taken away.


Hope you get some sleep, and warm up a bit!
-LQ

Thank you for sharing!

Warm up! Sorry the " hot" and " cold" is a craaazzzy thing.
Talk to you SOON,

Love ME ( Justmom)

Good morning!

Thanks for clarifying AGuest, it makes much more sense now with the corrections you made.

So do you believe that Jesus was both, a Nazarene (from Nazareth) and a Nazirite (vow taker with long hair and dietary requirements etc)?

Or do you believe that Jesus was both, a Nazarene (from Nazareth) and a Nazirite (in the symbolic sense of taking a vow to Jehovah and living by it)?

Like others this a new thought to me. I can't see that he could have been a literal Nazirite. The record of some of the things he did in his ministry tend to indicate otherwise.

Does anyone recall if the WTS ever talked about this? I can't remember it ever coming up. I do remember them harping on about pioneers, COs, DOs, and those in Bethel service being like Nazirites.

Stay warm, and hey, if he's gonna wake you up in the middle of a cold night, the least he could do is make you a hot chocolate

_________________
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.” - Dr Seuss

Okay... peace to you all... and whew! Went back and read what I posted in the wee hours and... so many typos! LOLOL! I meant to post that I was "utterly heartbroken" because I had lost my initial post. And I don't know WHAT happened to the first part of Item No. 1 to dear WS (again, peace to you!). Almost jibberish, starting off! Please forgive me!



This is true, dear LQ (peace to you, as well... and thank you for the Wiki reference!)... but I think your succinct statement doesn't tell the full story and sometimes the full story sheds a bit more "light" on a matter. In that light (pun intended - LOLOLOL!):

We must forget about the Law... as to others. Meaning, we must forget about JUDGING OTHERS as to the Law. The whole looking at others and pointing of the finger at what "they" are doing thing. Faggedabowit. What others are doing is really no one's business, so long as it isn't causing others harm. If it is causing us or another "brother" harm, then we have the steps at Matthew 18:15-18... and/or if it's a crime that MUST be reported, there is the state to judge them. Regardless, WE must show mercy... AND we must forgive... and so NOT judge them. And mercy does not just extend to those who "sin against" us. Mercy includes pity and compassion such that if we can EASE or even STOP another's suffering... whatever its form and intensity... mercy would compel us to do so. As we would have them do unto us. As to others, then, we are suppose to SURPASS the Law... with love (and, therefore, yes, mercy).

As to ourselves, it depends on whether we are Israel... or of the nations:

If we are of Israel, then we are to keep an eye on OURSELVES, such that WE don't transgress the Law... as to JAH or our brother. Since we are yet of the flesh, however, we WILL transgress. We will, everyone of us, violate/transgress SOME part of the Law at SOME point. More than once, actually, and more than one part. Even so, sin is sin: JAH does not rank sin. So, if one transgresses ONE part of the Law, one transgresses them all. Who, then, can stand?? This is why Israel needs Christ: the atoning value of HIS blood "covers" our transgressions "against the Law." HE makes up OUR "deficit" so that we can stand before God and NOT be judged/condemned... PURSUANT to the Law.

What if one is of the nations, however? Since such ones were never under the Law (they/their ancestors never agreed to be bound by it)... then, yes, love (and mercy, because it is born of love) can suffice. I say "can," because there are two (2) groups within "the nations." First, this "love" is what gets the "sheep" who "do good to" Christ by means of doing good to his brothers... into the kingdom. The "sheep" here, however, are not the "OTHER sheep" who Christ calls along with the "little flock" (Israel) and those who constitute the "great crowd" taken from every nation, tribe, tongue, and peoples. Hence, while they inherit the kingdom, they do so as its subjects - not as co-rulers with Christ.

[u][b]Those "OTHER sheep" actually JOIN with Israel who join Christ (the "little flock"). By doing so, they "constitute" themselves "as Israel" and thus, with that little flock become ONE flock: the TRUE Israel of God. As such, they LIVE according to the Law... to the extent that love FULFILLS the Law." So, they wouldn't just dismiss something like bearing false witness against their brother, coveting another's possessions/spouse, adultery, idolatry, etc. They would do their best NOT to "transgress", just as those of Israel joined to Christ would. Knowing that, like Israel, were they under the Law they would transgress somehow, someway, someday... they follow those of Israel who do and put faith in Christ, who can and will "atone" for them with HIS blood.

They are like Ruth who, although not a Israelite, CHOSE to follow her MIL Naomi and the God Naomi served. By doing this, although she (Ruth) never stood at Sinai and agreed to the Law, nor had an ancestor that did, she openly stated that she would follow Naomi's God. This obligated her to also follow the Law. Same with the "other sheep" - they CHOSE to "grab hold of the skirt of a man who is a Jew"... and thus, come under HIS (New) Law, which fulfills the OLD Law.

Like the blood of Christ, however, love DOES cover a multitude of sins. A multitude... but not ALL. Christ's blood covers ALL sins, except blasphemy against holy spirit. His sacrifice doesn't cover that far.

Since we don't actually know who is and who is NOT Israel, though, and so even a "least" one of Christ's brothers, it behooves us to show love toward all, yes? And since we wish to be shown mercy... it behooves us to show mercy toward ALL. Yes?

So, love and mercy, yes, as these fulfill the Law... but not "as an excuse for loose conduct," right? Else, we are accepting the sacrifice of Christ, pursuant to the UNdeserved kindness of the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... and missing its PURPOSE. Our dear Lord didn't die so that we CAN sin; he died, so that we can be forgiven FOR our sins... and RELEASED from the wage of such sin: death. THAT was the purpose of God's undeserved kindness and so we can't just do the "Well, I'm already forgiven, so I can" thing.

I know this seems like "more" than just love and mercy. But it isn't, really. It's just the details of what love and mercy mean in this regard. Love does not look out for its own interest, so love would not transgress against God or a brother, if such can be helped. When it can't be helped, there is forgiveness and atonement, by means of God's mercy... and shown to us through the blood of His Son and Christ, the HOLY One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah). Love bears all things, believes all things, never fails... and so IS merciful.

I hope this helps, dear LQ, and again, peace to you!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellama, off to post the rest of what I tried to this morning...

Good day and peace to you, as well, dear WS! Yes, and thank YOU for your kind patience. Given what I still posted, I am wondering if my "dyslexia" is the situation. I tend to get discomboobulated, even dyslexic, from time to time due to "hormones." Recently, mine have decided to take over my entire body at will and on a daily basis, which has been quite challenging. I have receive some advice from dear lady friends/family and hope to get things under better "control" soon. Even so, thank YOU for your kind words in pointing out my error!



All three, dear one; however, the literal Nazirite vow was not perpetual - it ended at some point. For my Lord, that was when he offered HIMSELF, literally, As the True Nazarite, in fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1-3. At that point, he continued in the symbolic sense. Even so, when he kept the vow literally, he the requirements that were ORIGINALLY stated, and NOT what the "false stylus" of the pen of the secretaries later wrote (some of) those to be.

Let me give you an example, as he shared such with me:

The man Samuel was a Nazirite, whose hair was never cut. He believed that his strength was tied to his hair and its related vow to JAH; however, did he still not retain strength, such as to pull down a building... after his hair had been cut? His strength wasn't in his hair not being cut; it was in his faith in JAH... such that he DIDN'T cut his hair. So even though his hair WAS cut before his vow expired... he maintained his strength.

Folks often misunderstand how the literal relates to the symbolic/spiritual. But it's actually pretty easy to SEE... when one looks at CHRIST to see the fulfillment... and not at the Bible. If one wants to know what the TRUE Nazarite "vow" was and looked like... one must look at him... and NOT at the "law" (as subsequently copied... and imposed... by man).



Au contrare, dear one! Indicate otherwise as to what "the Bible says," perhaps. But how could the HOLY One of Israel do DIFFERENT from what the MOST Holy One of Israel commanded? Did he not say he did NOTHING "of [his] own initiative," but just as the Father TAUGHT him, he did? He wasn't the one who lived the vow incorrectly, dear one - it was those who listened to man... and looked to the Law, rather than to HIM... who did so.

Now, you might say, "Well, now, wait - all they HAD was the Law!" But that's not accurate. They had "Moses" and thus the Law, yes. But because the "false stylus" of the scribes... and the hypocrisy of the scribes, priests, and religious leaders... the people didn't ACTUALLY have the Law. They had what they were GIVEN as the Law, just as WE have today. They were SUPPOSED to read the Law "in an undertone day and night." If they did THAT, though, then they WOULD have listened to "Moses", as well as seen the corruption that was fomenting among them, yes? ANd so they were talked OUT of doing that... as many are today. And they did what most do today: turn the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for knowing God... over to others to tell/teach them. Which they WANT(ed). As Jeremiah wrote:

“A horrible and shocking thing
has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy lies,
the priests rule by their own authority,
and my people love it this way.
But what will you do in the end?" Jeremiah 5:30, 31

Actually, consider reading the entire 5th Chapter of Jeremiah's prophecy. Eye-opening as to this matter, the people WANTING to be misled, even loving it! They wanted... and STILL want... to be lied to! Had they been looking to Christ all along, that wouldn't have occurred. Because Moses did... and told THEM to, as well, yes? Deuteronomy 18:15-18; Hebrews 11:23-26). S'why David, others, and the Prophets could hear my Lord: they listened to MOSES. John 5:46



They did, indeed... and teach that my Lord was a Nazarene per geography and symbolic Nazarite. Which is an error. Indeed, his status as a literal Nazarite is EXACTLY why my Lord made the comparison of himself and John (the Baptizer) at Matthew 11:18, 19:

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

His point? That it didn't matter to the people because they had contempt for Nazirites anyway (they considered them a "sect" - John 1:46; Acts 24:5): Hence, they would find fault, regardless, whether with a Nazarite who kept the "law" (as it was written by that time) to the "t" (as John did), or with the True Nazarite who was the FULFILLMENT of both the vow AND the Law. Because they were in OPPOSITION to the MOST Holy One of Israel... and ANYONE who belonged to Him, as manifested by the keeping of such vows and Law.

But as with all other things relating to my Lord, of course the WTBTS doesn't know accurately... because they don't know him.



Ah, what's a little discomfort to my flesh, given the great blessings to my spirit, dear WS? LOLOLOL! He doesn't ask for much - just that we listen... so as to benefit ourselves... and share what we hear with his sheep from time to time. In exchange, we receive truth and are led into ALL truth. So, I got a little chilled. Warmed right up with three puppies "radiating" next to me - LOLOLOL!

Anyway, I hope the above helps! Okay, gonna get to that post now. I think. I hope. LOLOL!

Peace to you!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellama

Sorry, dear ones, but I am a bit "fatigued" and so will have to post what I receive early this morning a bit later/tomorrow. But I WILL post it. Just gonna take break and "chill" (yeah, right!) a bit.

Peace... and see you all soon!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama

The man Samuel was a Nazirite, whose hair was never cut. He believed that his strength was tied to his hair and its related vow to JAH; however, did he still not retain strength, such as to pull down a building... after his hair had been cut? His strength wasn't in his hair not being cut; it was in his faith in JAH... such that he DIDN'T cut his hair. So even though his hair WAS cut before his vow expired... he maintained his strength.

Good morning everyone ....

Good morning my sister Shelby, and I am glad your day is better. Just wanted to mention I believe this was SAMSON you had reference to and not Samuel.

No worries, I got your back. You ALWAYS have mine. Ad I need it more and more these days.
Thank you for sharing.
Love Justmom

OMG, yes, SAMSON, dear 'Mom (THANK you... and peace to you!). Okay, now I'm SURE that whole "dyslexia" thing... or something like that... is kickin' in BIG time! Please... all of you... forgive and overlook... and CORRECT me... as to these kinds of errors? Please. I am not 100%, at least as to typing, sorry. Not that I ever was - I was about 80%; now I'm about 60-70%, I'm sure.

Sigh. The vessel of flesh - what can you do?

Peace and thanks again, dear 'Mom!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama