American Unitarian Conference Forum

Throughout the scriptures, Jesus and others are referred to by these and other terms.  It is important that we understand their meanings.

In Amos 2.11 it reads "I also raised up prophets from among your sons and Nazirites from among your young men."
And in
Du 18.18,19 "I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him.  If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.
and in Jer 7.25  "From the time your forefathers left Egypt until now, day after day, again and again, I sent you my servants the prophets.

The Prophets were God's faithful spokesmen and servants.  They were given specific messages to deliver to specific people at specific times.

In Du 18.22 it states: "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord God does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.  That prophet has spoken presumptuously.  Do not be afraid of him.

Prophesy was not for something to happen in the far distant future.  It was to happen within a specific time.  The people to whom the prophesy was given were to see or feel the result of the prophesy.  This is the only way they could know that the message delivered was or was not from God.

In summary, a prophet, was a man or woman selected to deliver a special message or messages to a specific people at a specific time.  The results of their prophesy were to be immediately apparent.  Prophets are sent day by day, again and again.

Let's now turn our attention to the Nazirite.

In Nu 6.2 it states "If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the Lord as a Nazirite..........
6.4  As long as he/she is a Nazirite
6.5  He/She must be holy until the period of his or her separation to the Lord God is over.
6.21  He/She must fulfill the vow he/she has made, according to the Law of the Nazirite.

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.

To be a Nazirite involved separation, consecration, or anointment for a specific period of special devotion to God.  On rare occasion, an individual was anointed or consecrated for life.  This was not just a vow of self-disipline; it was an act which required total devotion to the Lord God.  To become a Nazirite, the person must have the Spirit of total commitment to God.  On even rarer occasions, Nazirites were set apart to serve God from birth.

Hebrew Rabbis often use the term Nazori to refer to Jesus and his role in spreading God's word.  In our English translations of the New Testament, Jesus was to be called a Nazarene, not because he was born in a specific town but because his life had been specially dedicated to God from birth.

In our Old Testament, Nazori or Nazirites are often simply mentioned as "an anointed one" or as "anointed by God."  The term Nazirite itself is seldom used, but always an anointed one had a special vow, mission, or message to convey, to which they were dedicated.

In our New Testament, Nazirite is changed to Nazarene; "anointed one" is changed to the Greek term "Christ" which means the same.

In summary, the terms Nazori, Nazirite, Anointed One, Nazarene, and Christ all refer to the same category of individuals: People whose lives are fully dedicated to the service of God for a specific period or for life.  They were to not only speak the words of God but to lead the people by example.

Now we are ready to proceed to the next level.  We turn now to the office of High Priest.

First we will turn to Heb 5.1  "Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God.
5.4  No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God.
5.5  So Jesus also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest.  But God said to him, "You are my son, today I have become your Father."
5.6  And he says in another place, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
6.2  He has become a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
7.1  He has become a priest of "God Most High."
7.15  What we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek. appears.
7.16  one who has become a priest not one the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but one the basis of the power of an indestructible life.
9.11  Jesus came as high priest of the good things that are already here.....

Melchizedek. is first mentioned in Gen 14.18.  He was priest of God Most High and he blessed Abram saying "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of Heaven and Earth...."

Melchizedek means "My King is Righteousness" or "King of Righteousness is very similar to that of Adoni-Zedek meaning "My Lord is righteousness" or "Lord of Righteousness."

God Most High, Creator of Heaven and Earth.  The titles "Most High", "Lord of Heaven" and "Creator of Earth" were frequently applied to the chief Canaanite Deity in ancient times.

Abram, by identifying Melchizedek's "God Most High" with "The Lord" bore testimony to the one true God, whom Melchizedek had come to know.  Abram's response to his blessing seems to indicate that he recognized that Melchizedek served the same God as he, although they used different terms to refer to God.

Jesus is our "great high priest" -- whose priesthood is "In the order of Melchizedek", not in the order of Aaron.

Here we have two separate priesthoods for God.  The Order of Melchizedek and The Order of Aaron.  One Canaanite and one Hebrew.  Both serve the same One true God but in different manners.

Great effort has been made in scripture and commentary, to identify Jesus as a high Priest in the order of Melchizedek and in service to the "Most High God."

This leaves us with one more title or term to consider at this time which has been much misused and misunderstood.  That is "Son of God".

Jesus almost always referred to himself as a son of man till late in his ministry.  So in effect we need to examine these two expressions.

All humanity could by referred to as Son of Man or truly Son of Woman.  For Jesus said in the Gospel of Thomas; "When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship Him for that One is your Father."  This also refers to the material man who separates the material from the spiritual and does not acknowledge or realize God's presence on the earth.  The Son of men see God as far off and not near.

The title Son of God goes back to Genesis as applied to Jacob after he woke from his dream of separation.  He was told he would no longer be referred to as Jacob but as Israel; This is an Egyptian term which means "Son of God" or "Child of God".  Unfortunately this term is no longer used only for those who have awakened, been reborn, have risen from the dead of ignorance, or been enlightened.  It is now used in ways totally different from its original use and meaning.

Jesus is one of the very few individuals who are rightly entitled to be regarded by all four titles.  The titles of Prophet, Nazirite, High Priest, and Son of God (Israel).  To these we may add a fifth title, that of Rabbi, which means "Teacher".

I will close with words of Jesus as recorded in John 4.23-24, John 7.16-18, and John 8.11:
       Yet a time is coming and has now come when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.  God is Spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth.
       My teaching is not my own.  It comes from him who sent me.  If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
       He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the One (God) who sent him is a person of truth.
       If you hold to my teaching (then) you are really my disciples.

Submitted with Love,

Rev Dorris

Ps.  Most of the above scripture and commentary comes from the NIV Study Bible and commentary.

Terrific information Rev. Dorris....when a person actually reads the material...much of the "real" person of Jesus comes out shorn of the mythos attached to him. You start to realize that the period he lived in had so many currents of unrest and expectation and that he stood in a long line of prophets, teachers and revolutionaries.

Question....now that it has been almost 2,000 years....is Jesus still relevant to us today?
As Unitarians, his teachings are still inspirational...to an extent...after all, I would not advocate leaving your family and taking up the wandering life in expectation of the 2nd coming....but much of his ethical stance is still vital.

Some Unitarians may hold to a divinely raised Jesus Christ (spirit) who acts as a mediator on our behalf...his spirit is felt as a source of aid and comfort.

There is something about his life and death that engages us after all this time....some of it is cultural inheritance...but the rest genuinely impacts the reader / hearer of his life.

There is, actually, a difference between a Nazorite and a Nazarene. A Nazorite is as you described, but a Nazarene is somebody who comes from Nazareth. There is no connection between the two. Moreover, Jesus drank wine, so he definitely was not a Nazorite.

The mystery of Jesus early life...was he sent off to learn with the Essenes or like group (Theraputea, Nazorites?) Where did his learning come from...I doubt a "poor peasant" just suddenly became a rabbi....I have to think he was involved to some degree with one of the religous groups in the area...we are fairly certain John The Baptist had strong Essene connections....Jesus may have had some as well but it appears he left and went into the public ministry - not uncommon for that group. Robert Feather has written some intriguing books on the subject. He obviously broke away from the orthodox position so he could have been a member or associated with those groups for many years before going on his own...due to his life changing experience that called him to act as he did.
But, those years remain an open question...so much is lost to history.

I think that to some degree, our attitude towards Jesus is reflective of our attitude towards reverence. Reverence requires an Object; in my judgement the figure of Jesus is certainly an appropriate one.

When I look at my own "Belief Set", it is not so very  different, after all, from those of many Religious Liberals. I seem to find, however,that its emotional content differs greatly.

Many years ago, back when I was still trying to make UUA Unitarianism work for me, I went to a workshop at our local UUA church on the subject of "Heroes". When it came my turn, I chose to speak on Odysseus and that wonderful first line from one of the many excellent translations of Homer's great work, "This is the story of a man who was never at a loss".

The next fellow, dishevelled and unshaven, full of bad jokes about the comments of those who had gone before him,, told us all that his greatest hero was himself. He went on to justify his position, but I barely listened. For me, the damage was done. He seemed to exemplify all that I found increasingly disillusioning about UUA Unitarianism.

It seems to me that a lot of what holds Religious Communities together is the acceptance of common objects of religious awe. Certainly I experience a deep need for the experience of heartfelt reverence and that experience is magnified and deepened when it is shared by a community I feel membership in. Is Jesus Christ worthy of such feelings. I think so.

My own rejection of UUA and Liberal Religion is more of a gut reaction to the general rejection of reverrence and religious awe found there than any specific doctrine regarding Jesus Christ or any other specific religious figure.

Fred  

Fred, if anything, Jesus is a great example of a hero...people may not think of him in those terms but to stand against the tyrannical powers that be (Rome, Priesthood, Herod etc) for the sake of his fellow humans, forfeiting his life as a result, speaks volumes to his heroism (our perception).

I am sure He did not see himself in those terms, and his followers were intially afraid, but in the long run his sacrafice, regardless of the theology, puts him in the pantheon of heroic lives...our own Unitarian heroes....Michael Servetus, Francis David, Norbert Capek.

David,

The Bible states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Nazareth.  He was to be called a Nazarene.  Wierd wording to indicate that someone was born in Nazareth.  Several sources indicate that the Talmud and the Old Testament do not mention the existence of Nazareth at that time.  No mention is in the history by Josphus.  One source indicated that the town of Nazareth did not come into existance till sometime after 68C.E. (I will have to double check that information and date.)

There was a sect of Nazerenes that originated in Syria. That is another avenue that can be taken.  

There were many different vows that a Nazorite could take, not just the one indicated by a few lines in the old testament.  As to Jesus drinking wine, that is a matter for debate.  Jesus served wine and he made wine. People associated him with drinking because he kept company with those who drank, but nowhere that I remember did it say He drank the wine.  On the contrary, at the wedding feast, when Mary heard that the host was out of wine, she said, "What is that to us." possibly indicating that they did not drink wine so it did not matter to them.

With love,

Rev Dorris

If you would like, we could start a thread on the life of Jesus from non scripture sources. It will be upsetting to many people.  There are volumes of information about Jesus available. Of course most of the source documents have been declared forgeries by the church.  The writers are labelled as heretics at best.  (The shock value of the information has been lessened since the Discovery Channel ran specials on the Life of Jesus, but even they left much of the information out.)  Much of what we can say will be considered mere speculation.  

If this is where you would like to go, where or in what section should the thread be posted?

With love,

Rev Dorris

Hi Robert,

You are right that the Bible says Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but it also says he grew up in Nazareth, that Nazareth was his hometown.

I was not arguing that Jesus was really from Nazareth. I was arguing that, according to the Gospels, he was from Nazareth. That's all.

Where else would you get information about Nazorites in Jesus' day?

Here's the bottom line: Nazarene and Nazorite are two different words. There is no way around that.

But I appreciate the thoughts you brought out in your original post. Good stuff there.