The Most Controversial Argument About Jesus RESOLVED And Should Defy The Ardent Critics

Nzr is a three letter word in the Bible, but to interpret just these three letters takes a mountain of work. The reason we shall delve into this to show you how the world not only brushes through scriptures and interpret away haphazardly, but uses western naiveté by ignoring eastern tradition to deceive. Listen to the audio or continue reading.

With this three letter word “Nzr” now we come to debunk, once and for all, what supposedly confounded western scholars and is the most used argument against the New Testament: Jesus of Nazareth being called a Nazarene by Matthew. The most argued prophecy by anti-Christian western scholars is this:

“And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” (Matthew 2:23)

In the east from time-immemorial this is read like this: so He dwelt in Nazra/Nasra that He fulfilled the prophets and be called Nizri or Nasri.
That’s it.

But what is Nasri and Nizri? And why this one is the most argued by scholars is because the Messianic claim hinges on Jesus being from Nazareth and also being a Nazarene, but the Old Testament never mentioned Nazareth by name and so this verse has been used to confound theologians and no matter what the theologian tried to reason with answers, the archeologist and the scholar will never be satisfied repeating their mantra that: 1—We find no such prediction in the Old Testament about anyone coming out of Nazareth and neither was Jesus (who drank wine) a Nazarene (one who fasts from wine). 2—”He will be called a Nazarene” in Matthew 2:23 is written in Greek Ναζαρηνος “Nazareinos,” with a “z” from which the English “Nazarene” derived. To satisfy the scholars they argue that what they want is an “s” and not a “z”.

Did Matthew err? No. In fact Matthew most likely meant both but chose the better word with a “z” instead of an “s” for now we have Nzr instead of Nsr. Yet most theologians argue that Matthew intended an “s” and by that the theologian claims it fulfills Isaiah 11:1 of being a “Nsr” (Hebrew נצר, “branch”) being of the branch of Jesse. For that to be true, the scholar counters that Matthew should then have used (Nasareinos ) with an “s” to link to root word Nsr which is the Hebrew term meaning “branch” or “offshoot” the use of the Greek Ναζωραῖος/Nazoraios with a “z” and not an “s” צ (which is always represented by a σ sigma) makes the link to Isaiah 11:1 invalid since Isaiah 11:1 says that Messiah will be “Nsr” (branch) and not “Nzr”. Therefore, Matthew pulled a fast one out of his sleeve to legitimize Christ as Messiah who was of rejected Nazareth and not of esteemed Jerusalem and therefore Christians should leave Christianity by the droves; we have us a fake Messiah.

In a nutshell, the scholars found a “z” and no matter what anyone provides—that an “s” is probably intended since the gospel of Matthew was originally Hebrew—it did not matter, even if we had accent differences, to these, this is the hook line and sinker that sinks Christianity, a “z”.

Being fluent in Semitic language (Arabic) here I will give a one of a kind refutation that has never been done and debunk once and for all such poor linguistic scholarship—not to convince these—but to equip the weak who read countless refutations that do not give the full and necessary supplement for viral resistance. And if I may have some sense of humor and sound preachy Jesus has all the answers; today we write “Jesus” even though we all pronounce it Jezus with a “z” in the middle and an “s” in the end. Now imagine a couple millennia pass scholars argue over this, or that the text says “Sion” and not “Zion”. Most westerners are unaware that linguistically its Sion and never Zion. The word “Zion” in Hebrew or Aramaic is always with a Sad (S) and never with a Zayn (Z). This in fact brings a whole knew prophetic meaning to the word Sion which literally means “chaste, virgin”. We will delve into this later.

The enemy argues that archeologically Nazareth never existed. It is not as if I hate archeology, it is that there are better pursuits in life then to run after dust in the wind. The fact that you found your lost watch does not mean it never existed. Biblical archeology from after Albright had set itself as an enemy of the Gospel. The worst strategy of any battle is not studying your enemy. What an enemy of the Gospel does is simple: throw a carrot and hope the rabbits gather to eat. But do not make it easy for the rabbit, first shred and pulverize the carrot through the juicer taking out all the liquid and then sprinkle carrot dust so that the rabbit spends a lifetime hunting for dust in the wind. The rabbit that follows such trail never quenches its thirst and then eternally dies. Today they deny even Nazareth existed regardless that they know (the rabbit is ignorant) the Jews wiped it out when they allied with the Persians to kill all the Christians in Nazareth when Sahrparz, general of Chosroes II of Persia around 614 AD conquered Damascus, Galilee, and then Jerusalem killing 90,000 Christians. Yes, throughout history the greatest persecutors of Christians in the east where the Jews and the Persians regardless that your social culture frowns upon exposing such real history. In Spain no one collaborated better with the Muslims than the Jews. Ever wonder why there are no Christians in Arabia? No one hunted down Christians more than the Jews from Dhu Nuwas who had burned the Christians in Najran and Yemen before killing himself by drowning in the Red sea. Himyarite kingdom was ruled prior to Dhu-Nuwas by the Du Yazan dynasty of Jewish converts as early as the late fourth century where John of Ephesus when Dhū Nuwās attacked Christian Ethiopians at Najrān, capturing them burning their churches and massacred all the inhabitants who would not renounce Christianity. No Christian accepted the offer and all chose martyrdom.

In Nazareth, the Jews bought the captive Christians for a small sum, and in their wickedness put them to death (see Eutychius, Ibn Baṭriḳ, George the Monk, Theophanes, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, iii. 343) The Jews hoped to induce the Persians to cede Jerusalem to them and instead were exiled to Persia fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah “I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces” (Zechariah 12:3). The enemies of Christianity destroyed every trace of ancient Nazareth. But despite all this an archeologist (Avi Yonah) found a reference to “Nsrt” (Nazareth) on a chard.

Fragment containing the words [M]amliah, Nazareth (נצרת second line), akhlah, and [Mi]gdal, corresponding to lines 17-20 of the list of priestly courses and their residences.

Finding the small carrot did not satisfy the critics, the archeologist’s personal background then became a “controversy” and a “hot topic” in order to dismiss his discovery since he does not follow their peer’s goal in making the Bible untrue. If in doubt about what we say here, just plug the name on Google and watch the zoo. The enemy of Christianity knows, it is not about fact, but the one who makes the most circulated publications win. They ignore prophecy; the victor in the end is the one who is slaughtered in the beginning.

And if the Pharisees condition and muster the crowds to turn on Christ, today’s bulk majority of revisionist scholars are no different; for they are like the Pavlov dog; he must abide by the behaviorist conditioning in order to be accepted by the academic guild or else he is out of the game. They enter the hauls of universities by huddling over a carrot called a diploma. But such efforts only fulfill prophecy and prove the scriptures: “For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:22) It really works in reverse and God ordained life this way. Archeologists look for a biblical contradiction (which the Muslim whom they avoid critiquing loves to use) while ignoring that their own premise; supposedly being a “scholar” and a fact seeker these have an array of supposed facts that contradict. They generate so many different opinions by different scholars that all contradict and the rabbit then must choose which of the victors makes the least worst sense since no matter what—none of them has the full facts. The idea is this: for the rabbit to continue hunting for the pulverized carrot; he must read through entire essays that contradict each other. The fact is, there contradictions way supersede any supposed problem they found. In reality, once you leave them alone, they are their own worst enemy since they run after their own pulverized carrot more than anyone. With these, no question is ever fully fixed or fully settled and it is always about weighing probabilities since they could not unearth all the pulverized evidence that has been long gone. Most of the carrot (archeological evidence) is dust in the wind.

These are earthly; it is like attempting to resolve a crime scene in a court two millennia later by refusing to trust the court documents (the Bible) believing they need to reconstruct the entire case from scratch out of two thousand year old rubble. All court systems globally condemn criminals with only a fraction of the evidence discovered, for if we insist on acquiring every fact we must then release all criminals. Yet out of all the religions, only when it comes to Christianity there is such a demand we prove everything from the miraculous to the historic which is in itself proof of a spiritual battle between two cities; one is earthly and the other is not. I always asked myself, how could Mecca be heavenly, especially since all these scholars leave it alone? What western scholars is chasing Islam demanding they prove that Abraham built the Kaaba with his son Ishmael? And had Abraham lived in Mecca how did he burry his family in Hebron? To us this should add (not diminish) biblical credibility. In fact, the more these react to the Bible the more evidence we acquire and not vise versa. The more I see this world fall the more my faith strengthens, not weakens for it proves what the Almighty already warned us of what is to come. So to these its best to ignore them parrot to the weak to join their city, for anyone who tried to please them in attempting to connect the words Nazareth to Nazarene matters little. If one searches the answers to the scholar, to them, these are only attempts. They insist we compare ancient manuscripts to only find variations on spelling. Even Wikipedia pounces on the argument that supposedly baffled theologians for centuries:

“… Nazareth fulfilled a messianic prophecy, which he [Matthew] quotes: “He will be called a Nazarene.” However, no such prophecy is found in the Old Testament, or any other extant source. Because of this, the verse has been much studied, and various theories have been advanced attempting to explain the enigmatic quote.”

It is time to bust this faulty argument. So when they say: “no such prophecy about Messiah coming from Nazareth is found in the Old Testament” they intentionally use a false premise and a psychological manipulation on westerners who are not accustomed to the east where names play a significant role in interpretation. Names compound much meaning in eastern thought. What Matthew is saying is that His dwelling in Nazareth (which means victory) caused Christ to be called a “Nsri” (victorious) or “Nzr” (sacrifice) which is what the prophets foretold about Messiah. It is the latter word (Nzr/sacrifice) what I shall focus on for it fulfills the prophets while the first (Nsrt/victory) is how the fulfilled destiny made it; that Naserat (Nazareth) is not simply just a word-name, but the root word from Nasr which also means victory and Nasra is “to give victory” is the name from ancient times; Nsr (with an ‘s’). So it would be like a Canadian saying Messiah lived in “Victoria” so that He (as the prophets foretold) shall be called “Victorious”. The second word is the fulfillment and the first word is what God designated this city for such purpose. In other words, the enemy fulfills the prophecy by insisting to call Jesus a “Nasarite” and this they have done throughout history. Jewish apologist believing they have a carrot forgets that their sages called Jesus in the Talmud a “Nasri” and by their hatred they continually fulfill the prophecy. Yet (for example) the world leading anti-missionary so-called Rabbi Tovia Singer argues:

“A Nazarene, on the other hand, is a person from the city Nazareth. These words may sound alike but in Hebrew, they are spelled differently and are totally dissimilar – one contains the Hebrew letter zayen (נזר), while the other has the Hebrew letter [s] tzadik (נצר).” (Tovia Singer, Jews for Judaism)

I crossed Canada driving with Tovia on a speaking tour and did rings around the rosie with his faulty theology. He argued laughing at Christians who say that Satan is an angel of light. That is when I countered with a Jesus-style question: In the Old Testament, when was Lucifer a cherub in the garden of God? He said “nowhere is Lucifer an angel in the Old Testament”. And by the time I showed him the text he muttered looking like a complete idiot. The Jews know the words of the scripture but they do not comprehend the spirit of the scripture because they hate the light of Christ. That light is the New Testament, which is the only way we can understand the fulfilled prophecies.

So the dilemma is the word “Nsr” (נצר).
First of all, even if we choose the word “Nzr” “He dwelt in the city of “Nazret so that it fulfills the prophets He will be called a Nzr”. This makes it even better for the word “Nzr” truly fulfills more than the word “Nsr”. Secondly, these ‘experts’ are intentionally ignoring what is meant here. For example: the Peshitta is the ancient Church of the East’s Holy Scripture written in Aramaic. If one looks up Jesus in the Peshitta he finds:

תאלד דין ברא ותקרא שמה ישוע הו גר נחיוהי לעמה מן חטהיהון
“And she will bear a son will call his name Jesus (Yeshu’a) for he will save (Yoshia) his people from their sins.”

There are no Old Testament prophecies mentioning “Yeshu’a” as Messiah. The text in Greek or English would not make sense since the name “Jesus” and the word “save” are not as in Hebrew, Aramaic or Arabic. But the point of the prophecy is that “Yesh’u” and “Yoshia” are different words that sound similar and mean the same thing: to save. The most respected Archeologist was Albright commented on the Aramaic language stating that Nāṣrat was intended. Albright has argued that an assimilation of the middle consonant from ς (צ) to ζ (ז) is possible in Aramaic expressions. Jews for Judaism ignore that their own Talmud has it as an “s” in their own two censored traditions about Jesus and his disciples written in the early 3rd century and removed in the 15th giving an independent witness that the earliest Jewish teaching about Jesus: “On the Eve of Passover, they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery and enticing Israel” (Instone-Brewer 2012: 20). In this text Jesus is called “Ha-Nasri” (The Nasarite with an “s”): Ιησου ἁνοζρι. (ישו הנוצרי, 2x in Av.Zar. 16b-17a). So the Talmud itself fulfilled the prophecy that Jesus is called a Nasri. The more they attack, the more they fulfill.

In addition there is an early reference to Nazareth in a Hebrew list of towns – found in an excavation in Caesarea reading Nsrt (נצראת ) with an “s” just as the detractors demand. (Avi-Yonah 1981: 757-58). This discovery according to archeologist Avi Yonah was important since it solved this old dispute once and for all. ‘Nazareth’ in Hebrew was written with an “s” (צ) or with a zayin (ז) made no real difference. The Clear “s” (צ) in the inscription supports the connection of the name with Nsr ‘branch’ (Pixner et al. 2010: 29) which fulfills Isaiah 11:1 “A shoot [Nsr] will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” (Isaiah 11:1)

This passage has messianic overtones as is evident in the context. The term “Nsr” נֵצֶר (branch, shoot, offspring) meaning “to protect,” “to guard,” “to give victory,” “to keep,” and is most certainly the root word of Nazareth (Nsrt). Today no linguist who speaks the Semitic would argue over these meanings. It seems likely, given this information, the Isaiah prophecy is the messianic reference in Matthew 2:23. The Aramaic influence on Hebrew explains why Jesus used Aramaic phrases just as Arabic entered the Modern Hebrew of today. Mishnaic Hebrew differs from Biblical Hebrew as a result of historic developments related to the Hebrew language itself in the Second Temple period. (see Safrai page 229).

But we also have Jerome’s account stated that Matthew composed the gospel in Hebrew for the Jews (to the Jew first then the Greek) which was later translated to Koine Greek with the Hebrew Matthew preserved in the library at Cæsarea which suffered during the persecutions under the Emperor Diocletian and then destroyed by the Arabs in the 7th century. But to these scholars Jerome’s testimony is in doubt since we have to somehow obtain evidence of a Matthew in Hebrew from the rubble. Today in the whole Middle East including in Israel “Nusri” “Nasiri” (נוצרי) is still the general word for “Christian” while “Nasara” is what everyone calls Nazareth, not with a “z” but an “s”.

Languages are tricky and have different pronunciations. It is here where wisdom enters. Without comprehending the hidden and different meanings and the similarities or difference between two words Nsr and Nzr, the sheep is shredded by the wolf. So let us build on the first word (Nsrt), then the second (Nzr). The Christian (forget the revisionist scholar) needs to focus on the use of allegory; it is in the meaning of these words that the prophecy relies. This is after all is what they also claim. They only focus on prophecy when it supposedly aids their view while they ignore every prophecy that condemns them.

So now we come to the difference in meaning this “vow” (Nzr) instead of “shoot” “branch” as in “Nsr” and understand since words have hidden and deeper meanings in the Semitic language. The scholar has no problem that Matthew was written in Greek and that the language of the time was Semitic Aramaic and in Aramaic, Sabian, Arabic, Syriac, or even Persian, Nazareth is Nsrt. Today no one in the East ever called or pronounced that town with a “z” but an “s” just as they say “Sion” or “Sahiun” for “Zion”.

Nazareth, like Zion, is not Hebrew but Aramaic with an “s” not a “z”. The words are Sion (not Zion) and Nasra (not Nazareth). Nasra (root Nsr) means “victory,” “savior” “helper,” “advocate,” “counselor,” “watcher,” “defender,” “vindicator,” al-Naser “God the giver of victory” (see “ناصَرَ in This perfectly matches “His name shall be called wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God …” This alone should end the argument, except that Matthew said that He “dwelt in a city called Nazareth, [so] that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’”

So now, the way these scholars argue, the whole of the Middle East lost its language, lost every tradition, lost any common sense, and now we only have these western scholars to tell us that we were hit with amnesia and they are going to heal us? And why do I always have to go to my own Arabic dictionaries instead of their abbreviated reference guides that offer meager crumbs? What is “Nasr” or Nasra?” It means “victory”.

(Above: even the Persian dictionary recognizes “Nasr” as “(God) the giver of victory”
This would be like Matthew saying “and He dwelt in Victoria to fulfill what the prophets proclaimed that He should be called Victorious”.

Did the prophets have to mention “Victoria” to fulfill this prophecy or does the Messiah have to fulfill the meaning, the He will be Victorious and by that He fulfills such prophecies about all the victories Messiah accomplishes?

When they say that Christians are ‘zealots’ and ‘dogmatic’ it is not true; the scholar who claims open-mindedness now became the bigoted ‘zealot’, so here let us (like the scholar) be dogmatic zealots that Matthew used a “z” for “Nazerene” and gosh ‘it’s the word of God and ‘if God used a “z” then by golly it is a “z”’. Let us all for the sake of their argument agree with the scholar it is a “z” and let us see what happens:
“And he went and dwelt in a city called Nasra, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nzr.’” (Matthew 2:23)

So Nasra and Nzr have no similarity whatsoever (so they say). Fine. Let us go with that and what happens is the scholar’s argumentation falls apart completely to the point that he would later on argue for Nsr as more preferred use instead of Nzr since Nazarene (Nzr) fulfills way much more.

Nazarene is from the root Nzr (vow), which compounds a theological concept. From Arabic and Aramaic to Sabians and Persian, Naser mainly pertains to “(God) the giver of victory” while Nzr is primarily a sacrificial lamb so such victory over sin was accomplished by being a sacrifice. This seem to define the Gospel to a T.

Then we have Nzr “sacrificial vow”, Nthr “to have vision,” “to watch,” and “Nazur” or “Natur” for “watchman” and also “to consecrate”. And how many biblical prophecies do we have on “watchmen”? He dwelt in the city of Watchtower that He will be called a watchman? But a watchman “Nazur” is not someone who only sounds a trumpet; he is a guard who also kills wolves. Some of what ends of “zr” are the same family of words. “A’zr” is “to aid” “to come to rescue” as out of the mouth of a beast, as when in the Passion of Christ in Aramaic Christ says “Elahi Qumma bi-ezrati” “Lord, arise to my aid” “be my helper” and is used at moments of extreme agony is where we have names like A’zariah stands for A’zriahu (Lord is my helper). Psalm 70 “Make haste to help me, O LORD!” “Elohim Le-Haselni Yahweh L-Ezrati” Psalm 38:22: “Make haste to help me, O Lord, my salvation!” “Ho-Sha le-Ezrati Adoni te-Shu’ati” (also see Psalm 22:19, 27:9, Psalm 35:2, Psalm 38,22, Psalm 40:13, Psalm 40:17, Psalm 44:26, Psalm 46:1) Even Azr (with an “A” aleph) is to aid fulfilling the same Psalms.

Nzr and Ndr, Nadara both are in the Bible and mean “consecrated” as “a sacrificial vow” for atonement. From ancient Ugaritic, Aramaic, Punic, Jewish Aramaic to Syriac this is what it stands for.

Nzr also has to do with crowning. Leviticus 22:21 and Deuteronomy 33:16 is taken direct from Genesis 49:26 and the crowning of the High Priest is also the crowning of the Messiah:

“The semitic root נזר nzr / ndr (“withdraw from the customary use”) is behind the Hebrew noun נזר nezær ” consecration / diadem” and is related With the designation נזיר nāzîr “Consecrated / Nasirä” (→ Nasirä ). From the type רנז nezær describes rather the diadem than the closed crown (G. Mayer, 329f.).

Matthew’s one-line prophecy was speaking of a Messiah being anointed as High Priest and King and at the same time being the atonement for sin, which is being a Nzr sacrifice. Being Nzr is also to be separated. Christ was separated as the only one, unique, as the sacrificial lamb “sacrifice of peace offering” from the rest of his brethren as in Deuteronomy 33:16 uses “separated”—Heb., nâzîr of the root nzr. This basically covers the entire prophets where one simply has to rewrite the entire Bible to see how Matthew was correct when he said: “to fulfill the prophets”. This was the particular feature in Joseph’s history, when he was “sold into Egypt,” and “separated from his brethren,” is part of the meaning of “Nazarene” when applied to Messiah in Matthew 2:23. And like Joseph who saved Egypt from doom, Christ too in Isaiah 19 will also rescue Egypt from doom which interpreters fail to catch: “He will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them” as a favor for housing Him at His need when the Holy Family escaped from Herod paralleling when Egypt helped the Hebrews at a time of need (famine). “To rescue,” is to save and is where we get the term (naṣrāniyy, “Nazarene, Christian”). He rescues the world from the impending destruction. Indeed, Matthew’s one line “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled” covers everything the prophets foretold which makes this one line so amazing, not “weak” as claimed. Matthew could not have formulated a better verse just as the ancients could not have chosen better names than Bethlehem and Nazareth.

He “dwelt in a city called Nasareth” (Victorious).
He was born in Bethlehem (the House of the Lamb and Bread of life).
He was a Nzr (a sacrifice)

So one could say that the Son of God sprouts from the abode of lambs (Bethlehem) to later come out from Victorious (Nasr), this becomes an allegoric hint. Nasra or Nazra (watchtower) is also a stone throw from the Jezreel Valley where watchmen kept an eye to incoming invasions. Christ also has the “victory” against Antichrist at Jizreel. Nasra/Nazra is by the Sea of Galilee, that He will finally bring life to the Dead Sea symbolizing His “victory” “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

Even the name Bethlehem can never be fathomed unless we understand its Semitic root; “Beth” is really pronounced “beit/bayt” stands for “house” and Lahm stands for both, “flesh,” “lamb,” and “bread” combined. So the town was given that name as providence from God to fulfill a prophecy in the same manner as Nazareth (providence from God) also fulfilled prophecy.

No one could have chosen better fitting names “Bayt-Lhm” (house of meat) for it was the house of His flesh (the lamb) and the house of the Bread of Life. It is why He was born in a manger amongst sacrificial animals since He too was destined to be the ultimate sacrifice. Every hint in scripture has greater meaning.

The dual meaning gives us the hidden—He then gave the disciples the “bread” and said “this is My Body, eat” because He was the Nzr: the bread of life and the lamb of sacrifice Who gives salvation to the world.

Names in the Semitic not only have a meaning but a message. Unless a westerner spoke an ancient Semitic language, they will miss this crucial key and stumble. Unless one understands this, they can never comprehend Matthew who simply said one thing that combines many meanings, one of which is:

“And he went and dwelt in a city called Nsrat (Victorious), that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, [that] ‘He shall be called a Nzr (Sacrifice).’”

Christ Victorious is not only history, Christ dwelling in Nazareth and being a Nazerene is inseparable from its Old Testament antecedents without which we are left with a reductionist view of Christ. We must repeat the sacrificial victory etched in a prophecy no one examines the loaded meaning behind this prophecy:

“And it will be for a sign and for a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD because of the oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them. Then the LORD will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the LORD in that day, and will make sacrifice and offering; yes, they will make a vow (Nzr) to the LORD and perform it.” (Isaiah 19:20-21)

Here, allow us to shock you with the truth. He will send them a “savior” which also means “Nasri” where the Egyptian converts will make “sacrifice” (Nzr). This “Nzr” is the same as in Isaiah 45 “the hidden God” when the Sabians (Arabs) are converted. When it comes to a Nzr (vow) it is not what one thinks of the word in English terms to simply mean “vow” as in “promise”. A Nzr involves much more: a prayer-request (in Egypt’s case it is deliverance from the Antichrist who invades Egypt). It is then always accompanied with a promise to God if He keeps His end of the bargain (that God shows favor and fulfills the request) then the deal is consummated by the recipient offering sacrifice. The typical modern interpretations miss this prophecy where they instantly contradict each other because they fail to address the core issue: how Egyptians will “know the Lord” and do “sacrificial offering” and God is pleased with this. Is God rebuilding the Temple in Egypt or in Jerusalem?

And since this debunks their theory of a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem they ignore it completely since it proves the case for the way Apostolic-Succession Christians interpret.

He was the sacrifice of victory over sin, the ultimate message given in the beginning of the story of mankind in Genesis. God never intended a Messiah to initially come and defeat the Romans but the sins of all: the Jew and the Roman. And how did Christ obtain this Victory? He became the Sacrificial Lamb. This is why He came out of Victory to be called victorious. In other words, He dwelt in the city of Victory so that by these names, “everything the prophets foretold about Him be fulfilled” being the Conquering-Sacrifice. He is the sacrificial lamb Who conquered death and Hades. And we linguistically apply the same logic with “Nazarene”, Nzr or Ndr, which, means a vow, sacrifice, and promise:

“Now the man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. [Nidru]”

Keep in mind, the word for “offer” is “Zabach” to “slaughter”. A “Nzr” is a sacrifice. Jacob made a vow:

“Then Jacob made a vow [Nzr], saying, “If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, “so that I come back to my father’s house in peace, then the LORD shall be my God.” (Gen 28:20-21)

The words become obvious that it is speaking of the living God, He dwelt in Victorious to fulfill everything the Old Testament regarding the King manifest in a temple, residing in the Ark and then proclaimed as the sacrificial lamb. Scriptures are written regarding life itself and not just a box where God dwelt. Even all the living proclaims the things of God.

You think it was easy for us to leave Islam, then study Protestantism than after these insist we use scripture alone we studied more than they requested to only end up converting to Catholicism? We did what they exactly asked us to do to only find out they were full of bunk. We studied for two decades. This is where all such theories crumble since there is only one perpetual sacrifice and it is initially promised to the Gentiles (see Malachi 1:10-11) which Daniel calls “the daily sacrifice”. All these interpretations wiggle to avoid Transubstantiation is also a perpetual sacrifice, Christ’s sacrifice is forever observed as the Passover prophecy when Moses said it: “throughout your generations, as a statute forever” (see Exodus 12: 15-20). Do Jews today sacrifice animals? No. Did the prophecy fail? No. This alone proves that the Jewish and Protestant arguments are completely false and I wondered, why so much effort is made to attack this one perpetual sacrifice? We only are left with two choices: 1—the prophecy lies or 2—the Jews and Protestants lie.

Go to any Arab and ask him “what does Nizir mean?” They will all instantly tell you: sacrifice by slaughtering an animal. I studied the biblical Aramaic and Hebrew and was dumbfounded. As we explained in chapter 15 to “make sacrifice and offering; yes, they will make a “Nzr” (vow) to the LORD and perform it.” Yet this vow being a “sacrificial offering” is obvious from the text “make sacrifice and offering; yes.” So God approves of this sacrifice. So “Nasri” (the aider to victory) is no accident and is why they still call Him as such in the Middle East. Christ also fulfills David’s vow (Nzr) to show it involves a promise that can be found in the most amazing Psalm 132:

“Lord, remember David and all his affliction! For he swore to the Lord and vowed to the God of Jacob: “I shall not enter to the roof of my house; I shall not ascend to the mattress of my bed … Until I find a place for Lord and a tent for the God of Jacob” (Psalm 132:1-3, 5)

Christ was prophesied in Leviticus as a sacrificial lamb:

“The Lord has made a vow (Nzr) and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever.’” Psalm 110.

“And whosoever offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD to accomplish his vow (Hebrew: Ndr), or a freewill offering in beeves or sheep, it shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein.” (Leviticus 22:21)

This is still in our culture engrained in Bethlehem. I cannot tell you how many Nizirs I watched. No scholar can escape it; this Nzr (vow) in Leviticus is a sacrificial vow “offering in beeves or sheep.” God made a “sacrificial vow”. It was the vow that changed history. Hebrews 13:15, is not about a singing choir:

“By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name.”

The Hebrew for “sacrifice of praise” is tôwdâh. This brings us to the Book of Jonah as he is in the belly of the fish:

“But I will sacrifice to You With the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay what I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.”

This “voice of thanksgiving” is tôwdâh and this “vowed” is Nzr, נָדַר nâdar; a primitive root; to promise (pos., to do or give something to God):—(make a) vow and “thanksgiving (tôwdâh) “sacrifice” and such “sacrifice” is “Salvation is of the LORD”.
This is the whole crux of the matter where Christ, like Jonah was in the earth (the belly of the fish) and resurrected and obtained us salvation. His instruction is we observe this by Communion.

The Nzr has all to do with Communion:

“then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving “Towdah” unleavened cakes” (Lev 7:12)

How many times I ate my grandmother’s unleavened cakes saying “Grand ma, why is this bread so difficult to eat, can’t you make it puffy?” “This is tradition” she replied. We observed biblical tradition more than the Jews.

“Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving [Towdah] of his peace offerings.” (v.13)

“he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving” (v.13), “Offer unto God thanksgiving; [Towdah] and pay thy vows unto the most High” (Psalm 50:14)

“And they shall come from the cities of Judah, and from the places about Jerusalem, and from the land of Benjamin, and from the plain, and from the mountains, and from the south, bringing burnt offerings, and sacrifices, and meat offerings, and incense, and bringing sacrifices of praise, [Towdah] unto the house of the LORD.”

Hebrews 13:15 would be considered the tôwdâh sacrifice the life saving offering that the redeemed person would show his gratitude to God which was equivalent to the tôwdâh sacrificial meal which included lamb and bread with wine accompanied by prayers and songs of thanksgiving, such as Psalm 116. It was the most important and common peace offering. This was the backdrop for Jesus and the Last Supper, which many Christians today are completely ignorant about.

The Hebrew tôwdâh was eucharistia, “thanksgiving” and is how it was viewed from the earliest Christian sources and is how they celebrated the Lord’s meal, the Eucharist from when the Last Supper Jesus took the bread and wine and gave “thanks” (eucharistia) over them (Luke 22:19).

How dare these say that the Eucharist is not in scripture.

It was commanded to “observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread … throughout your generations, as a statute forever.” (Exodus 12:14).
So if God prophesied its “forever” how crucial is this practice, and how is this fulfilled and why Antichrist attempts to desecrate a sacrifice?

It is because this Ndr/Nzr (tôwdâh) is forever. Forever and ever. It is a perpetual sacrifice.

Jesus brought about a new exodus. So when Jesus told them “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19), this act of remembrance is not simply a mental remembrance but the tôwdâh is the exercise of such remembrance recalling in gratitude God’s saving deeds:

“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53)

“And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased” (Heb. 13:16).

These are praises and Eucharistic sacrifice and are why in Hebrews 13 it says:

“We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat…” (Hebrews 13:10)

In Hebrews 13:10, Paul was referring to the Jewish Temple “tabernacle” saying that the Jews at the Temple have the wrong sacrifice (it was made null, Malachi 1:10-11) and that the Jews (for their rejection to convert) cannot participate in the Christian “altar” which is also a table of sacrifice. Both were altars, both had sacrifice and only one of the two is valid (the Eucharist).

So whenever there is an altar there is also a sacrifice and is why this sacrifice is key. If the Eucharist is simply “in remembrance” as if one observes a scene of Christ at the last supper or His Passion: why is it then, that Antichrist “put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering”? It is because such an event is so crucial that it signals the countdown of His return. And why is this “grain offering” called “sacrifice”? If it is simply “praise” as in a choir, why then did not Daniel speak of stopping the hymnals, prayers, or abolish the Bible, or warn us about church demolitions? To Christ, only this one single warning was the crucial one:

“that when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet” [where Antichrist] “will suspend [both] the sacrifice and grain offerings” (Daniel 9:27).

This is the Communion of Bread Sacrifice that Christ warned in Mark 13:14, Matthew 24:15, warning us to pay very close attention to Daniel 9:27.

If choosing the wrong spouse is a health hazard, choosing the wrong religion is certain death. Even when one decides on the right religion misinterpreting its recipes is deadlier. Ask Eve the outcome of a wrong interpretation of one verse where she listened to some bad local preacher telling her to take out the word “not” from “do not eat”. And the same goes when God says, “eat” and you do not eat.

What Matthew stated is not at all uncommon in Semitic thinking. In that part of the world it would be quite logical for one to state: “And he was born in Bethlehem, to fulfill what the prophets foretold He would be called a Sacrifice [Nzr]”; the two words do not even have to match or even mean the same thing since both combined is what makes the prophecy. One word cannot mean much unless it is linked with the other as a whole. This has no connect to the Nazarene sect whatsoever. Though I made up such declaration, who can deny every prophet spoke of this?

Now choose ye how to interpret.

Man struggles in his mire, but God remains like an anvil fulfilling every jot in scripture. Many found in the end that to be “meek” was Victory! I struggled for decades with Islam and then two more with Protestantism and now after I fulfilled my promise to the Protestant to use only the Scripture came to the conclusion that both Muhammad and Luther are of the Devil and that the only way to study Scripture is to put aside all of my theological biases and avoid all to only end up concluding The Eucharist is the Nzr—The Sacrifice. Now I can read the Church Fathers and be confident to say—you, the saints were right.

William Ramsay the Scottish archaeologist spent his life in Asia Minor to disprove the scriptures ended up Christian. The Hittites were said to be a Biblical fairytale, a legend, until their capital was discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey, with tons of clay tablets. If one counts how many times Archeologists and Scholars wrote volumes of false accusations we could fill up volumes. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla (critics claimed was used incorrectly) and the word “tehom” (the deep) in Genesis 1:2 was developed way later and therefore, they claimed that the creation story in Genesis was a later invention. Ebla was finally discovered dating eight centuries prior to when Moses wrote Genesis; the word “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary. The same was the “House of David” had been hotly debated prior to a discovery at Tel Dan mentioning King David. Lysanius in Luke being the tetrarch of Abilene was doubted since no Roman records mentioned him being ruler of Chalcia to only be discovered with an inscription on a temple from the time of Tiberius with the name “Lysanias the Tetrach of Abila”. Even Isaiah’s Assyrian king Sargon was denied until Sargon’s palace was discovered in Khorsabad Iraq. The pool of Siloam was denied slandering John to only find it later exactly where John said it was. But will all this convince the ardent critic? No. The ardent critic is not a truth seeker. He is like his father, the devil, he is agenda driven, for his response to you will be “prove the devil exists” regardless that he sees him daily when he looks at the mirror.

Christ’s living water quenches all who thirst. “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30)

Notes: From the root (l-ḥ-m), from Proto-Semitic *laḥm- (“food, eatables; meat, bread”), from Proto-Afro-Asiatic *laḥam- (“food”). Cognate with Aramaic לַחְמָא‎ (laḥmā), Classical Syriac (laḥmā), Hebrew לֶחֶם‎ (léḥem), Ugaritic (lḥm /laḥmu/), all meaning “food” or “bread”. The varying semantic developments are due to the differing agriculture and diets of the Arabian Peninsula and the Fertile Crescent. Bethlehem (/ˈbɛθlɪhɛm/; Arabic: Bayt Lahm Arabic pronunciation: [beːt.laħm], “House of Meat”; Hebrew: בֵּית לֶחֶם Bet Lehem, Hebrew pronunciation: [bet ˈleχem], “House of Bread”; Ancient Greek: Βηθλεέμ Greek pronunciation: [bɛːtʰle.ém]; Latin: Bethleem

Anti-Christian hostility broke out in 614 AD when the Persians invaded Palestine. See Eutychius that Jewish people of Nazareth helped the Persians carry out their slaughter of the Christians. See Emmett 1995, p. 40
Linguistic discrepancies may be explained, however, by “a peculiarity of the ‘Palestinian’ Aramaic dialect wherein a sade (ṣ) between two voiced (sonant) consonants tended to be partially assimilated by taking on a zayin (z) sound.” See S. Chepey, “Nazirites in Late Second Temple Judaism” (2005), p 152, referring to W. Albright, G. Moore, and H. Schaeder.