And He Shall Be Called a Nazarene

[IndigoChild5559]

Hello IndigoChild5559.. Hope all is well!
You said in reply to this,... (Had Matthew intended to cite an exact prophetic quotation from the Old Testament, he would have cited a specific prophet, instead of saying summarily, as he does, “the prophets”.
23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.)

I say ... The devil is in the details! Your comment.. Which pretty much shows that Matthew was making it up.

I reply: Making it up is a moot point; because you question the Matthew' integrity means his words mean nothing!? Clearly Matthew did not get his idea from thin air of a "fulfilled prophesy" .
They returned to reside in Nazareth after word came that Herod the Great had died (Matt. 2:19-20).

Matthew could easily be paraphrasing in summary form the words of several prophets.
Acts 24:5 “We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect
Christians are spoken of by Tertullus as “the sect of the Nazarenes”. The name has obvious reference to Nazareth, the early home of the Savior

Hello my friend. Life is good. Hope all is well with you as well.

There is no prophecy in the books of the Prophets (or anywhere in the Tanakh) that the Messiah will come from Nazareth or "He shall be called a Nazarene.) fI'm not sure why you are quoting acts -- Acts is not a book of the Prophets. And I'm not disputing that Jesus came from Nazareth. I'm disputing that it was PROPHESIED that the Messiah would come from Nazareth. Either the author of Matthew made it up, or someone else started the rumor that such a prophecy existed, and Matthew passed it along.

It's sort of like how so many Christians say that the Bible prophesies that the Lion will lie down with the Lamb. It's orally passed from person to person -- its actually very common. But its NOT what the prophet says -- the prophet says that the WOLF shall live with the lamb. Do you see how these orally passed on mistakes happen?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When was Israel with sinners in his death, than buried with a rich man (a singular man)?

When did Israel rise from the dead to see Israel's children?

Why did Israel suffer to pay for Israel's sin, when God gives sacrifices?

According to the Prophet Isaiah, the righteous (such as the obedient remnant of Israel) can suffer on behalf of others -- it is called vicarious suffering. You should look up that phrase and become more familiar with it.

And no one can deny that Israel has suffered. Thousands of years of it.

The Messiah is to come back from the dead???? In a way that is other than the general resurrection at the end of time? Give me your best verse for this from Isaiah 53 and we'll look at it together. Just one verse -- your very best one -- that says the messiah will come back from the dead and that this will be different from the general resurrection.

I am not God, so I don't have all the reasons for God's choices. I only know that Isaiah makes it clear that the righteous remnant of Israel can suffer on behalf of Israel.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I reply... "It is scripture!" You want proof from the scriptures!? THEN.. When you get the proof from the scriptures you reject the scriptures!?
Pagans reject the authority of the Church!
There is NO place that says.. The scriptures are the AUTHORITY!
Scriptures say: "The CHURCH" has the authority of God to teach all nations!
Scriptures say.. "Listen to the CHURCH or be rejected as a PAGAN!"
Scriptures say.. "Hear the Church you hear Jesus! "Reject the Church you reject God!"
Scriptures say: "Jesus built his CHURCH on ROCK, not on sand"!
Scriptures say.. "Jesus died for the CHURCH" they say "Jesus loves his CHURCH!"
Scriptures say "Jesus is ALWAYS with his CHURCH to the end of the world"!
Scriptures say.. "The CHURCH is the Pillar and the foundation of truth"!
Scriptures say.. "The Holy Spirit is with the CHURCH FOREVER"!
Scriptures say "The Holy Spirit will guide The CHURCH into all truth"!

Accept it or reject it.... Can't argue with truth!
Scripture.. John 6:55 "My flesh is real food"!
Scripture.. John 6:52 Then the Jews & Fallen Prophet began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Confessing sins to a man... 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Fallen Prophet For anyone to reject the Catholic Church they must then reject the scriptures!

Circular reasoning.

If you reject the Catholic Church - then you reject the scriptures - but the Catholic Church is the sole authority to decide what is or is not scripture - so if you reject that scripture you reject the Catholic Church.

It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I do not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church. I do not believe that it is the "church" that the scriptures are referring to.

If the Catholic Church were that church - then I would reject the Word of God - because the Catholic Church have fallen astray many times throughout history - even denying the scriptures.

Your responses are tedious and unwelcome and I believe they are beginning to violate this forum's rules against proselytization.

 

[BilliardsBall]

According to the Prophet Isaiah, the righteous (such as the obedient remnant of Israel) can suffer on behalf of others -- it is called vicarious suffering. You should look up that phrase and become more familiar with it.

And no one can deny that Israel has suffered. Thousands of years of it.

The Messiah is to come back from the dead???? In a way that is other than the general resurrection at the end of time? Give me your best verse for this from Isaiah 53 and we'll look at it together. Just one verse -- your very best one -- that says the messiah will come back from the dead and that this will be different from the general resurrection.

I am not God, so I don't have all the reasons for God's choices. I only know that Isaiah makes it clear that the righteous remnant of Israel can suffer on behalf of Israel.

By making Is 53 Israel, not Messiah, you have Israel vicariously suffering for Israel. I have one reason for God's choices, they are LOGICAL, These verses get nonsensical/illogical your way:

But Israel was wounded for Israel's transgressions,
Israel was bruised for Israel's iniquities;
The chastisement for Israel's peace was upon Israel

unless you had over a dozen times in the chapter the word "remnant", instead of

But Yeshua was wounded for Israel's transgressions,
Yeshua was bruised for Israel's iniquities;
The chastisement for Israel's peace was upon Yeshua

which is why it's "obvious" to Christian believers.

And of course, Israel has never died or you and I wouldn't be here!

He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
And they made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,

As for resurrection, besides the other verses around Tanakh, in 53 alone you have:

He was cut off from the land of the living . . . they made His grave with the wicked [thieves on crosses], but with the rich at His death [buried in Joseph's newly hewn tomb] . . .

When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.

 

[metis]

There is no prophecy in the books of the Prophets (or anywhere in the Tanakh) that the Messiah will come from Nazareth or "He shall be called a Nazarene.)

It has long been a question I have had as to whether the "Nazareth" reference might actually be a mistaken translation of Jesus maybe being considered to be a "nazir".

 

[1213]

Proof please. In other words you are mistaken.

Proof for that it is possible? Don’t you think anything is possible until otherwise proven?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

By making Is 53 Israel, not Messiah, you have Israel vicariously suffering for Israel. I have one reason for God's choices, they are LOGICAL, These verses get nonsensical/illogical your way:

Because you are using the word Israel in your examples, when in fact it is the righteous that suffer vicariously, not everyone. Thus only the obedient remnant of Israel would be suffering, and it do so on behalf of the sins of all Israel.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It has long been a question I have had as to whether the "Nazareth" reference might actually be a mistaken translation of Jesus maybe being considered to be a "nazir".

If the prophecy was about a Nazarite, then Matthew would not have said it was fulfilled by him having lived in Nazareth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Proof for that it is possible? Don’t you think anything is possible until otherwise proven?

If you have no proof for it, then you shouldn't go around saying it. People don't appreciate others just making stuff up as they go, which is what you are doing if your assertion is not based on proof. So show me some scripture, or some archaeology, or some other historical evidence that Nazareth was a town of Nazarites.

There are some things which are spiritual, which there is no evidence or not enough evidence for, that I may take on faith for spiritual reasons. Like the existence of God or that the Torah is God's word. But that is not the sort of thing we are talking about here. You are making a historical claim, and now are backing off and saying in a round about way that there is no evidence for it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because you are using the word Israel in your examples, when in fact it is the righteous that suffer vicariously, not everyone. Thus only the obedient remnant of Israel would be suffering, and it do so on behalf of the sins of all Israel.

In Tanakh, the righteous are not merely the obedient, you are misreading Tanakh per our traditional views. Plus I would say "how does EVERY righteous Jew be with sinners when they die and a rich man (singular) in his tomb, etc. (Is 53).

I did not want to trust Yeshua for salvation, but reading both testaments as an adult, I felt compelled to trust Him, and yet still did not wish to trust Him/submit. Eventually, I realized the pursuit of ultimate truth and eternal life was far more important than being rejected by friends and family who did not seek the face of God.

 

[metis]

If the prophecy was about a Nazarite, then Matthew would not have said it was fulfilled by him having lived in Nazareth.

Good point.

 

[1213]

If you have no proof for it, then you shouldn't go around saying it. People don't appreciate others just making stuff up as they go, which is what you are doing if your assertion is not based on proof. So show me some scripture, or some archaeology, or some other historical evidence that Nazareth was a town of Nazarites...

I didn’t claim it is so, I said it is possible. And at the moment we have nothing that makes it impossible. But, that it is possible, does not necessary mean it is true.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I didn’t claim it is so, I said it is possible. And at the moment we have nothing that makes it impossible. But, that it is possible, does not necessary mean it is true.

We have nothing that says its impossible that unicorns exist, but unless someone shows me evidence, I'm not going to believe in them.

 

[joelr]

Hello IndigoChild5559.. Hope all is well!
You said in reply to this,... (Had Matthew intended to cite an exact prophetic quotation from the Old Testament, he would have cited a specific prophet, instead of saying summarily, as he does, “the prophets”.
23 and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene.)

I say ... The devil is in the details! Your comment.. Which pretty much shows that Matthew was making it up.

I reply: Making it up is a moot point; because you question the Matthew' integrity means his words mean nothing!? Clearly Matthew did not get his idea from thin air of a "fulfilled prophesy" .
r

Matthew is believed to have been sourcing Mark as 98% of the original Greek is Verbatim in Mark. Matthew added his personal ideas on theology.
Maybe he had heard of a prophecy about Nazareth?

 

[metis]

We have nothing that says its impossible that unicorns exist, but unless someone shows me evidence, I'm not going to believe in them.

I rode one once but kept getting poked in the eye.

 

[Muffled]

I've dealt with this in more detail in other posts, but the long and short of it is that only the written prophets in the canon have those messages that are for more than their day. Thus the prophecy Matthew refers to must be found in one of them.

I believe that is illogical. Unless you have a message from God saying that he only gives prophecy of long term future events if they are going to be written then you don't have anything valid to support that assertion.

I believe since the premise is false the conclusion is also false.

I believe one could suppose that Matthew was claiming the prophecy was written but the text does not support that. It merely says the prophet said that not that he wrote it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe that is illogical. Unless you have a message from God saying that he only gives prophecy of long term future events if they are going to be written then you don't have anything valid to support that assertion.

Part of the process that is guided by God is the process of canonization. Otherwise, what is the Bible? It would be worthless because its contents would always be questionable -- one could always say this book doesn't belong, or that book should be included.

 

[metis]

Part of the process that is guided by God is the process of canonization. Otherwise, what is the Bible? It would be worthless because its contents would always be questionable -- one could always say this book doesn't belong, or that book should be included.

Actually, it's always questionable.

Canonization only really assumes that X, Y, & Z we'll refer to as "scripture". Even some specific books had variations as Jesus ben Sirach stated as what was regarded as "Torah" actually varied back 2000+ years ago.

 

[Fool]

Your problem is that you're mixing several unrelated groups together. You still haven't bothered to even read the Wikipedia article you yourself posted. I don't think you're interested in honest discussion. The Indian Christians have nothing at all to do with Gnostics, Ophites, Manichaeism, etc. I am knowledgeable about all of those religions.

no i'm speaking of one particular group known as the naassene by one group, by nazarene by another group, and by nasarani by another. they themselves didn't go by these name. they were labeled by outsiders.


they lived on mt. carmel. They were particularly interested in prophecy and some of them were prophets.


in the NT john was considered the reincarnation of elijah. john was from the essenes on mt carmel


if you've read the tanach, elijah lived on mt carmel. he was the one trying to revive the nazarites, prophets


the pharisees believed in reincarnation. the sadducees did not. but it is written that god would send elijah before the great day. malachi 4:5

or if you prefer

Malachi 3:23


so john was elijah and this joshua = jeshua fellow is known through out all of the tanach. he's adam, he's enoch, he's joshua, he's elisha, hosea, et al.


but most of all he's melchizedek. his physical lineage goes back through david. his spiritual lineage back to melchizedek

 

[1213]

We have nothing that says its impossible that unicorns exist, but unless someone shows me evidence, I'm not going to believe in them.

Ok, here is one unicorn:
Fat unicorn aka Rhino