• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

And He Shall Be Called a Nazarene

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
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.

Fallen Prophet All I read in your posts are accusation and innuendo!

I point out; it was the Holy Catholic Church that put the bible together.. NONE OTHER! She alone with the help of the Holy Spirit decided the truly inspired words of God from the many phony letters.. Then she took all the truly inspired words of God and put them into her bible! YOU...

Fallen Prophet
you might as well toss your bible out of your stinking bathroom window if you reject the Authority of the Catholic Church... It's her bible you use as God' holy word!

It's People that fall in sin, not the Church! The Catholic Church is jam packed full to the rafter with sinners! Jesus came to save the sinner! Do you need saving?
Jesus Loves his Church he died for his Church; his Church is holy and blameless!
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Fallen Prophet All I read in your posts are accusation and innuendo!

I point out; it was the Holy Catholic Church that put the bible together.. NONE OTHER! She alone with the help of the Holy Spirit decided the truly inspired words of God from the many phony letters.. Then she took all the truly inspired words of God and put them into her bible! YOU...

Fallen Prophet
you might as well toss your bible out of your stinking bathroom window if you reject the Authority of the Catholic Church... It's her bible you use as God' holy word!

It's People that fall in sin, not the Church! The Catholic Church is jam packed full to the rafter with sinners! Jesus came to save the sinner! Do you need saving?
Jesus Loves his Church he died for his Church; his Church is holy and blameless!
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Fallen Prophet You are more then welcome.... But opinion is not backed by proof, if you had proof it would be fact!!
I post scriptures God' holy words.... Not opinion!

History proves the Catholic Church put the bible together... FACT The Church came before the bible!
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Fallen Prophet You are more then welcome.... But opinion is not backed by proof, if you had proof it would be fact!!
I post scriptures God' holy words.... Not opinion!

History proves the Catholic Church put the bible together... FACT The Church came before the bible!


The canon that the Catholic church uses was put together in 313 AD at the Council of Nicea. It was believed to be trending in that direction but each gospel was written to be the "one" gospel. Going back to the 2nd century there were many much more diverse Christian groups, many were far more Gnostic in theology. The first official canon was the Marcionite canon which is forever lost to us.
Early 2nd century letters from Biship Ignateus show frequent infighting among his church and others who were calling each other heretics. 1/2 of Christianity was more Gnostic.

The gospels now used as canon do not even claim to be eyewitnesses, the Greek they start out with all say "as told to me by.." and there is nothing in them that can be confirmed as fact, historical events of words from any God.
That is pure opinion.
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
The canon that the Catholic church uses was put together in 313 AD at the Council of Nicea. It was believed to be trending in that direction but each gospel was written to be the "one" gospel. Going back to the 2nd century there were many much more diverse Christian groups, many were far more Gnostic in theology. The first official canon was the Marcionite canon which is forever lost to us.
Early 2nd century letters from Biship Ignateus show frequent infighting among his church and others who were calling each other heretics. 1/2 of Christianity was more Gnostic.

The gospels now used as canon do not even claim to be eyewitnesses, the Greek they start out with all say "as told to me by.." and there is nothing in them that can be confirmed as fact, historical events of words from any God.
That is pure opinion.
.
Hello joelr I hope you are well...
I reply.... Even Jerome had disagreement as to the correct letters to put in the bible; It was settled by the pope of the day!
All of your post might be fact.... BUT...

joelr
but in the end the bible the world uses today (except NWT) is because the Holy Catholic Church said; "These letters in our bible are truly inspired words of God"! You must trust the Catholic' got it right or toss your bible away!

Even if every letter had started with "This is the inspired words of God" we still would need a AUTHORITY to weed out the phony letters that would have started with "This is the inspired words of God"!
God the Holy Spirit helped her in deciding the truly inspired from the phony works... DON'T..
joelr
don't you think the Holy Spirit would also not stick around and help her interpret the same letters!?

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
You forgot that Nazerene in Hebrew is נצרי or נוצרי while Nazirite is נזיר. Not quite spelled the same, you see.

Rabbi Hirsch says words that sound the same have genuine relationships. His etymological dictionary of the Hebrew of the Tanakh shows over and over again where words that sound the same, a zayin or a tsaddi, have genuine etymological relationships throughout the scripture.



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Matthew 2:23
So the family went and lived in a town called Nazareth. This fulfilled what the prophets had said: “He will be called a Nazarene.”

Here is my challenge. Where in the Tanakh (OT) is this so called prophecy that he will be called a Nazarene? Now I really must insist that this prophecy be concerning the town of Nazareth, since Matthew makes it ALL about Nazareth. So please, no references about Nazarites -- that is something completely different. If you can't come up with a direct quote of "He shall be called a Nazarene," I will settle for any prophecy that the Messiah will come from the city of Nazareth.

Throughout Isaiah, messiah is referred to as a branch. Isaiah 60:21 uses the very consonants that the future city of Nazareth are based on נצר (nun-tsaddi-reish) to speak of messiah. Isaiah 53:2 says this branch will sprout out of dry, unwatered, ground. Throughout the book of Isaiah the relationship between messiah and a nazar נצר or branch is frequent and both implicit and explicit.

That Jesus of Nazareth, Isaiah's branch, would be called Jesus the Nazar --ene, is quite a coincidence. Perhaps worse is the coincidence that the prophet Zechariah claims messiah's very name will include the word "branch" (Zechariah 6:12). Zechariah uses different consonants, צמח, but these consonants translate "branch" all the same such that regardless of the consonants used to say messiah's name will include a Hebrew word for "branch" (נער or צמח), Zechariah's prophesy concerning messiah's name, claims part and parcel of what he's called will include the idea that he's the branch for which the city he grows up in is named based on the prophesy that he will grow up there.

That's kinda how prophesy works. The spirit of prophesy informed the prophets that messiah will be known as, literally called, "branch" (a nazar--ene) such that as the spirit of prophesy worked its magic, the town where messiah would eventually grow up was named, based on the spirit of prophesy, Nazar---eth.

What's even more ironic than that Isaiah prophesies that part of messiah's name will include the Hebrew consonants for a "branch" (נצר), is the prophesy the same prophet gives by saying that this part of messiah's name and person is the part of his name and person that was hidden from the Torah only to be revealed by Isaiah himself (Isaiah 48:6). The very word "nazareth" is hidden in the Hebrew of a prophetic passage of scripture (48:6) where Isaiah laments that this name will remain "hidden" from Israel because they're still the same ole rebels they've always been.

Almost beyond belief, Ramban (Nachmanides), in his commentary, makes reference to a direct parallel between Isaiah 48:6, and Deuteronomy 31:17, where, the latter, God claims, prophetically, that he will hide messiah's name from Israel. Nachmanides draws this very verse, God hiding messiah's name from Israel, to Isaiah 48:6, where literally beyond belief, the word "nazareth" (נערות) is hidden in the verse. Ramban notes that in Deuteronomy 31:17 God prophesies that he will hide his messiah from Israel. He then, Ramban, draws a parallel to this hiding of messiah from Israel, to Isaiah 48:6 where the name "nazareth" נערות is hidden in a verse telling of messiah (or his name and face) being hidden from Israel. Not only are the two verses a direct parallel, but one of the greatest Jewish sage of all time acknowledges they're parallel without himself finding out the name of messiah hidden in the verse he acknowledges hides the name of messiah. Nazareth is hidden in a verse hiding the name of messiah.



John
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Throughout Isaiah, messiah is referred to as a branch. Isaiah 60:21 uses the very consonants that the future city of Nazareth are based on נצר (nun-tsaddi-reish) to speak of messiah. Isaiah 53:2 says this branch will sprout out of dry, unwatered, ground. Throughout the book of Isaiah the relationship between messiah and a nazar נצר or branch is frequent and explicit.

That Jesus of Nazareth, Isaiah's branch, would be called Jesus the Nazar --ene, is quite a coincidence don't you think? Perhaps worse is that the prophet Zechariah claims that messiah's very name will include the word "branch." Zechariah uses different consonants, צמח, but these consonants are translated "branch," such that Zechariah's prophesy concerning messiah's name claim part and parcel of what he is called with include the idea that he is the branch for which the city he grows up in is called based on the prophesy that he will grow up there.



John
"Branch" has nothing to do with Jesus coming from the city of Nazareth, and so cannot be the prophecy that was fulfilled.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
"Branch" has nothing to do with Jesus coming from the city of Nazareth, and so cannot be the prophecy that was fulfilled.

. . . Unfortunately you read my message before I fulfilled writing the part that addresses your statement. You read my message before Nachmanides pulled my hair and asked to be noted if I was going to note something he noted long before I did.

Btw, as a cursory note, "Nazareth" is a city named "Branch" (or "branches"). It's the city of the Nazar נצר who will become its namesake. I realize in profane history that sounds backwards. But that's the glory, magic, of prophesy. Nazareth is proleptically named because of the person or persons who will live and preach there rather than the person or persons who will live there acquiring the title for that reason. Maybe it works both ways; backward and forward. That's the glory of prophesy.

It's similar to "Bethlehem," the city of unleavened bread: bread cooked in the womb before leaven from the last lumb, or toxically-masculine knucklehead, is added. You know, kinda like virgin birth: a conception conceived with no patriarchal leaven the son could be associated with such that he's associated with the city of unleavened bread instead; the first person conceived without the services of the organ associated with toxic-masculinity. Surely you know Abraham took a knife to it and only stopped cutting the sacrifice when the angel Samael told him to cut the lamb of God, you know, with it's head hidden in the nazar, the branch, instead of cutting all the way through to the truth of ritual circumcision.

To this day no member of Israel seems to have had to nerve to cut all the way through to the bone of truth in order to know what every serious Christian knows the moment they're born again. Had Abraham cut all the way through Isaac he would have (Isaac would have) been immediately reborn, no longer subject to death, just as I've been reborn and am no longer subject to death. Which is why I know the name of the lamb whose head was caught in thorns of a nazar in Abraham's day, and whose head was crowned with thorns because he was associated with the lamb in the nazarot that Abraham cut all up instead of his own son (Genesis 22:13; Matthew 27:25).




John
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
. . . Unfortunately you read my message before I fulfilled writing the part that addresses your statement. You read my message before Nachmanides pulled my hair and asked to be noted if I was going to note something he noted long before I did.

Btw, as a cursory note, "Nazareth" is a city named "Branch." It's the city of the Nazar נצר who will become its namesake. I realize in profane history that sounds backwards. But that's the glory, magic, of prophesy.



John
But all this is irrelevant. The point which Matthew makes is that the prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus coming from the city of Nazareth. Therefore the prophecy must be regarding the city of Nazareth. Not a branch.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
But all this is irrelevant. The point which Matthew makes is that the prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus coming from the city of Nazareth. Therefore the prophecy must be regarding the city of Nazareth. Not a branch.

The city is associated with a branch or branches. That's how its name came to be. Why do think that's the case? What branch or branches do you think the city was named for?



John
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The city is associated with a branch or branches. That's how its name came to be. Why do think that's the case? What branch or branches do you think the city was named for?



John
I dont understand how you can't see how this is irrelevant. The prophecy is supposed to be about how the messiah is FROM this city.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I dont understand how you can't see how this is irrelevant. The prophecy is supposed to be about how the messiah is FROM this city.

I don't know how carefully you're reading the text of Matthew 2:23? But it doesn't say messiah is from Nazareth. It says he shall be "called" (καλεω) a "Ναζωραιος." Even the Talmud called him Yeshua ha-Nosri (Jesus the . . . .), not Jesus "from." The Talmud uses the definite article heh, Jesus the . . ..

A thorough study reveals that Jesus and his followers weren't necessarily called Nazarenes from Nazareth. Although what they were called probably piggy-backed the fact that Jesus once lived in Nazareth there's quite a bit of sound exegesis that suggests the term associated with Jesus and his disciples entailed far more than the fact that Jesus once lived in Nazareth.

Now, with that out of the way, why don't you address that fact that "Nazareth" is found only one time in the Tanakh (Isaiah 48:6). And that one time, is when, according to Nachmanides, Isaiah is about to reveal the name of God's face, person, son, messiah, who God hid from Israel in Deuteronomy 31:17?

If that doesn't peak the interest of a Jew with a modicum of Hebrew knowledge to go with his scriptural knowledge surely that fact that the one place in the entire Tanakh where the word "Nazareth" is found, and in a passage Nachmanides says relates to Deuteronomy 31:17, has the name of God's face, person, messiah, hidden, in a word, "Nazareth," interpreted and translated (in the KJV) "hidden."



John
 
Last edited:

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I don't know how carefully you're reading the text of Matthew 2:23? But it doesn't say messiah is from Nazareth. It says he shall be "called" (καλεω) a "Ναζωραιος."
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.
Matthew 2:23

The verse makes it VERY clear that it is by having lived in Nazareth that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy. Thus, anything that interprets "Nazarene" to be anything other than a citizen of Nazareth would NOT be the prophecy referred to by Matthew.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
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.
Matthew 2:23

The verse makes it VERY clear that it is by having lived in Nazareth that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy. Thus, anything that interprets "Nazarene" to be anything other than a citizen of Nazareth would NOT be the prophecy referred to by Matthew.

. . . I don't necessarily agree. It could be read to say that the prophets said messiah would be associated with the word nazar נצר such that, perhaps ironically, this Jesus fellow, fancied messiah, lived in a town named nazar--eth, such that, again, ironically, he was called Jesus the Nazarene: Jesus the branch.

In other words, Mathew might be marveling that, for whatever reason, the man he, with many others, believed to be messiah, had the name of "branch" נצר attached to his name, just as the prophets seemed to imply would be the case for whatever reason it might be the case.

Prophesy is oracular. It doesn't give every detail in a linear or completely rational way. But it does get some really weird facts and realities correct. Like for instance the oracles of the prophets noting that messiah will, for whatever reason, be associated with the word nazar נצר. . . Maybe his arm is deformed and looks like a branch, so that he's nicknamed "branch" נצר? Maybe he's tall as heck so that he's nicknamed "branch"? The prophets don't give every detail. They just note that in the oracle they received through the spirit of prophesy, messiah will have נצר as part of his title or name. And so, for whatever reason, voila, he did.



John
 
Last edited:

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
Fallen Prophet You are more then welcome.... But opinion is not backed by proof, if you had proof it would be fact!!
I post scriptures God' holy words.... Not opinion!

History proves the Catholic Church put the bible together... FACT The Church came before the bible!
And the Apostles came before the Church and they had scriptures just fine.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
And the Apostles came before the Church and they had scriptures just fine.
Actually, Jesus and the Apostles first formed the early Church since that was and is a "community", which is what "ekklesia" means. And they did not have the NT scriptures, plus the Jewish canon had not yet been selected at Jesus' time.
 
Top