And He Shall Be Called a Nazarene

[pearl]

Which verse says " is only Hebrew and Greek Septuagint, which is what 'all Scripture' refers to" . I'm thinking its the ' words ' of God . I believe all ' scriptures ' includes the Nt in the same way as the old . ' Christian scriptures ' ? Again could you expound on what you mean ?

At the penning of the Gospels, and the Epistles, these make up our Christian Scripture, which was not at the time acknowledged as Scripture, but the memoirs of the Apostles preached and later written. Even then there is the matter of selecting those Gospels of many others written and the process was complex; one of the criteria was which were more often preached in the churches and especially the larger more influential churches. It is very true today to say that 'all Scripture' is inclusive of both Hebrew and Christian Scripture, but not at the time of the actual writing of Christian Scripture.
The New Testament is Christian Scripture.

 

[John1.12]

At the penning of the Gospels, and the Epistles, these make up our Christian Scripture, which was not at the time acknowledged as Scripture, but the memoirs of the Apostles preached and later written. Even then there is the matter of selecting those Gospels of many others written and the process was complex; one of the criteria was which were more often preached in the churches and especially the larger more influential churches. It is very true today to say that 'all Scripture' is inclusive of both Hebrew and Christian Scripture, but not at the time of the actual writing of Christian Scripture.
The New Testament is Christian Scripture.

I would just go with, the entire bible is for the Christian.

 

[John1.12]

At the penning of the Gospels, and the Epistles, these make up our Christian Scripture, which was not at the time acknowledged as Scripture, but the memoirs of the Apostles preached and later written. Even then there is the matter of selecting those Gospels of many others written and the process was complex; one of the criteria was which were more often preached in the churches and especially the larger more influential churches. It is very true today to say that 'all Scripture' is inclusive of both Hebrew and Christian Scripture, but not at the time of the actual writing of Christian Scripture.
The New Testament is Christian Scripture.

Paul doesn't differentiate, neither does Jesus .

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thats not what it says . I'm going with what it says . 'spoken '.

And I'm telling you, the context of spoken is that they speak through the written word.

 

[John1.12]

And I'm telling you, the context of spoken is that they speak through the written word.

So where is it written in the bible then ?

 

[metis]

I would just go with, the entire bible is for the Christian.

Context is important.

 

[Dogknox20]

You make a lot of claims . I see no evidence that Rome is the reason we have the bible. I believe God was responsible.

It says ALL scripture. Matthew to Revelation is ' scripture ' . So its included in ' ALL SCRIPTURE '

.
Hello John 1.12 I hope all is well... I point out... When the words "All Scripture" was written there only was Old Testament scriptures.. there wasn't any Christian New Testament scriptures!
Fact is: The New Testament scriptures Matthew to Revelation tells us... "Listen to the CHURCH"! They(the new testament scriptures) also tell us... "Jesus is ALWAYS WITH us (The Church) to the end of the world" this means John 1.12 there is NO need to re-form Jesus' Church!
John 1.12 It means Satan did not overpower Jesus and somehow take Jesus' body/bride from Jesus; Jesus is ALWAYS with his One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to this very day!

The New Testament scriptures tell us... "The Church is the Pillar and the foundation of truth"!
The New Testament scriptures Matthew to Revelation tells us... "The Holy Spirit will guide the Church into all truth!"
The New Testament scriptures also tell us... "The Church is the Body of Jesus"! (Jesus has one Body)
The New Testament scriptures tell us... "The Holy Spirit, the Advocate will remain with the CHURCH forever"!
The New Testament scriptures tell us... "He who hears the Church hears Jesus"!
The New Testament scriptures also tell us... "He who rejects the Church rejects Jesus and thus God"! Martin Luther rejected the Church!
The New Testament scriptures tell us... "The Church is Holy & Blameless"!
The New Testament scriptures tell us... "Jesus died for the Church"!
The New Testament scriptures tell us... "The Church has all the authority of God to teach all nations"!
The New Testament scriptures also tell us... "The Church has the authority of God to make disciples by baptizing"!
The New Testament scriptures tell us... "The Church is built on ROCK not on sand"!
The New Testament scriptures tell us... "The Flesh of Jesus is real food the Blood of Jesus is real drink!"
Ignatius of Antioch believed the scriptures, he was a Catholic!
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
“For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Ignatius In one of his letters (to Christians in Smyrna), he wrote, “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” A.D. 107
John 1.12... “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” A.D. 107

 

[pearl]

Paul doesn't differentiate, neither does Jesus .

Differentiate between what?

 

[pearl]

The New Testament scriptures tell us... "The Church is Holy & Blameless"!

This is easily misleading. References like Eph5:27 pertains to a reality at the end of time. Augustine writes "Whenever in my books I have described the Church as being without spot or wrinkle, I have not meant to imply that it was already so, but that it should prepare itself to be so, at the time when it too will appear in its glory. In the present time because of the weakness of its members it must pray every day, 'Forgive us our trespasses.' Also, Thomas Aquinas, "That the Church will be glorious, without spot or wrinkle, is the final goal to which we are led through the sufferings of Christ. This will only be true in our eternal home, not on the way thither, for now we would deceive ourselves if we were to say we have no sin, as IJohn 1:8 points out "

 

[Dogknox20]

This is easily misleading. References like Eph5:27 pertains to a reality at the end of time. Augustine writes "Whenever in my books I have described the Church as being without spot or wrinkle, I have not meant to imply that it was already so, but that it should prepare itself to be so, at the time when it too will appear in its glory. In the present time because of the weakness of its members it must pray every day, 'Forgive us our trespasses.' Also, Thomas Aquinas, "That the Church will be glorious, without spot or wrinkle, is the final goal to which we are led through the sufferings of Christ. This will only be true in our eternal home, not on the way thither, for now we would deceive ourselves if we were to say we have no sin, as I John 1:8 points out "

pearl hello I hope all is well...
I reply: Thank you for the information! I have heard it explained this way... The Church is holy but: She is full to the rafters with sinners! Full with sinners because we need saving; If you have no need for the Body of Christ then you must not have sins, you must not need saving!
Eph5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
Jesus died for the Holy Catholic Church he loves the Holy Catholic Church! The Catholic Church is the Body of God.. He is Holy!

26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
The Church was cleansed of sins by the waters of Baptism, all become Holy at baptism! She was washed by water and all become members of her family by baptism as the people of Moses became a nation by the waters of the Red Sea!

27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
Yes she will be presented to Jesus Holy and without wrinkle in heaven..... BUT it is still the One Church Jesus established 2000 years ago built on Rock not sand non other but the Catholic Church with roots going back to Mary and the apostles!
pearl Not misleading.... No other Church fits this verse!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So where is it written in the bible then ?

It's not. That's the point. The author of Matthew made up a prophecy out of whole cloth.

 

[John1.12]

It's not. That's the point. The author of Matthew made up a prophecy out of whole cloth.

How tragic . Rather than go with the perfectly acceptable explanation , that it was spoken , as it actually says , You leap to the radical conclusion that God cannot communicate without mistakes, error s and the writers he ' inspired ' his God breathed words , ' made it up ' . Welcome to modern scholars.

 

[John1.12]

It's not. That's the point. The author of Matthew made up a prophecy out of whole cloth.

Why do you have ' loving God and neighbour' under your name? Couldn't that also be a made up verse ?

 

[rosends]

Why do you have ' loving God and neighbour' under your name? Couldn't that also be a made up verse ?

Question - if there had been a gospel verse which reads "as was said 'Moses ate a baby'" would you have said "that was never written but it could have been said so it is accurate? Is a statement's presence in the gospel proof of its accuracy or does its claim need to be confirmed or grounded?

 

[John1.12]

Question - if there had been a gospel verse which reads "as was said 'Moses ate a baby'" would you have said "that was never written but it could have been said so it is accurate? Is a statement's presence in the gospel proof of its accuracy or does its claim need to be confirmed or grounded?

Not sure what you mean ?

 

[rosends]

Not sure what you mean ?

You reject the explanation that something is "made up" because it claims to be grounded but no source is found and instead defend its being grounded in something divine because it claims that it is real. I'm wondering the limit of that faith.

 

[Dogknox20]

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.

The problem is that no such prophecy exists. The author of Matthew simply made it up out of whole cloth. It is a big, big, big problem for the credibility of the gospels.

.
IndigoChild5559 I hope all is well....
There are Two (2) possible explanations... From a Catholic source.....
Matthew apparently paraphrases in summary form the words of several prophets. The paraphrase is based on Jesus’ boyhood home, Nazareth, and a similar-sounding Hebrew word netser, which is translated as “sprout,” “shoot,” or “branch.” Recall that the Holy Family fled to Egypt because of the murderous machinations of Herod the Great, who feared the Christ Child as a potential royal competitor and thus slaughtered every male child under two in Bethlehem and the neighboring area (Matt. 2:16-18). They returned to reside in Nazareth after word came that Herod the Great had died (Matt. 2:19-20).

Scripture affirms that Jesus came to restore the throne of his ancestor King David (Luke 1:31-33) and that he is “the King of kings” (Rev. 17:14). Isaiah prophesizes that a “branch” (netser or netzer) will sprout from the stump of Jesse (the father of David), indicating that the kingdom of David that had been destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. would one day be restored. Subsequent prophets such as Jeremiah use this same branch image to speak of the anticipated Messiah-king (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:14-16).
OR.
Jesus’ Nazareth residence is the providential fulfillment of the Messiah’s mission not only for the Jews but all nations, i.e., “Gentiles” (Matt. 28:18-20, Is. 66:18ff., Amos 9:11ff.). Nazareth is in Galilee, which in Jesus’ day was known for having a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles.

In both cases, the argument is that 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” (Matt. 2:23).

IndigoChild5559 Here below is a Prophesy that was fulfilled!
Isaiah 7:13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

Matthew 1:1 The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How tragic . Rather than go with the perfectly acceptable explanation , that it was spoken , as it actually says , You leap to the radical conclusion that God cannot communicate without mistakes, error s and the writers he ' inspired ' his God breathed words , ' made it up ' . Welcome to modern scholars.

As I said, the context is what they said in their written words (just as I began this written sentence with the words, as I SAID). If a prophet "said" something that was for universal times, it was written and accepted as canon. Everything else was only for its own day and age.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why do you have ' loving God and neighbour' under your name? Couldn't that also be a made up verse ?

Loving God and neighbor are commandments of the Torah. What ? Did you think Jesus came up with those on his own?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

.
IndigoChild5559 I hope all is well....
There are Two (2) possible explanations... From a Catholic source.....
Matthew apparently paraphrases in summary form the words of several prophets. The paraphrase is based on Jesus’ boyhood home, Nazareth, and a similar-sounding Hebrew word netser, which is translated as “sprout,” “shoot,” or “branch.” Recall that the Holy Family fled to Egypt because of the murderous machinations of Herod the Great, who feared the Christ Child as a potential royal competitor and thus slaughtered every male child under two in Bethlehem and the neighboring area (Matt. 2:16-18). They returned to reside in Nazareth after word came that Herod the Great had died (Matt. 2:19-20).

Scripture affirms that Jesus came to restore the throne of his ancestor King David (Luke 1:31-33) and that he is “the King of kings” (Rev. 17:14). Isaiah prophesizes that a “branch” (netser or netzer) will sprout from the stump of Jesse (the father of David), indicating that the kingdom of David that had been destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. would one day be restored. Subsequent prophets such as Jeremiah use this same branch image to speak of the anticipated Messiah-king (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:14-16).
OR.
Jesus’ Nazareth residence is the providential fulfillment of the Messiah’s mission not only for the Jews but all nations, i.e., “Gentiles” (Matt. 28:18-20, Is. 66:18ff., Amos 9:11ff.). Nazareth is in Galilee, which in Jesus’ day was known for having a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles.

In both cases, the argument is that 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” (Matt. 2:23).

IndigoChild5559 Here below is a Prophesy that was fulfilled!
Isaiah 7:13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,

Matthew 1:1 The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

Thank you for you reply.

I have replied at length to the suggestion of "branch" or "spout." Basically, the Matthew verse makes it clear that it is Jesus residing in Nazareth that is the fulfilment of the prophecy. Thus the prophecy must refer to this, not to some branch or sprout theory.

I was not sure what your second point was... I read it through twice... It seemed to be a repeat of your first point, the branch theory.