And He Shall Be Called a Nazarene

[Rival]

i'm referring to the essenes. they went above and beyond your typical pharisees.


again hangups, biases on words. if you prefer the term more fundamentalist pharisees

You seem to have a fascination with Essenes. Not really getting it but okay.

 

[Fool]

You seem to have a fascination with Essenes. Not really getting it but okay.

you had your levites as a tribe and priestly class and then you had your prophets. the prophets were priests that aren't based on a tribe and via blood relations.


there in lies the difference. one is based upon relationship to another person, the other is based on relationship solely to something higher

 

[rosends]

just because books aren't in the tanak don't make them fiction.


we have hippolytus and others to thank for mentioning these folks.


we also know writings were found out qumran


so your labeling them fiction doesn't make it so

nor does your labeling them as non-fiction.

 

[rosends]

so you're claiming that to separate as a nazarite is neither?


i've already shown you that the essenes used nazirite vows in their rules

I'm just pointing out that 2 roots that both overlap in elements of an English translation are two very different words. But since you don't care about Hebrew, I'm not sure why you would cite any Hebrew root to make your point.

And as for the Essenes, they are irrlevant to any point I'm making. Your insistence of including them in every part of the coversation is strange but have fun with that.

 

[rosends]

you had your levites as a tribe and priestly class and then you had your prophets. the prophets were priests that aren't based on a tribe and via blood relations.

what? The prophets weren't priests and by the time the Essenes developed in the second century BCE, prophecy had ended.

 

[Fool]

nor does your labeling them as non-fiction.

you have much more than me to contend with on that. you're basically refuting 2000+ years of history to the fact. that would take a lot of white washing

 

[rosends]

you have much more than me to contend with on that. you're basically refuting 2000+ years of history to the fact. that would take a lot of white washing

you mean 2000 years of opinion that doesn't make something fact. You have over 2000 years of history of people who see the texts as fiction.

 

[Fool]

what? The prophets weren't priests and by the time the Essenes developed in the second century BCE, prophecy had ended.

you've not done your homework. the ophites go further back than the 2nd century and are associated with alexandria, egypt.


you know egypt, where moses spent his formative years before leaving and then returning to his people. he got most of his formal education there and then pretty much the rest in the land of midian. jethro was a high priest too and a kenite


this enigmatic figure called joshua, hosea, he reputedly spent some time there too.


prophecy isn't something limited to jews. it seems to be prevalent in all cultures. your well may have gone dry

 

[Fool]

you mean 2000 years of opinion that doesn't make something fact. You have over 2000 years of history of people who see the texts as fiction.

mostly jewish people and atheists yes

 

[Rival]

mostly jewish people and atheists yes

So why would you expect Jews to accept these texts as meaningful in this discussion when you know they've already rejected them?

 

[Fool]

So why would you expect Jews to accept these texts as meaningful in this discussion when you know they've already rejected them?

i don't expect anything of anyone but white washing the fact that mainstream judaism doesn't cover all judaism. the right to denial is obvious but i'm not necessarily posting for the deniers, i'm feeding the hungry.


some are full of themselves

 

[Rival]

i don't expect anything of anyone but white washing the fact that mainstream judaism doesn't cover all judaism. the right to denial is obvious but i'm not necessarily posting for the deniers, i'm feeding the hungry.


some are full of themselves

Jews get to define Judaism and there tends to be a majority wins approach in many areas. There are boundaries. It's why Christians are no longer classified as a Jewish sect and haven't been for millennia.

 

[Fool]

Jews get to define Judaism and there tends to be a majority wins approach in many areas. There are boundaries. It's why Christians are no longer classified as a Jewish sect and haven't been for millennia.

the essenes were jews. so were many other factions that were driven outside of mainstream jews. hellenistic jews of the 1st century played a role in defining judaism, so did their invaders, occupiers.

 

[metis]

Wouldn't it have had to have been called Nazareth when Matthew wrote his gospel?

My understanding is that it wasn't called that until later, but I'd have to look it up again to be sure. This may help: Nazareth - Wikipedia

However, there's another possibility in that the name may have been changed in later editions of the NT so as people would know what it's actually referring to.

 

[dybmh]

everything evolves or else it involutes, involves.

Why didn't you include devolve?

 

[metis]

Have you read the BOOK OF JUDGES? Or the NT passages where believers judge men and angels and Israel?

But I thought you said you believe in Jesus?

And, yes, I've read Judges.

 

[rosends]

you've not done your homework. the ophites go further back than the 2nd century and are associated with alexandria, egypt.

And here I thought we were talking about the Hebrews. If you want to talk about unrelated groups, feel free but don;t expect anyone to follow chop logic.

you know egypt, where moses spent his formative years before leaving and then returning to his people. he got most of his formal education there and then pretty much the rest in the land of midian. jethro was a high priest too and a kenite

Actually, he got his formal education from his mother and sister. Jethro was a priest of On, but not a high priest.

prophecy isn't something limited to jews. it seems to be prevalent in all cultures. your well may have gone dry

In a thread abbout the canonical texts of the Hebrews and Christians, it makes no sense to invoke others.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe the problem is not that the prophecy doesn't exist only that no writing of it has been found.

 

[Muffled]

My understanding is that it says "What the prophets had said" because apparently it was not a written prophecy. Not that that really gives any more clarity, since anyone could say something had been "said" or foretold by word of mouth. I know of at least one more instance like that where it is not actually found in the tanach I don't believe, Matthew 5:43:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’

The first part obviously was there, but not the second, so the idea is that it was a saying or something rather than a written prophecy. I don't know of anything to specifically back that up, that that was the case with either of those, particularly example you mentioned, so it's admittedly speculative, but perhaps it is a possibility.

I believe the fact is that God who is the author knows every word that prophets spoke.

 

[Muffled]

I agree...not everything every prophet ever said was written down.

Jesus said the Jews had heard, “You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy,” but he did not say they had heard all that from the Law of Moses. The first part, about loving your neighbor, was a part of the Law. But the second part, about hating your enemy, was not. It really was contrary to the Law, which said: “If you chance upon your enemy’s ox or donkey going astray, you must be sure to take it home to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying prostrate under its load, you must refrain from deserting him; you must be sure to help him get it up.” (Exodus 23:4-5) The Hebrew Scriptures forbade any feeling of malicious joy when an enemy met with disaster, and even commanded that he be assisted when in trouble: “If your enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink.” (Job 31:29; Proverbs 24:17; Proverbs 25:21)

The part about hating your enemy was something added by the teachers of tradition, and it was this addition that invalidated God’s Word that Jesus condemned. Since they were told to love their neighbors, the Jewish teachers inferred that in contrast they were to hate their enemies. To them “friend” or “neighbor” meant one of their fellow Jews, and all others were considered natural enemies. To rout this false idea from one of the learned scribes or lawyers of his day Jesus used an illustration....."The Good Samaritan". A hated Samaritan was the hero of the story, whereas the Jews who passed by unconcerned for a fellow human being in need, were condemned.

I believe there are prophets with no writings such as this one:
1Kgs 11:29 And at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the road. Now Ahijah had dressed himself in a new garment, and the two of them were alone in the open country.