"He shall be called a Nazorean"

  • Thread starter Thread starter HailMary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HailMary said:
So in summary, Sacred Tradition is true and valid and part of the Deposit of Faith.
Click to expand...
If you wish to amuse yourself in this conclusion be my guest but first address the questions we, protestants raise.

Parker
 
Pwrlftr said:
HailMary,

What is wrong with Jerome’s view?
Click to expand...
SAINT Jerome, Doctor of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, provides a very catholic answer since the saint brings together
  1. historical context
  2. Sacred Scripture
  3. tradition (not Tradition); by relying on the lost prophetical writings
St. Jereome’s answer, for the Protestant, those who practice Sola Scriptura, lacks A SCRIPTURE PASSAGE THAT SHOWS A PROPHET saying this; read the passage again:
Matthew 2:23:
He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.”
Click to expand...
Show me in your bible someone who is a prophet who said this and you will find your answer for what St. Jermome’s answer is lacking FOR THE PROTESTANT WHO PRACTICE THE FAULTY, MAN-MADE, HERETICAL DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA.

For the Catholic, its a fine answer, since this prophecy came from Sacred Tradition.
 
HailMary said:
SAINT Jerome, Doctor of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, provides a very catholic answer since the saint brings together
  1. historical context
  2. Sacred Scripture
  3. tradition (not Tradition); by relying on the lost prophetical writings
St. Jereome’s answer, for the Protestant, those who practice Sola Scriptura, lacks A SCRIPTURE PASSAGE THAT SHOWS A PROPHET saying this; read the passage again:

Show me in your bible someone who is a prophet who said this and you will find your answer for what St. Jermome’s answer is lacking FOR THE PROTESTANT WHO PRACTICE THE FAULTY, MAN-MADE, HERETICAL DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA.

For the Catholic, its a fine answer, since this prophecy came from Sacred Tradition.
Click to expand...
Hail Mary,

There is no exact quote in scripture but that doesn’t mean that Matthew relied on “tradition” and even if he (Matthew) did, the only reason we know about the prophecy is that it is now enscripturated.

You do realize that Jerome thought the scripture in question is from scripture don’t you? Jerome thought it was a word play on Isaiah.

So, what’s wrong with this? I take it that since it isn’t word for word you concluded that it must be based on some tradition that is lost to us. A tradition that is lost to us now but preserved in scripture. A tradition that we would have no idea that existed were it not for scripture.

Anyway, you do realize that sola scriptura would not apply when the “scriptura” was being created don’t you?

Can you develop what’s wrong with Jerome’s take on this other than parroting that the verse in question isn’t an exact quote from some other scripture?
 
St. Jereome’s take on this is not of my conern right now.
Pwrlftr said:
Hail Mary,
There is no exact quote in scripture but that doesn’t mean that Matthew relied on “tradition” and even if he (Matthew) did, the only reason we know about the prophecy is that it is now enscripturated.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

It was SPOKEN THROUGH THE PROPHETS which is outside of Sacred Scripture, hence, Sacred Tradition. That is is how St. Matthew HEARD of it.

2 Thess 2:14 [DR]
** Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

**Same concept brother.
 
HailMary said:
St. Jereome’s take on this is not of my conern right now.

I disagree.

It was SPOKEN THROUGH THE PROPHETS which is outside of Sacred Scripture, hence, Sacred Tradition. That is is how St. Matthew HEARD of it.

2 Thess 2:14 [DR]
** Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions** which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Same concept brother.
Click to expand...
HailMary,

Okay, it could have been spoken through some completely unknown source (at least from our vantage point) and then put in the gospel by Matthew.

But, how do you know Matthew isn’t using a play on words from Isaiah? Is that not a possibility? If not, why not?
 
Pwrlftr said:
But, how do you know Matthew isn’t using a play on words from Isaiah? Is that not a possibility? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Scott Hahn has offered up this same argument (the play on words). I’ve never bought it.

Unless there are other examples in Scripture where the inspired authors used plays on words similar to this, I still have a problem with this theory.

It’s almost like we’re trying to place 21st century customs into ancient Israel’s literary customs.
 
NotWorthy said:
Scott Hahn has offered up this same argument (the play on words). I’ve never bought it.

Unless there are other examples in Scripture where the inspired authors used plays on words similar to this, I still have a problem with this theory.

It’s almost like we’re trying to place 21st century customs into ancient Israel’s literary customs.
Click to expand...
So there appears to be some debate as to where this prophecy came from, even within orthodox Catholicism? Some think it could have been a “play on words” and others think it was from tradition? Is that a fair assesment?
 
Pwrlftr said:
So there appears to be some debate as to where this prophecy came from, even within orthodox Catholicism? Some think it could have been a “play on words” and others think it was from tradition? Is that a fair assesment?
Click to expand...
It’s a fair assesment, but those that think it’s a “play on words” acknowledge the fact that it comes from tradition.
 
NotWorthy said:
It’s a fair assesment, but those that think it’s a “play on words” acknowledge the fact that it comes from tradition.
Click to expand...
If it is a play on words, what exactly is the tradition?

The interpretation that it’s a play on words, is that the tradition, ie.it’s a traditional interpretation?
 
Pwrlftr said:
HailMary,

Okay, it could have been spoken through some completely unknown source (at least from our vantage point) and then put in the gospel by Matthew.

But, how do you know Matthew isn’t using a play on words from Isaiah? Is that not a possibility? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
The text does not lend itself to this interpretation. Not to mention its surrounding context, the Birth of Our Lord, Herod’s evilness, the Nativity Scene, the wisdom and prudence of the wise men (most likely Chaldean ;)), is in a plain, straightfoward tone.

And that would not be St. Matthews’ writing style anyhow.
 
With respect, it is in the Bible.

The quotation is from 1 Samuel, 2:1 –

“He shall be dedicated to the Lord.”

The word “dedicated” is translated into English from the Hebrew root word “nazir” (sometimes spelled “nazar”).

It was mistranslated by long years of oral tradition into the expression which is seen in Matthew, where it is applied to Nazareth (well, maybe it is and maybe it isn’t; the way people thought and spoke in those days is not like the way we think or speak today).

That is where it comes from, not from Isaiah.

And what follows, to underline the aptness of this as the source, is the wonderful hymn of praise from the mother of Samuel the prophet, which is virtually identical, and an earlier form, of the wonderful Magnificat of the Blessed Virgin, which is the ultimate fulfillment of this hymn of praise.

And, because Samuel’s mother was Hannah (Anne or Anna in English), the name of the mother of the Blessed Virgin was said to be Anna (Hannah) by tradition; it was one generation apart from the naming of the Mother of Jesus, Miriam or Mary. That is why and how the mother of Mary got her name–by the tradition handed down of the dedication of Samuel while yet in the womb of Hannah, his mother.

Jesus was indeed “dedicated”, not just in the earthly manner by virtue of his being firstborn, but “dedicated by the Father” and sent into the world to do the will of the Father. It’s the ultimate form of priestly, prophetic, and human dedication. It’s a triune dedication, making him thrice dedicated, a reflection of the fulness of the Trinity.

This is not private revelation but as plain as the nose on anybody’s face.

Why has no one pointed out this line from 1 Samuel before?
 
I’m wondering what the word association of Nazareth and the Hebrew word netser (branch) is in Isa 11:1.

But a shoot shall sprout from the stump of Jesse, and from his roots a bud shall blossom.

If a clear association can be made Matthews paraphrase of the prophets makes sense.

**Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will raise up a righteous shoot to David; As king he shall reign and govern wisely, he shall do what is just and right in the land. (Jer 23:5)

Listen, O Joshua, high priest! You and your associates who sit before you are men of good omen. Yes, I will bring my servant the Shoot. (Zech 3:8)**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top