"He shall be called a Nazorean"

[Semper_Fi_1]

You mistakenly assume that Sola Scriptura states that ALL THINGS said or done by the prophets and Christ are written in Scripture; it does not state that, as it is written:John 20:30Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;

John 21:25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.Sola Scriptura states that scripture is the sole rule of faith and morals, and that scripture is sufficient with respect to faith, morals, knowledge of God, understanding of salvation, etc.

Purchase a copy of the book Sola Scriptura, and then read it; perhaps then you will understand the doctrine, and then, you can stop misrepresenting it.

The bit about the true Messiah being born in Nazareth is a pretty big detail in the Jewish faith. It’s how they were going to determine the authenticity of the Jewish Messiah (but of course they ultimately rejected Him anyway).

Therefore the Jews certainly had no inclination towards anything of the sort of Sola Scriptura… Scripture is a part of Sacred Tradition.

 

[sandusky]

The bit about the true Messiah being born in Nazareth is a pretty big detail in the Jewish faith. It’s how they were going to determine the authenticity of the Jewish Messiah (but of course they ultimately rejected Him anyway).

Jesus was born in Nazareth?

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus was born in Nazareth? Is that more Catholic tradition contradicting scripture? :ehh:

C’mon Sandusky, a little Christian charity might be nice?

 

[sandusky]

C’mon Sandusky, a little Christian charity might be nice?

You’re right, NotWorthy; I’ve edited the post.

 

[BrianH]

C’mon Sandusky, a little Christian charity might be nice?

The example is a faulty example and as far as uncharitable

Else, you are lying to yourself and do not really practice Sola Scriptura: making yourself out to be a mini-pope.

 

[NotWorthy]

The example is a faulty example and as far as uncharitable

Maybe I expect more out of you???

Sorry, actually I was probably proud of my Christian charity when I agreed with Sandusky, and was too full of myself to read the mini-pope comment.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

You’re right, NotWorthy; I’ve edited the post.

I forgive you, my son. Excuse me for getting the two mixed up.

 

[HailMary]

so where did the Sacred writer get this prophecy from? Extrabiblical source perhaps?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Manny,

I’m just not seeing the issue here. I’ll think about it for a little bit and get back to you.

ah, reformed has been stumped. He must now search his anti-catholic resources either written in a book or search the web for an answer to find an argument for this. Well done Manny-fit!

It’s been 11 days since reformed went looking for a rebuttal…maybe he can’t find one?

 

[Observing4Grace]

There are MANY elements of the NT are that are direct references to Jewish Sacred Tradition (Mishna). Heres a few more…

**Oh Prodigal Son!

These quotes are by no means part of any tradition. In fact what you quote doesn’t even come from the apocrypha either. Perhaps you should be well aware that these books are pseudographical books of the Old Testament.

Parker **

 

[NotWorthy]

There are MANY elements of the NT are that are direct references to Jewish Sacred Tradition (Mishna). Heres a few more…

**Oh Prodigal Son!

These quotes are by no means part of any tradition. In fact what you quote doesn’t even come from the apocrypha either. Perhaps you should be well aware that these books are pseudographical books of the Old Testament.

Parker **

Uhhhhhhhhh, that’s his point!

For your edification:

The Talmud is composed of the Old Covenant Jewish Oral Law passed down from Moses to the Jewish priesthood that was written down after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD Mishnah] and completed with a commentary compiled by Jewish Rabbis the next century Gemarah]. The whole Mishnah is divided into six Sedarim [Orders] of which the last is the Seder Tohoroth, ‘the treating of purifications.’

 

[HailMary]

Protestants,

Will you admit that the Sacred Writers of the New Testament believed in Tradition? Otherwise, you will have to explain to the Christians of this age why its recorded in the Bible. And BTW, this is not a “Jewish tradition”, its a Christian one. If you believe the OT is a book for the Jews, how wrong are you!

 

[Observing4Grace]

Protestants,

Will you admit that the Sacred Writers of the New Testament believed in Tradition? Otherwise, you will have to explain to the Christians of this age why its recorded in the Bible. And BTW, this is not a “Jewish tradition”, its a Christian one. If you believe the OT is a book for the Jews, how wrong are you!

---

If you could make sure those quotes actually do come from a quoted source in the Jewish Talmud.The last time I checked, the bodily assumption of Moses does not come from the Talmud.

Parker ***

 

[StRaphael]

While no passage in the Old Testament says verbatim, “He shall be called a Nazarene,” there is clear and ample precedent for that idea. The throne of King David was made into a stump, just as Nazareth was a spiritually dull town, but the Messiah (Branch) [Is 4:2; 11:1; Jer 23:5; 33:15; Zech 3:8; 6:12] grew out of the stump and was called a Nazarene [Mk 1:23-24; Lk 4:33-35; Jn 19:19; Acts 22:8; 24:5; Josephus’ Antiquities] which He wore as the Messianic badge of “Branch.”

 

[Observing4Grace]

What’s your point? St. Raphael.

 

[dacoobob]

While no passage in the Old Testament says verbatim, “He shall be called a Nazarene,” there is clear and ample precedent for that idea. The throne of King David was made into a stump, just as Nazareth was a spiritually dull town, but the Messiah (Branch) [Is 4:2; 11:1; Jer 23:5; 33:15; Zech 3:8; 6:12] grew out of the stump and was called a Nazarene [Mk 1:23-24; Lk 4:33-35; Jn 19:19; Acts 22:8; 24:5; Josephus’ Antiquities] which He wore as the Messianic badge of “Branch.”

Every horse has an infinite number of legs.

Proof: Horses have an even number of legs. Behind they have two legs and in front they have fore legs. This makes six legs, which is certainly an odd number of legs for a horse. But the only number that is both odd and even is infinity. Therefore horses have an infinite number of legs.

 

[HailMary]

So in summary, Sacred Tradition is true and valid and part of the Deposit of Faith.

 

[Pwrlftr]

So in summary, Sacred Tradition is true and valid and part of the Deposit of Faith.

All because of one verse in Matthew…wow, that’s quite a leap in logic is it not?

Here is what the Haydock Commentary has to say about the verse in question:
Haydock:

Ver. 23. He shall be called a Nazarite, or a Nazarene.[5] Jesus was called a Nazarite, from the place where he was bred up in Galilee; and the Christians by the Jews were sometimes called Nazarenes, from Jesus of Nazareth. The evangelist would shew that this name, which the Jews through contempt gave to Christ and his disciples, had an honourable signification: and that this title was given in the predictions of the prophets to the Messias. But where, or in what prophet? For we find not the words exactly in any of the prophets. To this St. Chrysostom answers, that St. Matthew took it from some prophetical writings that have been lost. St. Jerome gives two other answers: first, that the word Nazarene, from the Hebrew Nezer, signifies separated, and distinguished from others by virtue and sanctity: and so some that were particularly consecrated, and devoted to the service of God, were called Nazareans, as Joseph, (Deuteronomy xxxiii. 16,) Sampson, (Judges xvi. 17,) &c. Thus a Nazarene signifies one that is holy: and all the prophets, says St. Jerome, foretold that Christ should be holy. Therefore also it was that St. Matthew did not cite any one prophet, but the prophets in general. The second answer is, that a Nazarean (if derived from the Hebrew Netser) signifies a flower, or bud; and so in the prophet Isaias, chap. xi. ver. 1) it is foretold of the Messias, that a flower shall ascend from the root of David. (Witham) — The reason why Jesus is called of Nazareth, and not of Bethlehem, is, because he was educated there, and was generally supposed to have been born there. Hence he was called the Galilean; and the people argued from that circumstance, that he was not the Messias, nor even a prophet, saying, Can the Christ come from Galilee? Search the Scriptures, and see that out of Galilee a prophet riseth not. (John vii. 52.) Again, in Nazareth the word was made flesh, though in Bethlehem he was produced to the world; and our Lord gives himself the same title, when he addressed Saul. I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. (Acts. xxii.) He remained at Nazareth till he was about 30 years of age. (Haydock)

He presents several possibilities from the ECF’s no less. Certainly if Jerome is correct the point your thread was trying to demonstrate goes away doesn’t it?

What is wrong with Jerome’s thoughts on this?

 

[HailMary]

All because of one verse in Matthew…wow, that’s quite a leap in logic is it not?

Here is what the Haydock Commentary has to say about the verse in question:

He presents several possibilities from the ECF’s no less. Certainly if Jerome is correct the point your thread was trying to demonstrate goes away doesn’t it?

What is wrong with Jerome’s thoughts on this?

Yeah, I think you should deal with the reality that since this prophecy is not found in Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) then you have no other choice but rely on TRADITION.

 

[Pwrlftr]

Yeah, I think you should deal with the reality that since this prophecy is not found in Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) then you have no other choice but rely on TRADITION.

What’s wrong with St. Jerome’s view?