"He Shall Be Called a Nazarene" - An Error in the Bible?

[pletho]

and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."
Matt 2:23

Everybody pick up your Bible Concordances and look for this verse in the Old Testament. You will not find it. It does not exist in the OT.

So was Mattew making this up? How can he say that this fulfills prophesy when this prophesy was never even recorded in the Old Testament?


So if this is a error, how can the Bible be the inerrant Word of God?

Merry Christmas!

While we can be absolutely certain of those prophecies that are recorded in the scriptures, there are other prophecies which were simply SPOKEN and not WRITTEN, for example Matt 2:23 this is not found in the Old testament; nevertheless, spoken prophecies are revelation and are fullfilled, eventually This had to have been a spoken prophecy by a prophet referring to the Christ, that's why in Luke 2:39 talking about Joseph and Mary,they took Jesus to Nazareth, the city that had been there home before Jesus' birth in Bethelehem and their flight into Egypt.

This return to Nazareth was in order to completely fullfill all the law, the Word of God, prophecy spoken, or written, so that Jesus would meet all requirements required to be the Messiah, the Christ.

These two Joseph and Mary were believing believers who knew the scriptures well and obviously by their believing actions knew more than what was recorded in the scriptures, that's your answer, it's simple if you believe it, but so many people come at the Word trying to disprove the Word, what a waste of time, what a high calling in life, and if that's not what you are trying to do and I have misunderstood your intent I apologize but if not then this is for you to read. God bless, Steve

 

[IisJustMe]

According to who? Where does scripture tell us that this is a valid test?.

... and I am. It is obvious from your lengthy post that you won't see Scriptural evidence when it is presented to you. As it already was. 1 Timothy 3:16, 17. That says it all. And it says nothing about oral tradition. It says "Scripture" ... period. That is all the proof necessary. Everything else is striving after wind.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Yes. And I agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches.

What are you calling "Catholic" . .with a BIG "C" ?

"Catholic" with a BIG "C" is commonly and generally understood to refer to the Catholic Church in union with the Pope.

If you agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches, why are you not Catholic and sporting a Catholic icon?


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

I told you I was done... and I am.

Then why are you are you still responding especially when you offer no valid proof for your claims?

It is obvious from your lengthy post that you won't see Scriptural evidence when it is presented to you. As it already was. 1 Timothy 3:16, 17. That says it all. And it says nothing about oral tradition. It says "Scripture" ... period. That is all the proof necessary. Everything else is striving after wind.

I see nothing validating your claims .. just misappropriation of scripture, a practice known as eisegesis . .reading into scripture what one wants to find there . .


That's OK it is obvious by now that you cannot provide valid evidence for your claims . . . . take a break . . .


.

 

[lmnop9876]

Jannes and Jambres.
Book of Enoch
Moses' Seat
Feast of Hanukkah
Christ called a Nazarene

None of these are mentioned in the Old Testament, yet all are mentioned as if already known of by the writers of the New Testament. oral tradition seems to be the only logical answer.

 

[lmnop9876]

on the topic of "he shall be called a nazarene" it should also be remembered that "nazarene" was considered an insult and a taunt at that time, and Christ's being taunted in this way (as He was) was a fulfillment of prophecies predicting Him being mocked (although the taunt of Nazarene is not specifically mentioned)

 

[PaulAckermann]

... and I am. It is obvious from your lengthy post that you won't see Scriptural evidence when it is presented to you. As it already was. 1 Timothy 3:16, 17. That says it all. And it says nothing about oral tradition. It says "Scripture" ... period. That is all the proof necessary. Everything else is striving after wind.

That passage says that ALL Scripture is inspired by God. It doees not say ONLY Scripture is inspired by God.

 

[PaulAckermann]

on the topic of "he shall be called a nazarene" it should also be remembered that "nazarene" was considered an insult and a taunt at that time, and Christ's being taunted in this way (as He was) was a fulfillment of prophecies predicting Him being mocked (although the taunt of Nazarene is not specifically mentioned)

The passage in Matthew says that they went to Nazareth and that was to fulfill that He shall be called a Nazarene. It is was not because He was taunted, although He was. Matthew mentions nothing about Christ being taunted in that passage.

 

[IisJustMe]

That passage says that ALL Scripture is inspired by God. It doees not say ONLY Scripture is inspired by God.

As I quite clearly pointed out, the word translated "Scripture" is the Greek word graphe, i.e., the written word. That is what Scripture is, written, not orally communicated or held as traditionally equal to the written word, which it is not.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Originally Posted by PaulAckermann
That passage says that ALL Scripture is inspired by God. It doees not say ONLY Scripture is inspired by God.​

As I quite clearly pointed out, the word translated "Scripture" is the Greek word graphe, i.e., the written word. That is what Scripture is, written, not orally communicated or held as traditionally equal to the written word, which it is not.

TOTALLY unresponsive to the post responded to, ignoring the argument actually made, creating a straw man in its place . . . .

Logically invalid response . . . .



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, it does exist. The word Nazarene means one who is consecrated. The Hebrew root word is 'nazir' or nazar.

1. to dedicate, consecrate, separate
2. (Niphal) to dedicate oneself, devote oneself
3. (Hiphil) to keep sacredly separate
4. (Hiphil) to be a Nazarite, live as a Nazarite

The term and the 'vow' come from the old testement.


Numbers 6:13; Judges 13:5; 1 Samuel 1:11;

And as mentioned in reference to the nazir.
Isaiah 53:1,2 Amos 2:10-12;
Samson was one of the most well know nazarene's.

The nazir was a shadow of Messiah just as the prophets were. Holy and set apart to God only doing his will.

This is what it means when the text refers to the prophets claiming he will be a Nazarene.

John 1:45 Philip found Natan'el and told him, "We've found the one that Moshe wrote about in the Torah, also the Prophets -- it's Yeshua Ben-Yosef from Natzeret!"

Originally Posted by Stinker
Mt.2:23 is from Isaiah 11:1 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse (the father of king David) and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.

The Hebrew word for branch is attributed to Jesus and is the word netzer. It is translated in the New Testament writings as nazareth, (a town in Galilee). Though the village or town of Nazareth is not listed in the Old Testament nor by any secular sources till into the middle of the 1st century, it does not mean that such a tiny place did not exist.

Since it was "spoken of by the prophets", plural, what if you combined the 2 words to mean "consecrated branch"?

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Matt 2:23 and coming, He dwells into city being-said/declared Nazareth so that may-be-being-fulfilled the being-said/declared by/thru the prophets that nazarene he shall-be-being-called.

 

[plmarquette]

some food for discussion ... the essenes ..
http://www.livinginspirit.org/essenes_table.htm
http://reluctant-messenger.com/essene/index.html

 

[DiscipleDave]

There were many things the prophets said that were not written down, word of mouth was the only way stories and sayings were remembered. The prophets could very well have said, as it states in the New Testament, He shall be called a Nazarene, it only was not written down. Because it was not written down, does not mean it was not said. There are many books that the Bible mentions today, that have never even been found to this day, such as:

Num:21:14: Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,

Josh:10:13: And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

2Sam:1:18: (Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.)

1Kgs:14:19: And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.

1Kgs:14:29: Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?

1Chron:29:29: Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer,

2Chron:9:29: Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?

2Chron:12:15: Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually.

2Chron:20:34: Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani, who is mentioned in the book of the kings of Israel.

2Chron:24:27: Now concerning his sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid upon him, and the repairing of the house of God, behold, they are written in the story of the book of the kings. And Amaziah his son reigned in his stead.

Ezra:4:15: That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed.

Jer:32:12: And I gave the evidence of the purchase unto Baruch the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, in the sight of Hanameel mine uncle's son, and in the presence of the witnesses that subscribed the book of the purchase, before all the Jews that sat in the court of the prison.

Nahum:1:1: The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.

Mal:3:16: Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.

So as you can see there are many books that even the Bible mentions, that we have not found even to this day, yet they are mentioned as being real. so then it is not to difficult of a thing to realize, that what the Disciple said, that He would be called a Nazerene, could very well have been the Truth, only we do not have that particular writing that says so. Also there is no reason for us to believe, that He is lieing about it, why would he ?

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^