Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
There is no reason to assume that the Catholic Church is the same Church organized by the Savior.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And He Shall Be Called a Nazarene
- Thread starter IndigoChild5559
- Start date
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Generally speaking, the definite article heh ה means "the," as in Jesus "the" Nazarene. So that's how I would interpret ישו הנוצרי as it's found in the Talmud. But you claimed the heh followed with a yod doesn't necessarily mean "the." I did not know that was the case. But I took it on your word; so that I then implied that apparently both can be the case, since I know for a fact that the definite article generally means "the."
In the translation of Avodah Zara 16b found at Sefaria.org, the Hebrew ישו הנוצרי is interpreted and translated "Jesus the Nazarene."
John
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
The "vocalization" isn't canonical. Or if it is, it is only where the Masoretic text is taken to be the only authorized reading of the text. In the signature text of Isaiah 48:6, we find the consonants נצרות, which, if you type those consonants into even Google's Hebrew to English translator, you get "Christian."
As I noted in another message in this thread, Ibn Ezra points out a glaring problem with the traditional Jewish interpretation of the text. In the traditional Jewish interpretation of the text, the consonants נצרות are translated "hidden things." But Ibn Ezra notes that those consonants are never used that way. The word נצרות is a passive participle, an attributive or predicative adjective. Which means the word must modify some other word.
In Ibn Ezra's commentary on Isaiah 48:6 it actually points out that the consonants נצרות would be translated "guarded" such that what is "guarded" must exist in the text. Ibn Ezra's commentary says a word appears to be missing from the verse? The word for what is being "guarded."
What's being "guarded" by the word "guarded" is the face or name of God which God hid in the Law (Deuteronomy 31:18), and which he specifically claims in Isaiah 48:4-5 that he's now, finally, going to reveal.
So you see when Matthew gets excited that Jesus the Nazarene has the name "nazarene" as part of his messianic title, and when we realize this messiah-the-nazarene claims to be the very face of God (John 10:30), well, it's not too difficult to see the source of Matthew's excitement.
John
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
In Deuteronomy chapter 31, God claims that he's going to hide his face from Israel. When, in Exodus 16:33-34, Moses tells Aaron to place the manna before the face of the Lord, Aaron dutifully places the manna before the face of Moses' branch or wooden rod. Oddly this fact is is hidden by the MT, which translates Exodus 16:33 by eliminating the word "face" פני, from the interpretation. Nevertheless, the hidden face of God is a branch, or nazar נצר, such that God's face is nazar-ish, eth, or ot. . . Which is why Isaiah 48:6 is the key to this entire thread.
That's what God hid in the Law: that Nehushtan is the emblem, the branch, or face, of the Lord. That's hidden from Israel even though nothing is quite so clear if you look deeper than what the MT chooses to hide from Israel.
To your point that God's name is known by Israel, yes, multiple names and titles are used by Israel to name God even after God claims he's going to hide his face and name from Israel.
What Ibn Ezra makes explicit in his interpretation of Isaiah 48:6, is that God has a "hidden" name that is "guarded" by God up until we pass through the mezuzah of Deutero-Isaiah: Isaiah chapters 1-47. After Isaiah 48:6, the prophet begins to describe the hidden name, or person, of God, who is the singular suffering servant of the remaining chapters of Isaiah, with specific emphasis on chapter 53, which fancies messiah being attached to a branch so that his visage there, as part of the branch, becomes a "shrine" (Isaiah 53:9) that will be worn by the nazarenes (Isaiah 49:18).
John
Last edited:
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
Taanit 27b:8, says: "The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they would not fast on Sunday? Rabbi Yohanan said: Due to the Christians." . .. The Hebrew for Christians in the quotation is הנוצרים. Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations, 9:4, calls Christians נצנים. Redak on Psalms 19:10 (2) calls Christians הנצרים.
John
rosends
Well-Known Member
Yeah, then you run into a bunch of other problems. First is that it isn't just the use of the definite article introducing the place name, but the yod at the end. Biblically it is used to mean "of the family of" but talmudically it means "of the place of." The fact that the English you found has "the Nazarene" means that you have to figure out what "Nazarene" means in English. That's a function of translation, not of the source word. Then, of course, you have to confront the issues of the text itself, whether this reference is to the person you are thinking of. There is plenty of research to indicate that historically and chronologically, it isn't. But your belief is fine for you.
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
In Isaiah 63:10-12, we get the proof-text for the statement above. Verse 10 recounts Deuteronomy 31:18, where God is so vexed at Israel's rebellious ways that he says he will hide his face from them.
But they rebelled and vexed his holy spirit: Therefore he was turned to be their enemy and he fought against them.
Isaiah 63:10.
Isaiah 63:10.
Then the next verse (11) jumps ahead, from Deuteronomy 31:18, to Isaiah 48:6:
Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people saying, Who is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd [rod] of his flock? Who is he that put his holy spirit within and led them by the right hand of Moses and the glorious arm of the Lord in Moses right hand ----[which] divided the water before them, to make himself, the Lord, an everlasting name [branch of the Lord: nazar-eth].
Isaiah 63:11-12.
Isaiah 63:11-12.
The Law (Torah) makes the branch in Moses right hand theophanic throughout the Law. So why does Israel not realize, through very easy Hebrew exegesis of the scripture, that the one who saved Israel from Egypt by parting the sea, who is the same branch thrown into the bitter water to make it sweet, who is the same branch who Moses lifted to defeat the Amalekites, who is the same branch Moses turned into Yahweh-Nissi (the altar of Yahweh), who is the same branch Israel looked up at to be saved from the death of the vipers . . . . every time the same branch is right there in front of Israel throughout the narrative of the Exodus, throughout the Law, saving, curing, cursing Israel's enemies, such that because of their rebellious ways, and the cunning of their scribes (the Masoretes and their traditional reading of the text), nary a Jew to this day is even aware that the same branch performs every saving act ---to include bringing water from the rock ---- simply because the Masoretic text hides the fact that the same branch, the same Nazarene ---Nehushtan as it were -----saves Israel throughout the narrative of the Law.
This is the hiding of the face of the Lord (Nehushtan the Nazarene) spoken of in Deuteronomy 31:18. And this is the revelation of that branch, that nazarene, that savior of Israel, which must occur when Isaiah 48:6 is circumcised of the veil the Masoretes placed there to hide the face of the Lord not from the non-Jew, but from the Jew. The revelation in this thread must occur so that Jews can parallel 2 Kings 18:4, with John 18:4, and bring on the final salvific act of the branch of the Lord, the Lord's Nazarene, the final salvific act that must occur before the end of the age, and before the utter glorification of the suffering servant(s) of the Lord.
John
Last edited:
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
As you note, interpretation is not only a laborious task, but it's sometimes more of an art than a science. It's obviously both. At least in my opinion it is.
In his exegesis of the verse in the cross hairs (which verse is intertwined in the bloody hair on the cross, Isaiah 48:6), Ibn Ezra does us a great service by pointing out that the word in Isaiah 48:6 has to mean "guard" such that something must be "guarded." As a suffix, a yod can be exegeted many ways. One way would be to change "guard" to "guard-ers," which could be performed by a yod alone (Psalms 25:10), or by a yod and a mem (2 Kings 18:8).
If persons who guards נצר are נצרים, then if person is a נצר his offspring might be called נצרים. I suspect the Talmud is calling Jesus' offspring נוצרי, or נצרים, in the sense of saying they belong to the one the Talmud calls, "the Nazarene."
Which circles back to the thread seeder about a first century Jew named Matthew pointing out the remarkable parallel between Isaiah 48:6 and what the Talmud calls Jesus.
John
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
.
Hello Fallen Prophet the simple reply would be there is NO reason to assume that the Catholic Church is NOT the same Church organized by the Savior!
Especially since all the Early Church Fathers were all Catholics or also the fact that the Catholic Church can trace her bishops back to the apostles in an unbroken line only she is Apostolic!
Or the fact the early Catholic Church believed and practiced what the Holy Catholic Church does today!
Fallen Prophet Or that Jesus established ONE Church not thousands and thousands of man made churches!
Or that Jesus gave all of God' authority to to his Catholic Church to TEACH all nations and also his promise to remain FOREVER with his church!
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Fallen Prophet You never answered the questions in post #277? Why cat got your tongue?
Again I point to Ignatius he wrote to the Trallians. “Obey the bishop as if he were Jesus Christ” (2:2, 1). “Do nothing apart from the bishop,” he wrote to the Philadelphians (7:2). To the Smyrnaeans he gave the same advice: “You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father . . . Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop’s approval” (8:1).
He wrote to Polycarp (the words were also meant for the latter’s entire flock in Smyrna): “Pay attention to the bishop so that God will pay attention to you. I give my life as a sacrifice (poor as it is) for those who are obedient to the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons” (6:1). To the Trallians he wrote: “You cannot have a church without these” (3:2).
Fallen Prophet Ignatius wrote: A.D. 110 “When the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (8:2).
Fallen Prophet Did you read this? Just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”! A.D. 110
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The way that I speak to you. In my writing.
Thats not what it says . I'm going with what it says . 'spoken '.
rosends
Well-Known Member
Do you make any distinction between what was spoken and what was spoke and then recorded? I don't recall any of the prophets having their prophecy preceded by a "write" verb form. If there is no need to be referring to anything that was recorded, then there should never be any attempt to ground gospel statements in any Old Testament prophecies because the OT is only the spoken words that happen to have been recorded.
Thanks for the clarification.
But could you please share with us ...
- who authored gMt 2:23?
- when was it authored?
- which prophets spoke this prophecy?
- when was this prophecy uttered?
- how did the author of Matthew come to be aware of it?
- how should we characterize the likely accuracy after many decades of oral transmission?
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
.
Barry Johnson yes "Spoken"! There wasn't a bible for the first 400 years the message was taught, preached by the Church!
The scriptures (Old Testament) was USEFUL for Teaching, Training, Correcting and Rebuking! The Old Testament was USEFUL but not alone used!
Church does the Teaching, Training, Correcting and Rebuking, not the bible! The idea of "Sole Scriptura" is not logical or biblical the fact is; it is a man made TRADITION!
1 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
The Greek word ρηθεν (lego), particularly as it's being used in the verse, doesn't necessarily mean "speak" or "spoken." It's like if I said that Nachmanides says such and such. I could only know he said such and such if I've read him or someone who's read him relayed it to me.
No one today has heard Nachmanides speak. Same with the prophets of old.
John
16¶All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Do you see the bit where it says " All scripture is given by inspiration of God " ?
This means Scripture alone is given by inspiration . Not anything else..The bible doesn't say 'tradition 'is given by the inspiration of God .
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
.
Hello Barry Johnson I hope all is well....
16¶All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I reply... Do you see the word PROFITABLE!? Profitable NOT ALONE!! There wasn't any inspired scriptures (New Testament) for 400 more years! YES...
Barry Johnson yes there were many letters kicking around claiming to be inspired but many hundreds were NOT; it was not until the Holy Catholic Church took the task upon herself to decide what was truly inspired scriptures and what was not!! Until she with the help of God the Holy Spirit decided the truly inspired from the non-inspired no one knew! She then took all the inspired words of God and put them into her book she named "The Bible"!
It was a MAN... Martin Luther 1600 years after Jesus that started the TRADITION of "Scriptures ALONE are all we need"!
It was a MAN ..Martin Luther 1600 years after Jesus that rejected the ONLY Church Jesus established 'The Holy Catholic Church' to start his own church; he had to REJECT the scriptures to reject the Catholic Church!
Scriptures.... 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Barry Johnson You are forced to reject the words of God to trust your salvation to the man made tradition of Scriptures ALONE!
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go.....Jesus gave the Authority of God to his Church!
make disciples of all nations, baptizing......... Disciples are made by Baptism!
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,....... With the Authority of God.. "In his name"'- "representing God"- "Speaking for God"!
and teaching them........... The Authority of God extends to TEACHING all nations!
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age........ Jesus promised to never leave his Church... Satan did not take Jesus' body from Jesus! ... The Church does NOT need to be formed anew!
John D. Brey
Well-Known Member
The last bullet point shoots a hole in the doubtful questioning in the other points if one understand the ancient world rather than using the modern world as the template for understanding a whole other realm.
In the ancient world, most people were illiterate so far as the written word is concerned. Furthermore, you couldn't just go over to Barns and Nobel, or Google Amazon in order to order a book. Books were rare and expensive. Initially only the priesthood had any. That being the case, the ancients early on devised mechanisms associated with the oral tradition that function very much in the ancient world as Bitcoin mining functions today.
Say five-thousand people are situated at the foot of the Mount of Olives when Jesus gives the sermon on the mount. No one's lifting their I-phone to video record Jesus' sermon. No one has a tape recorder and there likely isn't a transcriptionist typing away to record his every word.
Nevertheless, because of his renown, the audience is filled with the ancient world's version of the human tape recorder. There are hundreds of persons known for their ability to memorize large swaths of information by means of cantillation and various other techniques well-known in the ancient world. In that zeitgeist the written word wasn't accepted as being as authoritative as the oral tradition, which, the latter, the faithful had heard in nightly renderings so many times that no one could fudge the tradition as the Masoretes have fudged what the true oral transmission of the Tanakh was prior to the first century AD.
The oral tradition was forbidden being put down in writing for the very fact that the dead letter is inferior to the living witness who must look you in the eye and lie. The MT lies to you and there is no living witness to tell you its lying unless they know the truth of the oral tradition. And today, when they do (know the truth of the oral tradition), everyone assumes the MT is more faithful than the person who actually knows the oral tradition in his heart.
After the sermon on the mount, hundreds of groups would meet in dozens of homes and recite from memory what was said. It was the ancient form of Bitcoin mining.
As is the case with Bitcoin mining, if there was a disagreement in what was said between any of the persons who had memorized the words and already situated the words through sonorous cantilation, they would get together, compare notes, see how many recorded (memorized it) this way, and how many that, and come to a more perfect oral rendition of the signature presentation. Then, once each group had codified the best account of the sermon on the mount, they would send a representative to a meeting with those from other homes, and groups, and the Bitcoin mining would take place again, and again, until a perfect rendition of the sermon on the mount was codified, which, then, would be memorized by hundreds of men who would look you in the eye and say if anyone says Jesus said anything but this, they're lying.
For the ancient Jews, learning from a living person who knew the tradition was the only way to go. The written word was, as is truly the case, untrustworthy, since it can lie more readily, and codify the lie too easily, while the living sage will look you in the eye and tell you from his heart. In his, "Memory and Manuscript," Birger Gerhardsson says:
. . . we find time and time again that the writing down of the Gospels was really an emergency measure adopted for various reasons. This is by no means --- as later theologians have so often maintained - due to any ideas concerning the unique character of the gospel, but is a commonplace which we recognize from elsewhere in Antiquity: an attitude of skepticism to the written word. The idea is stressed -- not least in the school tradition - that what can be learned from the written page cannot be compared with that which may be learned from the lips of a living person. The consummate knowledge is to be found in oral teaching, in which the pupil receives not only texts, but also interpretation (p. 197).
John
Last edited:
And how do we know this is true? Well, by pseudepigraphic scripture. of course.