I always compare it to the KJV
james gudg wrote:i was convert at 23/now 29. i have alwas had a problem with the words in the KJV so a brough a NJKV, after a while i felt the Lord telling me to go back to the KJV i had a feeling i would have to read in church. i got married we move church nerer to where we lived while there the pastor died and i was asked to do the readings i have been told that they would never have known i had a problm with my reading the Lord took my dyslexia away while i read a church. if he can help me read the Bible He used for the reviles he can help anyone. sorry about the spelling!!!!
I find that God would avoid using directly the term Nazerene or Nazereth, for the purpose of providing a path for unbelief for those who will not believe whilst another path for belief in exactly the same manner for those called to believe. This doesn't mean he tempts to unbelief but facilitates for those who wish to disbelieve. Temptation comes from within a man drawn by his own lusts.
Mike wrote:Wondered that myself. Some of the debate team banned, maybe? Who knows?
An interesting and informative 4 series message on the presevation of the word of God is preached by a fellow by the name of J Hanson Smith on sermonaudio. It is the only messages he has on here at present and he is a proponent of the KJV for the reasons he states. I recommend a listen.
Back to the land of the banned!
"I never knew the meaning of God's Word till I was afflicted." ... Martin Luther
Excellent and absolutely true.
Neil wrote:quote: Nazareth is considered part of the Galilee region; it is next to Mt. Tabor, between the plain of Megiddo & the lake. It would take the better part of a day to walk from Nazareth to the lake.
See the AD50 map image at [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilee]]]Galilee[/URL]
DJC49 wrote:I find that NOWHERE in the Old Testament is there a prophecy concerning the Messiah coming out of Nazareth or a prophecy that He will be called a Nazarene.
...notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the PARTS OF GALILEE: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (Mat 2:22-23)
Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, SHALL CHRIST COME OUT OF GALILEE? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? (Joh 7:40-42)
(Joh 7:52) They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: FOR OUT OF GALILEE ARISETH NO PROPHET.
“…Had those who gave it made the inquiry which the case demanded, they would have found that Jesus “came out of Galilee” (Joh_7:41) and “out of Bethlehem” both, alike in fulfillment of prophecy as in point of fact. (Mat_2:23; Mat_4:13-16).” JFBSee Isaiah 9:1-2
JD wrote:I needed to add a qualifyer to my concluding statement of my last post but ran out of space. This will include the qualifyer.Which brings me to comment that there were many OT prophets but there were few writing prophets and it is no doubt true that he is referencing and validating the words of the prophets who did not write as carryiing as much weight as those who did when he himself is quoting them. He kows what the prophets said because he put the words in their mouths.
Which brings me to comment that there were many OT prophets but there were few writing prophets and it is no doubt true that he is referencing and validating the words of the prophets who did not write as carryiing as much weight as those who did when he himself is quoting them. He kows what the prophets said because he put the words in their mouths.
_____
postscript:For once I'm hoping that I've misread whatever you were actually trying to state, JD.
Which brings me to comment that there were many OT prophets but there were few writing prophets and it is no doubt true that he is referencing and validating the words of the prophets who did not write as carryiing as much weight as those who did when he himself is quoting them . He kows what the prophets said because he put the words in their mouths.
I am not claiming that my view of Matt.2:23 is the last word on this difficult text by any stretch, but it does, I believe, chart the proper path.The key to it is the Hebrew text of the OT prophets, combined with the purpose of Matthew, i.e. to show to Jews that Jesus is the promised Messiah who fulfils the OT prophecies.
Matthew in a way (N.B.) uses the exegetical methods used by the Jews, but with an important twist: he never violates the wider historical and theological contexts. For instance, in the difficult text Matt.2:15, quoting Hos.11:1 Matthew incorporates the "Second Exodus" theme prevalent throughout the restoration passages of the prophets, e.g. Hosea 2:14-23.
The use of the OT in the NT is a fascinating subject, and rewarding, but we must observe how the NT writers interpret prophecy, and I believe, emulate it. This way one will avoid the fopperies of Dispensationalism on one hand, and the pitfalls of rationalism on the other.
Ac 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.____
Mt 2:23 uses the plural, prophets, and makes the claim that more than one of them spoke and said "he shall be called a Nazarene". Acts 3:21 said God had spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets about the restitution of all things and qualifies "all" by saying "since the world began". Since the word "world" is the word "aion" and means a time frame, one must determine if he is speaking of the beginning of the age of grace which began at the resurrection of our Lord or if he is meaning time in general. Since he begins naming several OT prophets in the next verses, one can safely comnclude he is speaking generally. All of them then spoke about it but they did not all write about it.Which brings me to comment that there were many OT prophets but there were few writing prophets and it is no doubt true that he is referencing and validating the words of the prophets who did not write as carryiing as much weight as those who did.
DJC49 wrote:MurrayA,The simplest solution is that the "He shall be called a Nazarene" citation given in Mt 2:23 was based on Jewish oral tradition which REALLY opens up a whole can of worms. Doesn't it! Thanks.
Once we start saying that there are sayings of the prophets which were orally transmitted, but not recorded in Scripture, we have really given up 'sola Scriptura', and opened the door to the whole idea of 'extra traditions', whether from Moses, or from prophets, or from apostles. This is an idea in the early church which traces back to Irenaeus' conflict with the Gnostics: all right in a way while there were only about 130 years between himself and the apostles, but dangerous nevertheless.
MurrayA wrote:DJC49,Yesterday I posted my view of the difficulty involved in Matt2:23. I had to do it over two posts. Since then the discussion goes on as if I made no contribution at all. I would just like to know if you found it helpful, or whether you have rejected it.
I must admit, however, that it's still somewhat puzzling to me how such a pronounced feature of the Messiah -- his being a Nazarene -- does NOT have a more direct OT verse attached to it. Instead, there are only oblique references to Sampson, Joseph, the Nazarite vow, the Messiah being despised, and in the case of Isaiah 11:1, the Messiah as the "branch" = 'netzer' being the root of the word Nazareth.
The simplest solution is that the "He shall be called a Nazarene" citation given in Mt 2:23 was based on Jewish oral tradition which REALLY opens up a whole can of worms. Doesn't it! Protestant commentators have bent over backwards trying to PROVE that this just isn't so -- Sola Scriptura being in jeopardy. Or so it might seem. Thanks.
Thank you for your posts. I found them quite helpful.
