Any thoughts on the Quakers?

Share your personal journey of faith as a Christian. This is a place for SUPPORT and AGREEMENT only, not a place to tell someone their experience and feelings are wrong, or why we disagree with them. To engage in discussion with others who have a differing viewpoint, use the "Old Paths Reconsidered" Forum.
ena
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:34 pm

Re: Any thoughts on the Quakers?

Post by ena »

agricola wrote:
ena wrote:My Mother's dad had Quaker parents. The were dead by the time I was born. Her Dad was raised Quaker but was Methodist and Church of the Nazarene. The Gospel of Matthew said that Jesus was supposed to be called a Nazarene. It is nowhere inside Jewish literature. Notice spoken not written. Grasping for prophetic straws.

Matthew 2:23 KJV 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.
there are several places in the NT where there is some kind of 'as the prophet wrote' statement, including some prophecies which are supposed to apply to Jesus being the messiah.
In SOME cases, those are 'known' passages with Christian interpretations.
BUT is other cases, the NT quotes a totally unknown (to us today) prophet. It is generally assumed by scholars that the canon of prophets, so to speak, had not been firmly decided at that point, and the early Christians (or late Second Temple Jews or some Jewish groups) had written scrolls which they considered to be prophets, but which were not GENERALLY accepted, and therefore those books did not make it into the Jewish canon (which wasn't set until the third and fourth centuries CE), and those books have since been lost to history.

Maybe some future archeological discovery will turn up a scroll which turns out to the be the source of those 'as the prophet wrote' passages - including 'he will be called a Nazarene' bit, which is - frankly - a very odd one.

Nothing in KNOWN Jewish prophetic books mention anything about the messiah (or anybody else) being a Nazarene. AND, as it happens, people from Nazareth weren't knows as 'Nazarenes' anyway. It's a different word entirely - just sounds similar.

In other words, Matthew was reaching there. Reaching really hard. All the gospels are pretty clear that he was called Jesus Of NAZARETH, not 'Jesus the Nazarene'.
A Nazarene (a nazir, in Hebrew) was someone who had taken certain particular vows, including avoiding wine and never cutting their hair. Jesus certainly is not depicted as avoiding wine. I don't recall any mention of hair length - but it seems very unlikely that he had taken Nazir vows. It wasn't that common, and therefore WOULD HAVE been mentioned, by somebody, at some point, if he had.

A Nazir has nothing to do with the town of Nazareth.
Scholars call it an oral prophesy which proves nothing. It is stated backwards. Until I see the translated Hebrew gospel I will not know what he intended. Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. What we have in Greek has errors. Did you know that the father of Mary was a second Joseph. The Greek translator messed it up. There is no written Hebrew prophesy currently known. If God wants it known it will be clarified. Otherwise the point is not clear.
Post Reply