Pope Francis Supposedly Claimed Virgin Mary Is Second Trinity, At Godhead Level

Seriously, you do realize that nowhere in Isaiah 11:1 does the word “Nazarene” appear.

Sure it does. One only needs to know specifically what a 'netzer' is. The 'Branch' prophecies require no speculation.

Excellent!

“Matthew is not extrapolating, he is stating the accepted understanding of Old Testament prophecies, plural.”

Nope. State the EXACT VERSES WITH QUOTES CONTAINING THE word “Nazarene” from the Old Testament that Matthew was relying on. There were no such verses that he used. None. the word Nazarene does not appear in Isaiah 11:1 nor in Judges 13. This is indisputable. And you must realize that relying on “the accepted understanding” is in fact relying on an extrapolation. Understanding is not text. Text is made of words. Understanding is a belief about what the words convey and it does not have to be restricted to the literal.

“You can’t be serious in claiming that “The Nazarene” was somehow pulled out of thin air by Matthew, can you?”

Now you’re extrapolating on what I said because I never once said Matthew “somehow pulled [it] out of thin air”. You keep doing exactly what you condemned.

“Ludicrous, if so. You’re rejecting the efforts of Jerome, a saint of your church, who provides you with explanation of Hebrew idiom.”

I don’t reject his efforts at all. Again you are extrapolating. I asked for a verse from the Old Testament. Why do you think I asked you if you were saying Jerome was an inspired author of scripture?

“They weren’t thinking and speaking in Latin, vlad, much as RC apologists might try to impart that impression.”

No, Matthew was writing in Greek (or Aramaic or Hebrew in an original, possibly). Either way, no verse in the prophets says what Matthew so succinctly says in 2:23. None. He was indeed following a commonly accepted tradition, an extrapolation of the text of the prophets. That’s the point. Matthew did exactly what you condemn and the proof is that you can’t find one verse in the prophets that says the messiah was going to be called a Nazarene.

Would you be so kind as to pick up where I’m leaving off tonight? This nonsense really does require refuting, apparently again and again. A word of warning: vlad’s a prickly one when cornered, lol.

“I’ve not contradicted myself, vlad.”

Yes, you have, repeatedly.

“I’ve contradicted you.”

No, you opposed me, and lost. Everything I have said is true.

“I’m really not up for another round of 30 or more increasingly lengthy replies with increasing levels of rudeness coming from your end of the exchange.”

Excuses, excuses.

“The truth is evident to reasonable minds.”

yes, it IS evident. No verse says what Matthew 2:23 so succinctly says. None.

“You made a common, erroneous RC claim”

False. What I said is NOT a “common” or “erroneous RC claim”. By the way, here YOU are RC (RegulatorCountry).

“regarding Matthew that I’ve quite easily refuted,”

You completely failed. I asked for a verse that says what Matthew says. There are none and everyone who has researched it knows it.

” based upon scripture and a saint of your own church,”

Again, false. No verse says “Nazarene” as Matthew says it and Jerome produced no verse that says it either.

“without even having to break out the Catholic Encyclopedia on you again.”

Again? Not in this thread with me you haven’t. And go ahead and do so if you wish for no verse listed in the CE will say “Nazarene” as Matthew says it. It’s just that simple.

“And, that appears to have put a bee in your bonnet.”

No bees, no bonnet. What else that is missing is a single verse from you that says “Nazarene” as Matthew says it. It was impossible for you to provide such a verse because none exists.

“You’re going to have to get it out all on your lonesome tonight, though. It’s nearly midnight, on a weeknight. So, good night.”

You might as well go. You can’t provide the verse I asked for because none exists. There was no other possible outcome for you.

“Eve came out of Adam via a rib. For the equivalent analogy to hold, then Mary must also have originated out of Christ via his own rib.”

False. Types are not always directly linear.

“(not Christ out of Mary).Therefore Mary cannot be the “second Eve”.”

Again, false. Mary is the reverse of Eve. That’s why she is said to untied the knot of disobedience tied by Eve. Mary said yes (her “Fiat” as the saying goes), while Eve said no and disobeyed God. The types are not directly linear.

Would you be so kind as to pick up where I’m leaving off tonight? This nonsense really does require refuting, apparently again and again. A word of warning: vlad’s a prickly one when cornered, lol.

Sure, though I am heading for the crib pretty soon too... Have a great sleep! : )

“Sure it does.”

No, it doesn’t. Here is the word in question: “Nazarene”. See how it is spelled? Now, look in your Bible, any Bible. Does that word appear in Isaiah 11:1? No, it does not. If you’re going to claim otherwise, then please post what translation you are using and I will post the text here at FR so we can see who is being honest and who is not.

“One only needs to know specifically what a ‘netzer’ is. The ‘Branch’ prophecies require no speculation.”

Again, N-A-Z-A-R-E-N-E is not “branch”. I understand why people use Isaiah 11:1 as an explanation and I am not saying I disagree with the Hebrew root idea. The problem is that Matthew would then STILL be extrapolating from the Hebrew root because NO WHERE IN THE TEXT DOES THE WORD N-A-Z-A-R-E-N-E APPEAR.

Remember, even in the Hebrew text, the word “Nazarene” does not appear. Thanks for trying and for proving me right yet again.

“A word of warning: vlad’s a prickly one when cornered, lol.”

Well, then I’m never “prickly”. When you can find a verse in the prophets that says “Nazarene” in relation to the Messiah as Matthew uses it in 2:23 get back to me. If you can’t - and every scripture scholar who has ever lived, including Jerome, knows the word “Nazarene” never shows up in that context - then we’ll know who was right.

“Sure, though I am heading for the crib pretty soon too”

Me too. Post a verse that says “Nazarene” just as Matthew used it in 2:23. If not, I see no reason to respond.

Me too.

Great... then lets pick it up tomorrow - Have a good sleep! : )

Post a verse that says “Nazarene” just as Matthew used it in 2:23. If not, I see no reason to respond.

Maybe it would help to know that Hebrews call the town 'Netzeret' or 'Nesaret'... And then, maybe ask yourself how it came to be that a group of Judeans from the House of David wound up living there.

I will catch your reply tomorrow.

For the discussion:

The Hebrew root word for the town name "Nazareth" is Netzer.

From the Nazareth city website:

Origins of the Name In Roman times Nazareth was a Jewish village and its name is thought to come from the Hebrew word “Netzer”, which can mean a twig or a branch. For Christians, this supports the claim that Jesus was a descendant of King David, which in turn strengthens their belief that Jesus is the Messiah. But “Netzer” also means “to keep”, which may refer to the city’s location on a mountain watching over the Jezreel Valley, frequently a scene of battle in earlier times.

Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth – which is why the Hebrew name for Christianity is “Natzrut”. In English, Jesus is called “Christ”, which means a Messiah; hence the English name Christianity. In Arabic, Jesus is called “Massiach”, meaning Messiah, and Christians are called “Messachin”.

Again, Isaiah 11:1 for which many English translators capitalize the word Branch:

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (netser) shall grow out of his roots:

That is why I reject any notion that Mary could have thwarted the will of God by simply saying "no." He could have replaced her until one said "yes." To God be the glory, not man, never man.

I wasn't going to comment on this thread since so many seem to be on a hair-trigger alert to anything someone says about Mary, presuming anything short of the deep devotion RCs give her is "disrespectful" and "hateful", but I have to say I agree with what you are stating. No Christian that I have ever known has disrespected her. She IS honored and set up as an example of faith for us all. But, to have someone say we wouldn't have had a Savior if Mary told God no, just goes way too far. If Moses said no, would God have given up on freeing the Israelites from slavery in Egypt? If Abraham had said no, would there even BE an Israel? I don't understand how people place so much glory on the humans when we have to know that God WILL do as He pleases and NO person can stand in His way.

Mary is honored and called blessed because she said yes, no other reasons need be imagined or fabricated to heap undue glory and praise on a human woman who had great faith and was anointed by God to bear the Savior of the world. The true glory and praise belongs to Almighty God who by His grace, love and mercy has redeemed us from the due punishment we ALL deserved - even Mary. She easily recognized her state as a humble woman in need of a savior and praised God for showing her favor and honor - something I think ALL Jewish women probably hoped would happen to them - to bear the Messiah. Her example to us was to glorify God and not man. God bless you!

Eve came out of Adam via a rib. For the equivalent analogy to hold, then Mary must also have originated out of Christ via his own rib. (not Christ out of Mary).Therefore Mary cannot be the “second Eve”. Now spiritually, Christians are born again via the outworking of the Holy Spirit. We are born out of the substance of Christ....since he is the new Adam, then we as the whole body of believers are the New Eve...or more simply the Bride of Christ! If Christ is the new Adam then his Bride is the new Eve! Hallelujah...praise God from whom all blessings flow!

That explanation makes TONS more sense. Thank you. I would add, since Mary is also part of the Bride of Christ, then ONLY in that sense is she "a" new Eve, just not THE new Eve.

I’ve been noticing quite a few grammatical and spelling errors in our daily newspaper as well as online articles. Did they fire all the text editors to save money? I’d be embarrassed to publish anything with my name on it that made such blatant mistakes.

Believe the article? I’m having enough trouble translating it into comprehensible English.

Seriously, you do realize that nowhere in Isaiah 11:1 does the word “Nazarene” appear.

Sure it does. One only needs to know specifically what a 'netzer' is. The 'Branch' prophecies require no speculation.

That is exactly what the Targums say about the Messiah - He would be a branch (netzer) out of Jesse and that was what the city of Nazareth was called. Also, this isn't a quibble, but Matthew 2:23 says, "That which was spoken through the prophets..." . It doesn't say, "It was written. So, I agree with you and RC that there isn't any speculation required.

Again, false. Mary is the reverse of Eve. That’s why she is said to untied the knot of disobedience tied by Eve. Mary said yes (her “Fiat” as the saying goes), while Eve said no and disobeyed God.

But the sin was not Eve's that Mary should atone for it.

Sin did not enter the world until Adam ate, not when Eve ate.

The sin was not the first woman's (Eve) that the second woman (Mary) should atone for it. The sin was the first man's (Adam's) that the second man (Jesus) should atone for it.

Jesus' temptation in the wilderness succeeded with His obedience in temptation, where Adam's failed.

Romans 5:12-21 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

All this extra made up stuff about Mary is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Catholics who would love to find ANYTHING to support their errant doctrine about Mary but can't because none of what they put forth about her to deify her can be found in Scripture.

Hello Alamo-Girl! Well, sleep eludes me, i think because of this thread running around in my head - So I will write this bit, fleshing out in the process, my position for vlad:

The Hebrew root word for the town name "Nazareth" is Netzer.

Yes it is. And a netzer is a particular and peculiar thing directly related to an olive tree. An olive tree can seemingly grow old and die - For many years, there is nothing there but a stump... Suddenly, maybe a very long time later, and some distance from the stump, a shoot will spring up out of the ground. This particular branch, a netzer, has been growing out of the root of the dead stump, underground, all the way along. It is not a clone, it is not a seed, it is genetically, and physically, the very same tree as the old stump.

Thus, as this Is 11:1 passage predicts, the House of David, long nothing but a stump, would grow an underground Branch that would spring up unexpectedly, some distance from it's root, both in time and geography.

But there is more:

The Jews call Christians 'Notzrim', or as we would say 'Nazarenes'. Our FRiend vlad looks only to the transliterated Greek word, instead of relying upon what any Jew could tell him. And that He should be called a 'netzer' has much more to say. The 'Branch prophecies' distinguish between the netzer, the trunk or shoot, and the branches above ground once the tree has grown - A very interesting study, too long for this missive. But that is one way that one finds Christianity in the Old Testament prophets.

[from your quote:] But “Netzer” also means “to keep”, which may refer to the city’s location on a mountain watching over the Jezreel Valley, frequently a scene of battle in earlier times.

This is also true, and extremely amazing, as another meaning for 'notzrim' is 'watchmen' - Now, understand that Nazareth hadn't even been established when the prophets wrote about the 'notzrim', and one must be careful to rightly divide (watchmen class angels, for instance), but understanding this bit again, points right to the followers of the Nazarene.

To wit: It is also highly necessary, according to the Prophets, that He be called a Nazarene, the 'Netzer', in order to have a following called Notzrim (Nazarenes). So whether 'netzer' or 'watchtower, or watch keeper', the result is exactly the same.

In order to expose the unScriptural nature of certain RC teaching, you do not have to engage in the manner of egregious extrapolation of words that RCs often engage in trying to support traditions of men from Scripture.

The elevation of Mary to a "certain equality with the Godhead" is well evidenced by sanctioned and uncensored Catholic teaching.

That is not too far once you start with a sinless perpetual virgin who is also made into

an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

and "was elevated to a certain equality with the Heavenly Father,"

even so that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

"surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources .

And then you are in the realm of the cults:

Note that many Catholic Marian attributions much parallel even that of Christ:

For in the the Catholic quest to almost deify Mary, it is taught by Catholics*,

as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which easily infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His actual flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is highly exalted above all under the Father, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and as having a certain equality with the Heavenly Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
It should be kept in mind that my objection is not to Mary being honored as the holy chosen vessel to bring forth Christ, but to the excess ascriptions, appelations, exaltation, and adoration (and the manner of exegesis behind it), ascribed to the Catholic Mary, whether officially or by Catholics (with implicit sanction of authority).
And which presumes that bowing down to a statute and attributing to the person it represent attributes and glory that are uniquely ascribed to God/Christ in Scripture, including the power to hear in Heaven incessant multitudinous mental prayers addressed to them from earth and respond to them, and imploring such for heavenly aid, would be understood and vindicated as merely being "hyperdulia," and not "latria" (which Rome states is the manner of adoration reserved for God).
As i have said before, one would have a hard time in Bible times explaining kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed by mental prayer.
Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?