[boatbums]

No. The focus has been on Isaiah 11:1. I brought up the fact that Judges 13 can also be used. There were no “numerous proofs” from the Prophets. And in no prophet’s writings does “Nazarene” actually appear. I have been right all along. It’s just that simple.

No, you have been quibbling all along...it doesn't make you right. It's already been explained to you that Isaiah 11:1 is one of the prophets Matthew is referring to (reminder...he said "it is spoken" not, "it is written"). Isaiah 11:1 says, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots". Note, the word branch is the transliterated Hebrew word "netser" and it literally means sprout, shoot, branch (always figurative). About the the city named Nazareth:

Nazareth is not mentioned in pre-Christian texts and appears in many different Greek forms in the New Testament. There is no consensus regarding the origin of the name.[6] One conjecture holds that "Nazareth" is derived from one[7] of the Hebrew words for 'branch', namely ne·ṣer, נֵ֫צֶר, and alludes to the prophetic, messianic words in Book of Isaiah 11:1, 'from (Jesse's) roots a Branch (netzer) will bear fruit.' One view suggests this toponym might be an example of a tribal name used by resettling groups on their return from exile.[8] Alternatively, the name may derive from the verb na·ṣar, נָצַר, "watch, guard, keep,"[9] and understood either in the sense of "watchtower" or "guard place", implying the early town was perched on or near the brow of the hill, or, in the passive sense as 'preserved, protected' in reference to its secluded position. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth)

If after all this back and forth you still want to beat your chest and claim you alone are right and those who have challenged you are wrong, you will be the only one claiming that. It seems as if you never mention these other points that have been given to you. I imagine it might deflate your somewhat vaulted self image?

We haven't forgotten that this all started from an assertion that the Pope can say pretty much anything he wants about Mary and it doesn't matter what God's word says to the contrary. It took over 1800 years for the Roman Catholic church to define the sinlessness of Mary as a dogma all Catholics have to believe. Up until then, it wasn't a dogma of the RCC. Some believed it, sure, but not everyone and certainly it wasn't a declared, ex cathedra pronouncement all those centuries before. That's why we must hold to the only material we absolutely CAN know without a doubt IS the truth because it came through the very breath of God - the sacred Scriptures, the Bible. Whatever a religious "authority" declares must be believed by all must have as its basis the Scriptures. This is something the Apostles taught because it's what Jesus taught them by word and by example. It isn't something genuine Christians should fear or deny.

[vladimir998]

I was right all along and your post doesn’t do anything to change that. I was right about the New Eve. I was right about Matthew and “Nazarene”. None of that will change.