posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:29 AM
"In the Catholic church its necessary to observe carefully what everyone has always believed" - Fragment from a letter of San Vincent.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem, or so say Matthew and Lucas, but, Mark and John make no reference to this fact.
Luke affirmes that it was necessary to register his birth here, or more correctly the child that would be born.
Maybe he chose this site to carry on with the Old Testament tradition.
In the profecies of Miqueas, Bethlehem is the place where he who will reign over all Isreal will be born, but its just possible that the Evangelists
took it as the Messiah would be born there.
Pope John Paul II in a a private audience stated that there exists no certainty that Jesus was born there.
Only Mark and Luke signal that Jesus was born there, as so it cannot be considered a historical fact.
Bethlehem is no longer mention in the Evangelists, or Apostles, as the birthplace.
A large part of investigators believe that the Evangelists mention Bethlehem to continue with the O.T. tradition.
Various studies place his birth in Nazareth, but this places a geographical problem, as in the time thqat he was born there is no mention of Nazareth
by the Romans nor by the Greeks., nor does it appear in the talmud nor is it mentioned by Flavius Josephus, who mentions a great number of villages in
the Gallilean area.
More, archeologically, there is no signs of any village of this type before the second century a.d. there only exists the references of Matthew who
states ".....and he came and he lived in a town that they call Nazareth, so that the profecy would be fulfilled, and that he would have to be a
Nazarene" (MT. 2:23)
John makes a rather scathing mention of Jesus when Philip announces to Nathaniel that he has met Jesus, son of Joseph, to which Nathaniel replies
"...Can anything good come from Nazareth ?" (JN 1:46)
Is this to say that Nazareth was a shanty town, with little or no substance that left no archeological trace ?.
Mark and Matthew always refer to his "city" or "his country" but never Nazareth.
This points to the fact that Nazareth was a small town,that got famous with the the works of Jesus.
The one thing we know is that Nazareth was situated on a mountain or hill as Luke states that it was here that Jesus makes his first enemies for
preaching in the town "...And on hearing this all the Synagogue went into a rage and they expelled him from the town and they took him to the top of
the mountain on which was built the town to throw him off. Later he went between them and left".
Is this to say that they forgave him, and changed their minds..And the fact he "Walked between them", what does it say..
Or is it that he NEVER came from Nazareth.
The third evangelist in the second codex of the Nag Hamadi documents, (Evangelist of Philip) states that Nazareth is not a place, but a linguistic
Philip explains it as "...and the apostles that where before us called him thus, "Jesus the Nazarene.Messiah".
Jesus in Hebrew is the rendition. Nazara means "the truth" or "the true", therefore we are looking at Jesus "the truth" or Jesus "the true"
According to this Gnostic Evangelist "Nazarene" means the true and Not a reference to a city or town.