"The birth in Bethlehem was invented to neutralize the infancy in the obscure Nazareth".
Obviously, for "the criterion of embarrassment".
But if they wanted to insist obsessively - I mean: really obssessively - on the davidic origin of Jesus, against Marcion, both Nazaret and Bethlehem work in the same direction: Jesus is davidic.
A false dilemma: Nazaret versus Bethlehem
A false dilemma: Nazaret versus Bethlehem
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: A false dilemma: Nazaret versus Bethlehem
Your post is most amusing. They wanted to insist on the davidic origin of Jesus so they claimed he was born in Bethlehem of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin without a human father.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:23 am "The birth in Bethlehem was invented to neutralize the infancy in the obscure Nazareth".
Obviously, for "the criterion of embarrassment".
But if they wanted to insist obsessively - I mean: really obssessively - on the davidic origin of Jesus, against Marcion, both Nazaret and Bethlehem work in the same direction: Jesus is davidic.
Matthew 1.20
Luke 1:35But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Christian writers show that their Jesus had DIVINE origin.And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God..
Re: A false dilemma: Nazaret versus Bethlehem
They wanted to eat their cake and have it, too. That's why the texts are such a mess.
Regarding the thread title, sure, it's a false dilemma. I'd give other reasons though.
Regarding the thread title, sure, it's a false dilemma. I'd give other reasons though.