Page 1 of 1
A false dilemma: Nazaret versus Bethlehem
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:23 am
by Giuseppe
"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.
Re: A false dilemma: Nazaret versus Bethlehem
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:01 am
by hakeem
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.
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.
Matthew 1.20
But 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.
Luke 1:35
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..
Christian writers show that their Jesus had DIVINE origin.
Re: A false dilemma: Nazaret versus Bethlehem
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:39 am
by Ulan
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.