MCalavera wrote:
1. The two Nativity accounts are the only ones in the Gospels that mention Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus.
2. There's a strong theological purpose for why the authors of both Matthew and Luke would've wanted him to be born in Bethlehem.
3. The Nativity accounts don't even agree with each other on many of the significant elements of the story except that Jesus was born of a virgin and in Bethlehem.
4. The two accounts also actually contradict each other.
5. The two accounts contradict well-accepted history. For example, the worldwide census in Luke.
6. Jesus is referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, not Jesus of Bethlehem.
7. The author of John mentions Bethlehem but never mentions it as the birthplace of Jesus. Instead, it is implied that the author took it as Jesus being born in Nazareth when he shows confusion by the fact that a Nazarene is the prophesied Messiah that was supposed to come forth from Bethlehem according to the OT and not Nazareth.
8. The fact that Nazareth is even mentioned.
You do the maths.
I was never really good at math.
Just a thought, though. As the Gospels were written perhaps several decades after the fact, the exact details may have been lost - hence the contradictions.
And even if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, he had lived most of his life in Nazareth. Hence, Jesus of Nazareth.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
What's the point of Nazareth if God said the Messiah would spring forth from Bethlehem?
18 Feb 2012, 4:00 pm
