Chili

I think that Nazareth refers to the Jewishness of Joseph that becomes a determinate force that is 'intergenerational' and so is linage specific upon him wherein Joseph becomes a Nazaroid-by-nature after rebirth. This is much like the 6 (?) sacrament of 'Holy Orders' wherein we become Jesuit-by-nature and are stigmatized by the Power of the Sacrament.

Bethsaida of Galilee becomes the expanded manger of Beth-le-hem which then is just opposite to Capernaum in that it is the subconscious mind and not the conscius mind of Joseph the wily carpenter, sheep rancher and Jew.

Note that 'carpenter' is a synonym for 'sinner' in that carpenters make many things in the stand of the rout wherein creation takes place (a x b = X : 2 as co-creator with the father).

In recognizing his carpentrishness Jesus abandonned his Nazarethness and so was beyond theology when he arrived at Beth-le-hem where he got reborn in the empty stable with no-ishness about it not even as Jew.

Luther was much the same as the Jesus of Matthew when he made his grievances known while not realizing that the very religion that got him thusfar was needed again as Bethsaida [here] where "faith must find understanding" (Kierkegaard) before he can be set free to assent into heaven instead of just abandoning his motherland as Jew [without borders] and so be a stranger in a desert of his own choice = no motherland to call home that there is called Bethsaida but can be summarized with Mary, his theotokos to whom he was bethrothed by nature as "flesh of his flesh and bone of is bones" (which is the gateway to heaven of Gen 2 that was already in place before the "fall of man" in Gen 3).

I think Philip was the insigth of Peter which is the apostle that Luther (and Matthew?) was short.

mikem

According to Mark chapter 2: "After he returned to Capernaum after some days it was reported that he was at home"

The some days earlier are referred to in Mark chapter 1 where he went to Capernaum healed a man in the synagogue and then went to the home of Simon and Andrew. It would appear that Jesus made Capernaum his base of operations. It would appear that the nucleus of his disciples lived there.

In Mark 4, Capernaum is simply called "home". It seems Jesus stayed there for some time, long enough for the Jerusalem religious leaders to hear of him working there, and send scribes along to investigate. Jesus mother and brothers also went because they had heard disconcerting reports about Jesus behaviour and were clearly concerned for him.

It is a feature of Mark's gospel that he jumps from one event to another without clearly indicating a passage of time.

John's gospel appears to incorporate some memory of Jesus being in Capernaum. However, the geographical centre of John's gospel appears to be Jerusalem. He records several visits there. The synoptics however, agree that the early focus of Jesus mission is based in Galilee.

Chili

By reading your comments it becomes very obvious that the Jesus of Mark was a born again 'holy roller' and was even picking the wrong discples, I am sure.

This kind of puts a big question behind Mark being the first Gospel they wrote as it would show the intricate details of a failed divine comedy before the comedy was known . . . which is not possible, sorry to say.

Doug Shaver

If Nazareth did not exist at that time, but Jesus did, then he lived somewhere else, but it would be quite impossible to determine where it might have been. It was probably somewhere in Galilee, but anything more specific than that would be 100 percent pure guesswork.

One, and only one, of the gospel authors has one of his characters make a disparaging comment about Nazareth. That is not exactly conclusive evidence for how the place was perceived by the average Joe of that time.

The argument from embarrassment is nothing but apologetic b.s.

Steven Carr

If Nazareth was an embarrassment, it would have been written out of the biography of Jesus even before he died, let alone more than 30 years later.

Do religious followers go around saying embarrassing things about their Saviour if they can possibly avoid it by any means whatever, including keeping silent?

And are even Christians so dumb that it takes them decades to work out that something is embarrassing and that they ought to put some spin on it?