(September 17, 2013 at 2:19 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: If they ever wanted to convince people, why make up the town too?
It isn't the town they made up, it is the association, LV. The term nazirite
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...14638.html has a specific meaning but remember how hebrew is written: no vowels. So nazirite and nazaret are both spelled NZRT. Add in that in the 4th century, when all this holy horseshit really got going, there was a heretical xtian sect known as the Nazarenes according to the xtian writer Epiphanius. There is thus ample room for confusion.
Quote:It seems clear that "Christian" was not the earliest term for the followers of Jesus, since Acts 11:26 reports its first use, in Antioch - at a time and in a place at least 10 and possibly 20 or more years after the death of Jesus. Many authors have argued that Nazarene was not just one term that was used, but the dominant term, and that it was also used to describe Jesus himself.
The chief argument for this claim rests on an interpretation of the way Jesus is referred to by the writers of the gospels. The original Greek forms of all four gospels call him, in places, "Iesou Nazarene". English Bibles generally translate this as "Jesus of Nazareth", and this is a reasonable translation given that it is clear that all four evangelists did believe that Jesus came from Nazareth. However, it is not the only possible translation. Linguistically, "Jesus the Nazarene" would be at least as correct, and some critics have argued that it is more plausible given that Nazareth seems to have been a place of no significance at the time; it is unmentioned in contemporary history, and it is not even possible to prove, other than by reference to the gospels, that it existed during Jesus's lifetime.
http://www.fact-index.com/n/na/nazarene.html