I use this first post to collect the bits and pieces from the posts below in a more organized way
The town Nazareth didn't exist until long after Jesus died.
Bethlehem in Judah was the birth place of David (1040 BC) but the town was a ruin, at best, during Jesus time.
That's a problem for the credibility of the Bible because mentioning none existent towns in many verses doesn't look very inspired.
There are several possibilities.
a] Copying and/or translation errors. => Impossible to prove without the original documents.
b] Archeologists and historians are wrong. => No.
c] It's just another puzzle. => Yes.
The archeologists and historians seem to be right because the people at the time of Jesus said He lied because the prophesied Christ should come from Judah not Galilee.
YLTJohn 741 others said, `This is the Christ;' and others said, `Why, out of Galilee doth the Christ come?
42 Did not the Writing say, that out of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem--the village where David was--the Christ doth come?'
They refer to:
YLTMic 5 2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth--to be ruler in Israel ....
Origen of Caesarea (185-254 AD) lived thirty miles from Nazareth, but could not find it. He concluded that many places mentioned in the gospels never existed. Before Constantine, Nazareth was attested only by the New Testament evangelists.
Bethlehem
As usual many things in the Bible have at least one hidden meaning/gem.
Bethlehem means house of bread. (a town with a quality mill that could grind very fine flour). There were several Bethlehems in the region. Also in Galilee where Jesus was born. So possibly He was born in that Bethlehem
YLTRev 12 1 And a great sign was seen in the heaven, a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars,
That event pinpoints the birth of Jesus. The woman in constellation Virgo=Virgin. The woman hold a few sheaves of wheat in her hand. That's why Virgo is also called "House of bread.
So Virgo=Virgin=Woman=House of Bread=Bethlehem :winkgrin:
So even if Jesus was born in the middle of Rome He was still born in Bethlehem.
YLTJohn 6 48 I am the bread of the life;
YLTJohn 6 33 for the bread of God is that which is coming down out of the heaven, and giving life to the world.'
Nazareth
Another mystery town that never existed until Constantine. But still many verses refer to it. For example:
YLTJohn 1 46 and Nathanael said to him, `Out of Nazareth is any good thing able to be?' Philip said to him, `Come and see.'
This one is a little harder to explain and requires some background.
Jesus was part of the Essenes sect. That sect split up due to huge disagreements of teachings. The part that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls was a xenophobic extremely literal bunch. Jesus was from the sect that looked at the laws with their hearts. So He even helped people and animals during Sabbath.
So we have the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essene. That's 3 sects. The last sect was split of so basically there were 4 sects.
The Dead Sea Essene were the writers of the Temple scrolls. In the NT they are called the scribes. Or Herodians. A nickname they got because they stole the crucifixion idea from Herod. (never heard of that before and I have my doubts) The scribes were always trying to trick Jesus into saying wrong things. They simply hated His teachings/the other sect. And it went very wrong when Jesus healed the leader of the Scribes:
YLTMark 3 3 And he saith to the man having the hand withered, `Rise up in the midst.'
Enough background :winkgrin: The 2 Essene sects had various names. Children of the light/righteousness. The sect of Jesus was called Prince of the world. Nasi Ereth -> Nazareth
So the Scribe simply said: Nothing good can come out of the sect called Nazareth.
:cloud9: Interesting that the greatest threat to Jews in the 20th century, were called "Nazis", and holocaust comes from the word for burnt offering. A sickening counterfeit.... :eeew:
I've read some speculation that Jesus was familiar with the Essenes. The Essenes and the Kairites were both Jewish "splinter" groups that existed around the same time period. We mainly hear about the Saducees and the Pharisees. Blessings....
The speculation I've read goes a bit further...
Jesus was an Essene. John the Baptist too.
There were 2 more Essenes... The robbers on the cross....
There are two views on that. The Romans called them thieves because they refused to pay taxes.
Or robbers is a transliteration problem between Hebrew and Greek.
Greek robbers ===> Hebrew Holy men.
The Essene were very simple and pure of faith. It seems as close to Jesus as someone can get.
Philo also mentions Essene were called holy.
Not according to the Romans btw because they called the Essene, Early Christians and true Jews atheists because they had no religious rituals and the usual religious "stuff".
When you look a bit deeper in that bit it get an idea what worship for teh Essene meant Matthew 25:36-40 gets a bit clearer. (and what laws where done away)
At least for me :winkgrin:
:lazy: good night all :snor:
Original 1st post in this thread.
I think we had a similar topic a year ago but I can't find it.
There is archeological proof Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus.
Nazareth seems to be Nasi Ereth. Prince of the world/earth. It was a title not a town. Constantine erased parts of Jewish history because obviously a Jew could never be the prince of the earth.
That honor was for a Roman.
So, assuming the above is correct, all verses that read "Jesus of Nazareth" are wrong and should read like "Jesus Prince of the world"
Origen of Caesarea (185-254 AD) lived thirty miles from Nazareth, but could not find it. He concluded that many places mentioned in the gospels never existed. Before Constantine, Nazareth was attested only by the New Testament evangelists. Yet "Nazarene" was a word people understood. In the Qumran scrolls, the Hebrew word "nasi" is a messianic leader. The Nasi had the role of the messiah at the sacred meal of the council of the Essene community. In Ezekiel, nasi means the coming Davidic prince, the messiah. The plural "nesiim" means clouds, enabling the Nasi to come in the nesiim, reminding us of Daniel, but logically it means "princes"—the saints and angels of the heavenly host. Nasi seems to be the origin of "Nazarene". Nazarenes were followers of the messianic leader, the Nasi, either Essenes or their converts.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/nazarene_or_nazareth.htm
The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist – not literary, not archaeologically, and not historically.
To be fair there are also arguments Nazareth did exist at the time of Jesus....
http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Archeology/intro.html
Which one is he
Jesus of Gailee
Jesus of Nazareth
Jesus of Bethlehem
http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmaswwjb.htm
That article claims there wasn't even Bethlehem at that time/
QuotePerhaps the most important reason to suspect the accuracy of Matthew and Luke is that Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a functioning town between 7 and 4 BCE when Jesus is believed to have been born. Archaeological studies of the town have turned up a great deal of ancient Iron Age material from 1200 to 550 BCE 7 and lots of material from the sixth century CE, but nothing from the 1st century BCE or the 1st century CE.
The original Bethlehem is very old because it's mentioned in first Genesis 35:19
QuoteAccording to National Geographic:
"Many archaeologists and theological scholars believe Jesus was actually born in either Nazareth or Bethlehem of Galilee, a town just outside Nazareth, citing biblical references and archaeological evidence to support their conclusion. Throughout the Bible, Jesus is referred to as 'Jesus of Nazareth,' not 'Jesus of Bethlehem.' In fact, in John (7:41- 43) there is a passage questioning Jesus' legitimacy because he's from Galilee and not Judaea, as the Hebrew Scriptures say the Messiah must be."
YLTJohn 741 others said, `This is the Christ;' and others said, `Why, out of Galilee doth the Christ come?
42 Did not the Writing say, that out of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem--the village where David was--the Christ doth come?'
Another strange thing is: Why did Jesus and His parents stay in Bethlem for over a year if they didn't live there? The travelled to Bethlehem for the census. Jesus was born there.
The Magi vistited Jesus in Bethlem. That was at/around the 25 December (Christmas time)
But over a year later. Jesus was born at the Rosh Hassana/Feast of Trumpets/Jewish New yeat/10 September over a year earlier. The whole traveling star etc shows that. It's also shown, in a less exact way by word meanings. When the Mgi arrive Jesus is no longer called a baby but a (young) child.
YLTMatt 21 And Jesus having been born in Beth-Lehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, lo, mages from the east came to Jerusalem,
2 saying, `Where is he who was born king of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and we came to bow to him.'
3 And Herod the king having heard, was stirred, and all Jerusalem with him,
4 and having gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he was inquiring from them where the Christ is born.
5 And they said to him, `In Beth-Lehem of Judea, for thus it hath been written through the prophet,
6 And thou, Beth-Lehem, the land of Judah, thou art by no means the least among the leaders of Judah, for out of thee shall come one leading, who shall feed My people Israel.'
7 Then Herod, privately having called the mages, did inquire exactly from them the time of the appearing star,
8 and having sent them to Beth-Lehem, he said, `Having gone--inquire ye exactly for the child, and whenever ye may have found, bring me back word, that I also having come may bow to him.'
9 And they, having heard the king, departed, and lo, the star, that they did see in the east, did go before them, till, having come, it stood over where the child was.
10 And having seen the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy,
11 and having come to the house, they found the child with Mary his mother, and having fallen down they bowed to him, and having opened their treasures, they presented to him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh,
12 and having been divinely warned in a dream not to turn back unto Herod, through another way they withdrew to their own region.
13 And on their having withdrawn, lo, a messenger of the Lord doth appear in a dream to Joseph, saying, `Having risen, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and be thou there till I may speak to thee, for Herod is about to seek the child to destroy him.'
14 And he, having risen, took the child and his mother by night, and withdrew to Egypt,
Quote from: TTJesus of Gailee
Jesus of Nazareth
Jesus of Bethlehem
All of them.... :winkgrin:
Galilee is a region.
Someone can be born in another town than he lives in
Quote'If the historical Jesus were truly born in Bethlehem,' Oshri adds, 'it was most likely the Bethlehem of Galilee, not that in Judaea. The archaeological evidence certainly seems to favor the former, a busy center [of Jewish life] a few miles from the home of Joseph and Mary, as opposed to an unpopulated spot almost a hundred miles from home.'
I think the distance is of importance here. I don't know how fast travel was at those days. But it would mean they traveled when Mary was about 8.5 month pregnant. I'm no doctor but I think it would be a miracle Jesus is even born if His mother walked or rode a donkey for a 100 miles....
Quote from: Cardinal on December 20, 2010, 01:34:52 AM:cloud9: Interesting that the greatest threat to Jews in the 20th century, were called "Nazis"
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei
So it's a different spelling. It didn't sound the same either because the "i" is Nasi is silent.
I highly doubt Hitler would want a Jewish term to be connected to his glorious 3rd Reich.
Even if he probably saw himself as prince (Nasi) I doubt he would use aJewsih term to describe himself :winkgrin:
I want to reqoute this part of mu first post again
QuoteOrigen of Caesarea (185-254 AD) lived thirty miles from Nazareth, but could not find it. He concluded that many places mentioned in the gospels never existed. Before Constantine, Nazareth was attested only by the New Testament evangelists. Yet "Nazarene" was a word people understood. In the Qumran scrolls, the Hebrew word "nasi" is a messianic leader. The Nasi had the role of the messiah at the sacred meal of the council of the Essene community. In Ezekiel, nasi means the coming Davidic prince, the messiah. The plural "nesiim" means clouds, enabling the Nasi to come in the nesiim, reminding us of Daniel, but logically it means "princes"—the saints and angels of the heavenly host. Nasi seems to be the origin of "Nazarene". Nazarenes were followers of the messianic leader, the Nasi, either Essenes or their converts.
I think it can be safely said Origen in no way wanted to use that quote as proof the whole Jesus story is a hoax.
I knew Constantine changed history a bit in favor of Rome. Including the town Nazareth. But reading the quote from Origen it seems that even before Constantine and before Christianity became the Roman state religion people claimed the existance of a town that never existed....?
But if it Nasi Ereth really is a title then the Jewish converts should have known that. I wonder why they didn't tell that to the none Hebrew speaking converts...?
As earlier noted in this thread Jesus (possibly) was an Essene. Origen also links Nazareth to the Essenes. It's estimated there were 4000 Essene scattered over the region.
So Jesus of Nazareth can be read as:
a] Jesus of Nasi Ereth ==> Jesus Prince of the world.
---> Several Rabbi's took that title too. The Romans wern't very fond of it....
b] Jesus of the Essene. ---> Essene was (almost) a synonym for holy. So that does fit quite well to.
Considering what Jesus was but suggestions fit quite well. Also in most verses.
So with Galilee (TT) being a region and Nazareth a title/sect 2 problems with towns seem to be (possibly) solved.
Quote from: WWSo with Galilee (TT) being a region and Nazareth a title/sect 2 problems with towns seem to be (possibly) solved.
The third town, Bethlem, possibly is no town either
http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=3"Everyone thinks "Bethlehem" is a place, and indeed there were towns named "House of Bread" in Judea and in Galilee, but...the term Bethlehem-Ephrath/Ephratah is the name of a clan of Judah--children of Caleb through Hur, who was the firstborn of an extraordinary woman named Ephrathah..."(Tabor, 2006)
Bethlehem Ephrathah refers to the clan who are descendants from a man called Bethlehem, the son of Caleb's second wife Ephrathah referred to in 1 Chronicles - it does not refer to a town at all." (Humphreys, 2005, p. 257)
"In both Gospels the Bethlehem tradition is tenuous at best. It appears to have been created under the influence of the Book of Micah to meet apologetic needs." (Spong, 1992, 142-3)
WW--> "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, the least of the clans of Judah, out of you will be born for me the one who is to rule over Israel" (Micah 5:2)
WW--> "I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem, for I have chosen myself a king among his sons." (1 Samuel 16:1)
.....
In other words, there was no evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but his "history" was made to fit into the prophecies of the Old Testament. But these prophesies referred to a person, not a place. Bethlehem Ephrathah refers to the descendants of Bethlehem who was the son of Caleb's second wife Ephrathah (1 Chronicles). It isn't a reference to a place. This is the result of a mistaken translation, one of many made by Matthew, and later copied by Luke.
WW--> Assuming the Gospels were written in Greek
A careful reading of the Gospel of John shows that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. During the Festival of Booths, as Jesus was recruiting new followers, the crowd questioned his credentials. One asked: "How does this man have such learning, when he has never been taught?" (7:15) and Jesus replied in an extended passage to the effect that what he was teaching came from God. But when others asked: "Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee [3], does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?" (7: 41-42). To this question, Jesus offered no reply. Given his penchant to reply to even the most oblique questions, his omission here was telling. Had he been born in Bethlehem, Jesus probably would have said something, but he doesn't [4].
[4] One author (Wilson, 1992) interprets this verse as follows: "...the Fourth Gospel very specifically states that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem." (p. 75)
Of course Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Just not the Bethlehem on Earth. Bethlehem translates to "House of Bread". The constellaton of Virgo is always depicted as carrying a chaff of wheat. What do you make with wheat? Bread of course! This is why Virgo is referred to as the "House of Bread" also. On December 25th The Sun rises in the constellation of Virgo. Hence born of a virgin in Bethlehem. The Bible was NEVER meant to be taken as literal truth, but rather allegory to greater knowlege.
WW==>Interesting. That alligns perfectly with the "Woman standing on the moon, clothed with the sun."
Short but very interesting article about Jesus being born in a regular house:
http://www.ancientsandals.com/articles/01_jesus_birth.htm
According to this theory this verse would be tough to explain.
John 1:46
"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see," said Philip
A concerning quote from the link you have provided WW.
In summary, Jesus was probably born in Galilee (possibly in the village of Bethlehem in Galilee). The two Gospels that claim he was born in Bethlehem of Judea have an agenda of proving that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies, and for that reason, they misshape the truth to place him there. Jesus himself never claimed to have been born in Bethlehem, even when he was being taunted to so declare. And there is no reason to believe that he was born there.
While that might seem like a nice theory, it brings up many problems. Specifically, if parts of the Bible were written with "an agenda" then wouldn't that place the Holy Scriptures into the world of man made literature?
Quote from: shawn on December 20, 2010, 06:57:25 PM
According to this theory this verse would be tough to explain.
John 1:46
"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. "Come and see," said Philip
Problematic. I have no answer. Maybe later but right now I'm exploring the various bits of evidence.
Maybe both are true...? When reading the OT certain places quite often are named after a certain event.
Scholars just don't agree. And I have astrong feeling many are pushing an agenda.
I reserve the right to change my opinion.... :winkgrin:
However there are claims Constantine deliberately changed things.
His Christianity not much more that his pagan believes with a thin layer of paint. Chistianity should support the Roman empire. So at various places titles etc are changed into names of towns. So the whole verse is possibly corrupted.
That said there are more problematic verse.
YLTMatt 26 And thou, Beth-Lehem, the land of Judah, thou art by no means the least among the leaders of Judah, for out of thee shall come one leading, who shall feed My people Israel.'
===> Judah should be Galilee
Or the verses Jesus went to a town that did not exist (because it was title)
Or the verse in which Jesus preaches in a synagoge in a none existing town. A Synagoge can't stand in title and I think they only stood in fairly large (=older) towns.
So is your belief these verses were corrupted by the original authors?
Quote from: wwThe Nasi had the role of the messiah at the sacred meal of the council of the Essene community. In Ezekiel, nasi means the coming Davidic prince, the messiah. The plural "nesiim" means clouds, enabling the Nasi to come in the nesiim, reminding us of Daniel, but logically it means "princes"—the saints and angels of the heavenly host.
QuoteNazareth seems to be Nasi Ereth. Prince of the world/earth. So, assuming the above is correct, all verses that read "Jesus of Nazareth" are wrong and should read like "Jesus Prince of the world"
That's beautiful, ww. The stuff you come up with!
Nāśī' (נָשִׂיא) is a Hebrew title meaning prince, in Biblical Hebrew, Patriarch, (of the Sanhedrin) in Mishnaic Hebrew, or president, in Modern Hebrew.
This ties into what we discussed in another thread--Jesus returning with clouds.
QuoteThe plural "nesiim" means clouds, enabling the Nasi to come in the nesiim, reminding us of Daniel, but logically it means "princes"—the saints and angels of the heavenly host.
Quote from: shawn on December 20, 2010, 07:21:36 PMWhile that might seem like a nice theory, it brings up many problems. Specifically, if parts of the Bible were written with "an agenda" then wouldn't that place the Holy Scriptures into the world of man made literature?
You can also use other terms like:
- Divine literature changed by man to push an agenda. Political or doctrinal.
- Divine literature changed because of honest translation errors.
- Divine literature changed because honest mistakes were made during copying the various manustripts. Even Church father complained about that.
- Divine literature changed because of translation errors.
- Divine literature changed ........
Quote from: shawn on December 20, 2010, 07:45:46 PM
So is your belief these verses were corrupted by the original authors?
While it of course it possible to assume they are guilty of the points I mentioned in post #13 it would mean the HS inspiration is nonsense or useless.
By that I mean what is the use of HS inspiration if the writers just write down what they think is best.
And I think that path is way beyond the boundaries of allowed critism of translation errors like aion; because it simple means the whole NT is (potentially) mademade. So let not go that path or we will see a lot of <MOD NOTE :punish:>
But I think that it possible to explore much interesting things without even going near to that path :2c:
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 20, 2010, 07:49:22 PM
Quote from: shawn on December 20, 2010, 07:21:36 PMWhile that might seem like a nice theory, it brings up many problems. Specifically, if parts of the Bible were written with "an agenda" then wouldn't that place the Holy Scriptures into the world of man made literature?
You can also use other terms like:
- Divine literature changed by man to push an agenda. Political or doctrinal.
- Divine literature changed because of honest translation errors.
- Divine literature changed because honest mistakes were made during copying the various manustripts. Even Church father complained about that.
- Divine literature changed because of translation errors.
- Divine literature changed ........
The only problem is some suggesting the original authors changed events. Obviously, I do not accept this theory. One note of caution to all who take journeys like this one. History is "history" and I believe many things have been corrupted including secular history to fit agendas. Trying to fit this all together 2000 years after the fact is quite the project filled with many pitfalls. If one chooses to go down this road they might find that they have a choice to make man's word or God's word.
I'm glad we have believers willing to take on these challenges, but they are not for everyone.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 20, 2010, 08:00:27 PM
Quote from: shawn on December 20, 2010, 07:45:46 PM
So is your belief these verses were corrupted by the original authors?
While it of course it possible to assume they are guilty of the points I mentioned in post #13 it would mean the HS inspiration is nonsense or useless.
By that I mean what is the use of HS inspiration if the writers just write down what they think is best.
And I think that path is way beyond the boundaries of allowed critism of translation errors like aion; because it simple means the whole NT is (potentially) mademade. So let not go that path or we will see a lot of <MOD NOTE :punish:>
But I think that it possible to explore much interesting things without even coming near to that path :2c:
Oh I wasn't suggesting it. I wanted to clarify your stance. That's the problem with these journeys. Tough questions will be asked. They are a natural progression of thought. It's why these journeys are not for weaker Christians. When approaching some of these "problems" you had better be in a place of unshakeable faith. Because, I assure you not everything will make sense.
For me, when I approach anything like this...I ask myself...will it further my walk or the walk of another. If the answer is no...I move on.
Quote from: shawn on December 20, 2010, 08:04:31 PMFor me, when I approach anything like this...I ask myself...will it further my walk or the walk of another. If the answer is no...I move on.
The problem (or whatever the correct expression is) is that often one can't know if it furthers the walk until after a while being on that path.
In my personal experience even unfruitful paths often show other interesing things too. For example this topic is something I found when searching for proof the originals were in Hebrew.
- Does it change salvation if one knows Nazareth is a town or title? WW:No
- Is worth studying? WW:Yes because all things must be approved by study but it can be argued other studies are more fruitful.
For me little bits of random "useless" knowledge have come in handy at unexpected places.
Maybe that's what Molly means by this qoute:
Quote from: Molly on December 20, 2010, 07:48:46 PMThis ties into what we discussed in another thread--Jesus returning with clouds.
For me personally it's simple. My experience is that every weird little study is fruitful. Just pick something at look at it closely.
For example tree. Trace it trough the Bible and you learn a lot of things. And often it's not about the subject itself but all the verses you have to examine with a microscope.
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 20, 2010, 08:25:02 PM
Quote from: shawn on December 20, 2010, 08:04:31 PMFor me, when I approach anything like this...I ask myself...will it further my walk or the walk of another. If the answer is no...I move on.
The problem (or whatever the correct expression is) is that often one can't know if it furthers the walk until after a while being on that path.
In my personal experience even unfruitful paths often show other interesing things too. For example this topic is something I found when searching for proof the originals were in Hebrew.
- Does it change salvation if one knows Nazareth is a town or title? WW:No
- Is worth studying? WW:Yes because all things must be approved by study but it can be argued other studies are more fruitful.
For me little bits of random "useless" knowledge have come in handy at unexpected places. Maybe that's what Molly means by this qoute:
Quote from: Molly on December 20, 2010, 07:48:46 PMThis ties into what we discussed in another thread--Jesus returning with clouds.
For me personally it's simple. My experience is that every weird little study is fruitful. Just pick something at look at it closely.
For example tree. Trace it trough the Bible and you learn a lot of things. And often it's not about the subject itself but all the verses you have to examine with a microscope.
Fair enough and I can understand your views. I suppose that is why some of us were made as trumpets, and others as flutes. Each serve their own purpose in the melody of God's creation.
Quote from: shawn on December 20, 2010, 08:04:31 PMThat's the problem with these journeys. Tough questions will be asked. They are a natural progression of thought. It's why these journeys are not for weaker Christians. When approaching some of these "problems" you had better be in a place of unshakeable faith. Because, I assure you not everything will make sense.
Often such studies lead to more questions. Although irritating it doesn't really bother me.
In Dutch we have a saying that can be roughly translated as: Only the wise know they know little.
For the weak in faith it may be best to stay in the safety zone. But personally I can't understand how someone can learn without facing problems. Ok, I admit such studies may lead to very wrong paths. But at least the studier has the chance to go stronger.
And thinking back to a quote from a book author I wonder if Jesus asks to have faith as we define it.
It (possibly) meant something like: To know absolutely sure. And that different from assuming your pastor is right.
The Bereans didn't study because they wanted to get of the right path but to make very sure they were on the right path.
:2c:
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"
A title?
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 20, 2010, 08:40:58 PM
Quote from: shawn on December 20, 2010, 08:04:31 PMThat's the problem with these journeys. Tough questions will be asked. They are a natural progression of thought. It's why these journeys are not for weaker Christians. When approaching some of these "problems" you had better be in a place of unshakeable faith. Because, I assure you not everything will make sense.
Often such studies lead to more questions. Although irritating it doesn't really bother me.
In Dutch we have a saying that can be roughly translated as: Only the wise know they know little.
For the weak in faith it may be best to stay in the safety zone. But personally I can't understand how someone can learn without facing problems. Ok, I admit such studies may lead to very wrong paths. But at least the studier has the chance to go stronger.
And thinking back to a quote from a book author I wonder if Jesus asks to have faith as we define it.
It (possibly) meant something like: To know absolutely sure. And that different from assuming your pastor is right.
The Bereans didn't study because they wanted to get of the right path but to make very sure they were on the right path.
:2c:
I would have to agree with that saying. "Only the wise know they know little". Maybe that is the reason some of us take these paths. I have taken these journeys. I have walked these paths. I'm not saying I have dug to the depths of some on these boards but the journey did bear fruit for me. What did I learn? That I know very little. I am not a scholar of early church history, nor well versed in Greek and Hebrew. Often, I must assume the words of a man who is learned in these subjects is telling me the truth. Therefore, today I stick to the only teacher I trust and that is the Holy Spirit that resides within me. He has given me what I need to know for today. He will reveal what I need to know for tomorrow. For me, that is what I learned from the journey.
Quote from: Quaesitor on December 20, 2010, 08:46:30 PM
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"
A title?
Nazareth was also a name given to the Essene. One of the 3 sects o that time (Pharisees, Saducees, Essene)
Many scholars believe Jesus (an John the Baptist) was thaught by the Essene or likely was one Himself.
Jesus is also likely/possibly "The evil priest" of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Pharisees had added lots of manmade stuff to the religion. The Saducees were not perfect either. The Essene possible had it all right. Not exactly because they were so extremely strickt even high priests were liberal people.....
They also believed their (Essene) religion was for Jews only. Jesus didn't agree as you know. So He broke up with them. According to them He was false/evil priest.
Anyway the Essene were a small sect (4000 spread over the whole region). Usually not very loved by non-Essene because of their extreme behavior.
Now to the answer:
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"
Should/could read
"Can anything good come from (the) Essene?"
Quote from: shawn on December 20, 2010, 08:53:05 PM
I have walked these paths. I'm not saying I have dug to the depths of some on these boards but the journey did bear fruit for me. What did I learn? That I know very little. I am not a scholar of early church history, nor well versed in Greek and Hebrew. Often, I must assume the words of a man who is learned in these subjects is telling me the truth.
That's so for everyone Shawn. Just pick up a random scholary work and it's filled with footnotes refering to works of other scholars.
Often it takes a scholar a decade or more to finish some research. So obviously it's simply impossible to cover every angle by own research. To make matters worse to get a complete picture you need: Archeologists, historians and linguists.
Not many, if any master all those area's.
QuoteTherefore, today I stick to the only teacher I trust and that is the Holy Spirit that resides within me. He has given me what I need to know for today. He will reveal what I need to know for tomorrow. For me, that is what I learned from the journey.
Do what you feel is right. But I have to think of what Micah(?) once answered me in a thread "how did you discover UR" I answered I was just Googling lyricks of a song. Micha answered someting like: "HS can also use Google as a tool."
So how do you know one of the links or replies by others isn't the HS pushing you on a path?
(not that I know the answer to that question)
:cloud9: Personally, I love digging, I love following His "rabbit trails". Always find something I didn't know before. It's truly inexhaustable riches, no matter what direction you go in.
As gregarious as I am, I have over the years had very few friends. Since I've lived here for almost 6 years I have no one who stops by to share about the things of God. I also know none who's house I can stop in at and share in Jesus and His word beyond the most elementary things. I have very few contacts by telephone too. At one point more than a decade ago I had to change course. It took me being isolated a lot and reading commentaries to get too academic. I had too many answers for too many questions that nobody was asking. Too bad, even a right knowledge of the elementary principles, the foundations of our faith, is not of interest to many called "Christian." Of them, more are outright hostile than those demonstrating a seekers heart.
:cloud9: "Ain't" it the truth....
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 20, 2010, 09:11:58 PM
Quote from: Quaesitor on December 20, 2010, 08:46:30 PM
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"
A title?
Nazareth was also a name given to the Essene. One of the 3 sects o that time (Pharisees, Saducees, Essene)
Many scholars believe Jesus (an John the Baptist) was thaught by the Essene or likely was one Himself.
Jesus is also likely/possibly "The evil priest" of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Pharisees had added lots of manmade stuff to the religion. The Saducees were not perfect either. The Essene possible had it all right. Not exactly because they were so extremely strickt even high priests were liberal people.....
They also believed their (Essene) religion was for Jews only. Jesus didn't agree as you know. So He broke up with them. According to them He was false/evil priest.
Anyway the Essene were a small sect (4000 spread over the whole region). Usually not very loved by non-Essene because of their extreme behavior.
Now to the answer:
"Can anything good come from Nazareth?"
Should/could read
"Can anything good come from (the) Essene?"
A few minutes after this post I wanted to edit it a bit. But I couldn't connect to TM for hours....
There are a lot of different views among the scholars. Or I don't understand all views fully. Another thing is t'hat I don't own every book on the subject. I often try to harvest little bits of info based on the many book reviews. Sometimes contradicting views in scholarship are because one or more views are simply wrong. Or just not not complete. Or in my case the reviews lack some depth. But quite often the missing link is found.
I wrote Jesus was part of the Essene sect and other Essene called Him a wicked Priest.
It seems that's only partly correct. Jesus was an Essene. Some say the hight priest of them. But the Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls were basicly at war with other Essene sects.
The Essenes of Jesus had a humanist peaceful view. The DSS sect was an extremely fundamentalist split off. A lot of their idea's sound very Calvinistic. Salavation was only for the elect and obviously they were that elect.
Some scholars say the DSS have nothing to do with Jesus because the scrolls are from even before Jesus was born. Others say they are a direct reference to Him.
Back to your question.... Also according to some scholars when someone from the public asked a trick question to Jesus it were often the Essene from the other sect (they got a different name)
They spit on that whole other sect as heretics. So they simply said nobody from your sect is worth listening to.
I still have to sort this part out:
The towns and titles are confusing because there are so many views and many sort blend together
The Essene had a Priest of Rightousness and they ridiculled the Wicked Priest (Jesus)
The DSS Essene means or they call themselfs: Childeren of rightousness, Childeren of the Light.
So possible the sect of Jesus was Nazareth as in Prince of the world/clouds/etc
Nazareth is possibly derived from Essene.
To make it more confusing some say Narareth means Mazzaroth (Zodiac)
Bethlem means house of bread. There were many Bethlehems. It were towns with a high tech mill that could grind wheat to very fine flour (most couldn't)
The woman in the star sign (Zodiac) Virgo/Virgin holds wheat. So that's also called the house of bread.
So it's very well possible when we read "Jesus was born in Bethlem" it simply means He was born at the time of Virgo.
And that links exactly to:
WNTRev 121 And a great marvel was seen in Heaven-- a woman who was robed with the sun and had the moon under her feet, and had also a wreath of stars round her head, was with child,
The verse describes an exact star/planet setting that occured at the hour of His birth. The woman was Virgo. The woman was the house of bread.
So basicly Jesus could have been born in the center of Rome but still in Bethlehem.
Virgo=Bethlehem
Also remember this verse:
YLTJohn 648 I am the bread of the life;
So that all fits very nicely. (just my guesswork)
But yes Q, I'm aware of this problematic verse:
YLTMatt 21 And Jesus having been born in Beth-Lehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king, lo, mages from the east came to Jerusalem,
Star sign Virgo is not part of Judea.
But equally problematic is non existing towns. (according to a 2nd century church father he lived 30 miles from the place where the town should have been but he never found it)
My conclusion:
I don't have one yet. But the Bible seems to be very fond of star signs and symbolism. So even if problematic I feel the title/star signs are a good possibility.
And of course if the town existed Jesus could have been born in that town
and under the star sign.
Btw the stable he was born is a possibly mistranslation. He was born in the guestroom of a family member :dontknow:
Anyway a good topic near Christmas :laughing7: (not being His time of birth but the arrival of the Magi)
:bgdance:
Very interesting.
A Christian bashing site; but still some good info: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
To be more exact the Nazarians were possible a sect that separated from the The Essenes,
Essene means: Children of the Light or Physician according to other scholars.
YLTLuke 4
23 And he said unto them, `Certainly ye will say to me this simile, Physician, heal thyself; as great things as we heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country;'
:Chinscratch:
:cloud9: Good work as always, WW. :happygrin: I too, read somewhere about a lot of his discourses being to tear down Essene beliefs. We western minded, always assumed it was just the Pharisees He cut to the bone, but apparently He was an equal opportunity doctrine destroyer. :laughing7:
Quote from: Cardinal on December 21, 2010, 04:30:58 PMI too, read somewhere about a lot of his discourses being to tear down Essene beliefs.
I partly agree with that. Or I should say my current understanding is different.
Let me start that not even one sect was completly right. Pharisees for example had a ok belief but they added all kind of manmade things. Mainly to get rich and powerful. All Essene sects were as simple and poor as Jesus. They lived by the letter.
But there were 2 Essene sects. The one that wrote the DSS. They lost all logic in applying their laws. An example is teh good Samaritan and the ox (?) that was fallen in the ditch. The DDS sect put rules above life. The other sect was more humane. They did bent the rules a bit. Some say Jesus was the leader of that Essene sect that possibly was (also) named the Nazaroth (or similar). Jesus didn't promote working on Sabbath but thaught saving the life of an animal or man is a exeption Father smiles upon.
YLTMic 5
2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth--to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity.
This at first may sound like an other problematic verse.
The whole world at that time was good at astronomy. The signs they also partly agreed upon.
I already mentioned Jesus was born under starsign Virgo=Virgin=House of bread=Bethlehem.
But over a year later the Magi arrived at the home of the young child Jesus. They followed a star. (You need to read star as star and/or planet)
There is constelation Leo=Lion=Judah
There is also a king star named Regulus=Ruler IIRC.
Stars move around so at a certain time Regulus was between the pawns of Leo. Then it moved out of it.
So the ruler/king came out of lion/Judah
KJVGen 49
10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shilo come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be .
That's roughly it. Some details are missing but not important right now I think.
Combined with my
:cloud9: Don't have time right now to pursue as I have an appt. to go to, but your comment above about the ox falling in the ditch, has deeper significance, it just hit me. Aleph = ox.....never thought about that before..... :mshock:
Quote from: Cardinal on December 21, 2010, 05:55:29 PM
:cloud9: Don't have time right now to pursue as I have an appt. to go to, but your comment above about the ox falling in the ditch, has deeper significance, it just hit me. Aleph = ox.....never thought about that before..... :mshock:
:Chinscratch: Looks like a whole new topic because the verse says "ass or ox". But one translation "son or ox" :umnick:
Quote from: Cardinal on December 21, 2010, 07:15:26 AM
:cloud9: Personally, I love digging, I love following His "rabbit trails". Always find something I didn't know before. It's truly inexhaustable riches, no matter what direction you go in.
I would like to clarify something. I love to "dig" and explore. I love the little nuggets of truth I get along the way. I find some of the Greek and Hebrew translational issues tough for me, but have done some research outside this board to confirm what I have been told on these subjects. I have no issues with Gehenna, sheol, hades. I do have more questions about forever and eternal that I have not found complete peace with.
With that said, where I draw the line is addressing every atheistic rambling about scriptures being falsified, Jesus not existing etc. For me, I choose to use my time in other ways. If others find that to bear fruit for them, more power to them.
:cloud9: I agree..... :thumbsup:
:bigGrin:I agree :thumbsup:
Quote from: shawn on December 22, 2010, 09:49:42 PMWith that said, where I draw the line is addressing every atheistic rambling about scriptures being falsified, Jesus not existing etc.
You would be suprised how helpful those ramblings are.
The evidence that they use to support their case is often good;
but at the same time is really helpful.
From a non atheist site: http://www.jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=4
Summary. There is zero evidence Nazareth existed before Constantine founded it.
No archeological evidence.
It's not in Roman records.
It's in historical records that decribe the whole area during war.
It's in rabbinial records that list even tiny towns. Nazareth was a large town because it had a synagoge.
But in fact, there is no Old Testament prophecy to the effect that a Messiah will come from a place called Nazareth (which is another in the long list of errors that the writers of the Gospel of Matthew made about Old Testament prophecies). The closest we come to any such description is a passage in Judges (13:5) where Samson's mother is warned: "...the child shall be a Nazarite [nazirarios in Greek, nazir in Hebrew] unto God from the womb, and he shall begin to deliver Israel; out of the hand of the Philistines." The words Iesou Nazarene (Nazareneus) refer to the fact that Jesus was a Nazarene (or Nazarean), not to the fact that he came from Nazareth. To indicate that Jesus came from a place called Nazareth, the correct wording would have been Nazarethenos or Nazarethaios.
The synagoge He preached in was iin Capernaum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capernaum)
A large city. Archelogy shows clearly there have been 2 Temples.
YLTMark 5 1 And they came to the other side of the sea, to the region of the Gadarenes,
==> That's the area Capernaum is in
YLTMark 2 1 And again he entered into Capernaum, after some days, and it was heard that he is in the house,
It was the home town of James, John, Peter and Andrew.
Origen's not very reliable on some things, plus most of his writings don't exist any more, or at least for the general public if anything further's been found. Origen was a bit of a speculator. Bit of a UR version of John Hagee. Surprisingly right and profound on some things very occasionally once in a blue moon, otherwise just mouthy and a bit annoying. Also, difficult to say towns didn't exist in Jesus's day when the general areas were known perhaps going as far back as Numbers or Genesis. I've never bumped into credible archeologists that have worked in those areas within the last dozen years or so that said those cities were built so late -- although, as with many other cities, including cities to the present day, it's possible to find layers that are much older than other areas, and perhaps this is where some of the confusion is at. All of us live in cities with buildings and perhaps even streets that are less than 20yrs old and other parts of town that are well over a hundred years old. Ancient world was no different and some cities have thousands of layers of civilization, and minimally Bethlehem is one of 'em, with certainty, though I've seen the same stuff kicked around about Nazareth as a term for the Essenes, Enochian Judaism, et. al.
I was listening to Joseph Prince the other day on tv and he was tying the Inn that Joseph and Mary couldn't book a room in all of the way back to the time of David as David's own father's house that he gave to the son of someone that had helped him and his men when Absalom had done his little whatever, and that place was an Inn by Jeremiah's day; mentions the very same dude and his abode. Next day he ties the property not only back to the story of Ruth but into the book of Numbers. So like Moriah, it appears to have likewise been set apart land for centuries and centuries before these prophecies were to be given in Micah and elsewhere and then later fulfilled in the New Testament! Point being, that as Jerusalem was Salem in the book of Genesis and Moriah wound up being on the outskirts of where God had met Abraham through Melchizedek, and was later known as Golgotha, perhaps the same kind of evolution of the name took place for what we now know as Bethlehem and Nazareth. But at the same time, David and his father Jesse were known as Bethlehemites, weren't they?
Quote from: Green-Arrow on January 08, 2012, 12:33:10 AM
I was listening to Joseph Prince the other day on tv and he was tying the Inn that Joseph and Mary couldn't book a room in all of the way back to the time of David as David's own father's house that he gave to the son of someone that had helped him and his men when Absalom had done his little whatever, and that place was an Inn by Jeremiah's day; mentions the very same dude and his abode. Next day he ties the property not only back to the story of Ruth but into the book of Numbers. So like Moriah, it appears to have likewise been set apart land for centuries and centuries before these prophecies were to be given in Micah and elsewhere and then later fulfilled in the New Testament! Point being, that as Jerusalem was Salem in the book of Genesis and Moriah wound up being on the outskirts of where God had met Abraham through Melchizedek, and was later known as Golgotha, perhaps the same kind of evolution of the name took place for what we now know as Bethlehem and Nazareth. But at the same time, David and his father Jesse were known as Bethlehemites, weren't they?
I don't think moriah and golgotha are the same place. Moriah is where the temple was built, golgotha is (WW help me out) a few thousand feet? away, its the mount of olives. Golgotha was where people were determined to be Jews, thus the name the place of the skull [in the literal](counting heads). Its also where the red heifer was sacrificed. IIRC
It has just occured to me that isn't this textual criticism?
This thread could be regarded as antibibiblical and antichrist, denying the prophetic word that Christ comes from Bethlehem.
You have a point. Maybe it can slip quietly into the night.... :secret:
:bigGrin:
Quote from: redhotmagma on January 08, 2012, 12:57:38 AM
Quote from: Green-Arrow on January 08, 2012, 12:33:10 AM
I was listening to Joseph Prince the other day on tv and he was tying the Inn that Joseph and Mary couldn't book a room in all of the way back to the time of David as David's own father's house that he gave to the son of someone that had helped him and his men when Absalom had done his little whatever, and that place was an Inn by Jeremiah's day; mentions the very same dude and his abode. Next day he ties the property not only back to the story of Ruth but into the book of Numbers. So like Moriah, it appears to have likewise been set apart land for centuries and centuries before these prophecies were to be given in Micah and elsewhere and then later fulfilled in the New Testament! Point being, that as Jerusalem was Salem in the book of Genesis and Moriah wound up being on the outskirts of where God had met Abraham through Melchizedek, and was later known as Golgotha, perhaps the same kind of evolution of the name took place for what we now know as Bethlehem and Nazareth. But at the same time, David and his father Jesse were known as Bethlehemites, weren't they?
I don't think moriah and golgotha are the same place. Moriah is where the temple was built, golgotha is (WW help me out) a few thousand feet? away, its the mount of olives. Golgotha was where people were determined to be Jews, thus the name the place of the skull [in the literal](counting heads). Its also where the red heifer was sacrificed. IIRC
All correct. 2000 cubits or 3000 feet. Golgotta was also where Abraham was going to sacrifice his son and God provided a lamb. Golgottha is means skull/head. It's where David counted heads for his army.
Quote from: thinktank on January 08, 2012, 04:29:36 AM
It has just occured to me that isn't this textual criticism?
This thread could be regarded as antibibiblical and antichrist, denying the prophetic word that Christ comes from Bethlehem.
It could be regarded as such by people who didn't read this thread and/or don't understand the prophesy.
:laughing7:
Quote from: WhiteWings on January 08, 2012, 07:47:07 AM
Quote from: thinktank on January 08, 2012, 04:29:36 AM
It has just occured to me that isn't this textual criticism?
This thread could be regarded as antibibiblical and antichrist, denying the prophetic word that Christ comes from Bethlehem.
It could be regarded as such by people who didn't read this thread and/or don't understand the prophesy.
:laughing7:
Or perhaps regarded as such with those with discernment.
Or those that claim to have discernment. You can disagree with the conclusion but I would like to see one bit of proof that this thread even hints toward
QuoteThis thread could be regarded as antibibiblical and antichrist, denying the prophetic word that Christ comes from Bethlehem.
PS: When the Magi brought Jesus presents He was already 15 months old.
Quote from: WhiteWings on January 09, 2012, 11:01:53 AM
Or those that claim to have discernment. You can disagree with the conclusion but I would like to see one bit of proof that this thread even hints toward
QuoteThis thread could be regarded as antibibiblical and antichrist, denying the prophetic word that Christ comes from Bethlehem.
PS: When the Magi brought Jesus presents He was already 15 months old.
Your the one posting that bethlehem and Nazareth don't exist, the claim is backed up by plenty of evidence, including posting christian bashing websites to validate some of your claims.
What exactly are you trying to claim?
If Nazareth and Bethlehem did not exist, where was Jesus born, Pluto?
Quote from: thinktank on January 09, 2012, 07:52:23 PM
Your the one posting that bethlehem and Nazareth don't exist, the claim is backed up by plenty of evidence, including posting christian bashing websites to validate some of your claims.
What exactly are you trying to claim?
Can't be that hard to figure out if you read the thread title? :dontknow:
Quote from: thinktank on January 08, 2012, 04:29:36 AM
It has just occured to me that isn't this textual criticism?
This thread could be regarded as antibibiblical and antichrist, denying the prophetic word that Christ comes from Bethlehem.
Could be regarded as such; but your view even more so.
QuoteIf Nazareth and Bethlehem did not exist, where was Jesus born, Pluto?
I have two answers for that TT:
a] Generally speaking: if something isn't clear study it or just accept it as a unknown don't just assume something to ease your mind.
b] I think you didn't read and/or understood this thread. Two words: Constelation Bethlehem.
:bgdance:
Quote from: WhiteWings on January 09, 2012, 11:38:15 PM
Quote from: thinktank on January 09, 2012, 07:52:23 PM
Your the one posting that bethlehem and Nazareth don't exist, the claim is backed up by plenty of evidence, including posting christian bashing websites to validate some of your claims.
What exactly are you trying to claim?
Can't be that hard to figure out if you read the thread title? :dontknow:
Quote from: thinktank on January 08, 2012, 04:29:36 AM
It has just occured to me that isn't this textual criticism?
This thread could be regarded as antibibiblical and antichrist, denying the prophetic word that Christ comes from Bethlehem.
Could be regarded as such; but your view even more so.
---------------------------------
How so?
Your the one denying the scriptures, hence going against forum rules and scripture. I am sticking up for the authority of the scriptures.
You have directly said that there is no place as Nazareth and Bethlehem during the time of Jesus and also said the gospel writers got that wrong amongst many other things. The gospels make frequent mention of these places. You have not offered anything of value in this thread, other than placing doubts in the hearts of believers.
QuoteIf Nazareth and Bethlehem did not exist, where was Jesus born, Pluto?
I have two answers for that TT:
a] Generally speaking: if something isn't clear study it or just accept it as a unknown don't just assume something to ease your mind.
b] I think you didn't read and/or understood this thread. Two words: Constelation Bethlehem.
:bgdance:
didn't Jesus say 'I AM FROM ABOVE" and I AM THE TRUE BREAD FROM HEAVEN.....He is truly the firstborn son of the House of God.
.....Enoch wrote of the dwelling places of the zodiac when he was taken into heaven
Jesus said a lot of things :-)
There were "many" Bethlems. It were towns with a mill that could grind grain to very fine flour.
Jesus was born from above. Obviously that points to His way of conception.
But He was also born under star sign Virgo (see Rev. virgin standing on the moon)
Virgo=Virgin. But that virgin is also holding an ear of grain. A zodiac sign is also called a house. So Virgo was also called house of grain. = Bethlehem.
So even if all historians and archologists are wrong and there really was a town Bethlehem then I still think it's more than just a town.
:2c:
me too! You must be born again . Rev 12 a great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven,a woman clothed with the sun,with the moon under her feet
and a crown of twelve stars on her head
Quote from: WhiteWings on January 10, 2012, 05:27:29 PM
Jesus said a lot of things :-)
There were "many" Bethlems. It were towns with a mill that could grind grain to very fine flour.
Jesus was born from above. Obviously that points to His way of conception.
But He was also born under star sign Virgo (see Rev. virgin standing on the moon)
Virgo=Virgin. But that virgin is also holding an ear of grain. A zodiac sign is also called a house. So Virgo was also called house of grain. = Bethlehem.
So even if all historians and archologists are wrong and there really was a town Bethlehem then I still think it's more than just a town.
:2c:
Well now that's pretty interesting!
SOE ch 21v 7 and I saw the eighth heaven which is called in the hebrew tongue'Muzaloth',changer of the seasons,of drought and of wet,and of the 12 signs of the zodiak
which are above the seventh heaven. and I saw the ninth heaven,which is called in Hebrew,'Kuchavim, where are the heavenly homes[house?] of
the 12 signs of the zodiac.
Which book is that?
Secrets of Enoch
Many times in this thread I wrote "Bethelhem is house of bread".
That's correct according to lexicons. But still there might be a hidden word play....
Bethel = "house of God"
1) ancient place and seat of worship in Ephraim on border of Benjamin, identified with Luz (former name)
2) a place in south country of Judah, not far from Beersheba and Ziklag
Jesus was born in: House of God's bread.
Just a thought :-)