UPGRADE: Please report anything out of the ordinary post-upgrade in this thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,66430.new.html
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kind of disappointing. I would say that one could explain the lack of evidence for a Synagogue by the fact that it was an obscure city ravaged by war. The lack of the hill is not so easily explained.
OK then. Well, Schultz said hills can be raized, potentially explaining the lack of the hill. KBN1 said that Nazareth's location could have been moved. So, it makes me wonder... Has their been any excavation done in the area surrounding Nazareth?
Amazingly, this contrastive pair of Nazareth and Capernaum and its theological implications were employed also by Evangelist Luke, who narrated Jesus’ first visit to Nazareth as an event occurring right at the beginning of His prophetic ministry (Luke 4:16-30) unlike Matthew and Mark, who located the same incident in the late period of Jesus’ mission (Matthew 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6). This chronology peculiar to the Gospel of Luke stems from the Evangelist's wish to give primacy to Nazareth in the narration of Jesus’ mission. The narrative in Luke, unlike its parallels in Matthew and Mark, includes a Messianic prophecy uttered by Jesus Himself in a synagogue, which serves to strengthen the tie between Jesus’ hometown (Nazareth) and His rejection by His people in addition to the links between the Messianic prophecies and Jesus’ actions. While responding to the people of Nazareth who object to His Messianic claims and despise Him, Jesus makes an interesting reference to Capernaum....
Page created in 0.118 seconds with 25 queries.