A Cathar interpretation of Capernaum in opposition to Nazareth

[Giuseppe]

Origen began these allegorical interpretations and the Bogomils followed creatively in his footsteps. This is apparent in the way they brought the New Testament to life, especially with their topographical symbolism of the Bible. For them, Bethlehem (literally meaning “house of bread”) is their own Bogomil church as well as that of the Cathars, which gives the people access to the truly living bread. Herod represents the ruling church
and (when expanding) the world of evil, who tries to kill the newly born Word—the Logos. Nazareth, the place where Jesus comes from, also means the Orthodox Church, according to the Bogomils. Jesus leaves Nazareth to settle in Capernaum (literal meaning: the City of the Comforter), a town near the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Just like
Bethlehem, Capernaum symbolizes the Bogomil church, but other than the former, in a later stage. The Bogomil path of initiation based on topographical symbolism is the following:

Jesus – meaning: the Bogomil neophyte – leaves the Orthodox Church (Nazareth) and is reborn in Bethlehem, the Bogomil church. From there he goes over the often impetuous Sea of Galilee (the turbulence of life) to
Capernaum, where he can receive the teleiosis or consolamentum (literal meaning: the sacrament of the Comforter).

https://www.academia.edu/27677550/The_c ... cathars_II_

[Giuseppe]

If the descent of Capernaum was used by Marcion in (polemical) replacement of the birth in Nazareth/Bethlehem, then the original source, not corrupted by Marcion, had the birth of Jesus in Nazareth/Bethlehem.

Hence, the original source that fell in the hands of Marcion (corruptor) read as the following:

In the 15° year of Tiberius Caesar, Jesus was born in Nazareth.

Then Jesus went to Capernaum , a city in Galilee, and was teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath days;
And they were astonished at his doctrine,

Hence, it is the birth of Jesus that has to be placed in the 15° year of Tiberius Caesar, and not, as wanted Marcion, his mere descent as already adult from above.

[Giuseppe]

A Jesus born, and only born, under Pilate, could have been crucified during the 60s or the 70s CE.

A shift time is in action here.

[Giuseppe]

John 2:12 seems to be a curious way to harmonize both Marcion (descent of Jesus alone and already adult in Capernaum in the 15° year of Tiberius) and his original source (birth of Jesus in Nazareth in the 15° year of Tiberius):

After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.

...since John 2:12 places the descent of Jesus' entire family in Capernaum.

The idea of a Jesus' connection with his carnal family is preserved despite of the fact that Capernaum marks in Marcion the complete independence of Jesus from carnal relations. A way to say, polemically: Marcion, even if you make Jesus descend alone in Capernaum, you cannot free him so easily from his original Jewish family.

This talks about Marcion's original intention behind his emphasis on Capernaum in the incipit: to exalt the spiritual independence of Jesus from (and in opposition to) a carnal birth in Nazareth.

In the 15° year of Tiberius Caesar.

[Steven Avery]

If the descent of Capernaum ...

This helps place the real location of Nazareth. (Har Nitai, or possibly Arbel)

Luke 4:16
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up:
nd, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day,
and stood up for to read.

Luke 4:31
And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee,
and taught them on the sabbath days.

Luke 4: 31 - down to Capernaum
From Har Nitai or Arbel you can see down to Capernaum. And it really is .. DOWN.

Luke 4: 31 - down to Capernaum
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... rnaum.402/

[Giuseppe]

Nazareth never existed, René Salm docet.

And don't go off topic. Otherwise you may seem a troll (in addition to pose as a Christian apologist).

[Steven Avery]

The thread is about topographical symbolism.

I an correcting the topography.

Rene Salm has no argument against the real Nazareth location.
(He did indicate knowledge of the proper placement from an archaeologist.)