Jesus was born in Nazareth

I accept this challenge, and look forward to PRO’s arguments. For clarity, I will provide the following definitions:

Jesus-The central figure of Christianity, often referred to as Christ, or “the messiah” [1][2][3].

Nazareth-A city in Northern Israel [4][5][6].

Sources:

I am sorry to hear about your grandmother, but glad that you say she is alright. The delay was minor, and for good reason.

I would like to thank PRO for his arguments. I will address PRO’s point first, and then bring up my own points.

The Census

PRO has claimed that the census which allegedly brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem never occurred. He has based that claim on the fact that he has seen to evidence of such a census. I would like to remind PRO that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Simply because we have not yet found extra-biblical evidence for the census, does not mean that there was not one.

Also, even if we grant that the census did not occur, we have not established Nazareth as Jesus’ birthplace. At best, we have determined that Bethlehem is unlikely to have been the birthplace. There is still a burden to prove that Jesus was actually birthed in Nazareth.

Did Nazareth Exist?

I would like to bring into question whether or not Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus. There are no extra-biblical sources that show that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus , and in fact, the first known records referencing Nazareth don’t appear until hundreds of years after the alleged life of Jesus [1][2][3]. There are also no references to Nazareth in the Old Testament [2][3]. This of course doesn’t mean Nazareth didn’t exist at that time (refer to my logic in the previous section), but it does at least show that there is no concrete evidence that the place existed in order for Jesus to have been born there.

The Biblical (and Qur’anic) Case

PRO rightfully opened up his arguments with the point that his claim contradicts the story of Jesus’ birth in the second chapter of Matthew. I would also like to point out that both the books of Matthew [4] and Luke [5] claim the Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Mark and John don’t address the matter of geography. Also, Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus is very much a matter of Christian tradition [6][7][8], while Islam notes that Mary went to a “place toward the east” to give birth [9], which is, of course, supported by Islamic tradition which notes that his birthplace might have been Bethlehem [10]. Of course, none of these points prove that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but that is not what is being discussed. The actual question is whether or not Jesus was born in Nazareth.

Closing Thoughts

PRO has made the assertion that the census which caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem never occurred, and then fallaciously interprets that to mean that Jesus was born in Nazareth. I have pointed out not only that PRO’s claim is unfounded, but also that if we accept the claim, it still does not mean Jesus was born in Nazareth.

I have also shown that Nazareth may not have existed at the time of Jesus birth, that the bible and Christian Tradition show Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Also, Islam notes that Jesus’ birthplace might have been Bethlehem. In order for PRO to show that Jesus was born in Nazareth, he is going to have to overcome the bible, as well as Christian tradition. I look forward to PRO comments in the coming rounds.

Sources:

[1] Strange, James F. (1992). Nazareth. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Double Day: New York, New York.
[2] http://www.biblestudytools.com...
[3] http://www.jesusneverexisted.com...
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[5] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[6] http://www.religioustolerance.org...
[7] http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...
[8] https://bible.org...
[9] http://quran.com...
[10] http://islamicvoice.com...