If he is murdered, will he be a a martyr? I hope we never get to find out!

It's a good question.

A better one is, where is Rowan Williams - and where are the rest of the indignant Primates? Do those who believe that same-sex blessings cannot be performed also believe that gay people ought be hounded and jailed simply for speaking (and, possibly, for breathing)?

Do Anglican Bishops no longer have a "teaching role," all of a sudden?

Silly question....

It is terrible that Davis is in any danger but maybe it is at least in part because others are using him to further their own political cause?

Genuine concern for his safety does not lead one to call on Akinola to protect him - does it? Do help him in a real way - eg give him some money to get somewhere safe if you really fear for his safey.

Stop using this man and his safety as a political tool.

Is this the sort of realigned church to which we really want to belong, and with which we so deeply wish to be identified as believers, viewed by others in the world?

The silence is deafening from world Anglican leaders, not to mention other believers in other churches and faith communities.

I do appreciate Canterbury's mild and generalized remarks, but they seem bloodless and distant compared to the real worlds on our planet where death threats and violence still are taking place.

This point, going into hiding to save one's life, is the great legacy theme of the closet, itself an underground fostered by the legacy negatives. Do any really still question that pushing people who are not straight back into closets is the main business of the legacy condemnations, pretending to call on the surface for repentance and amendment of life, defined as celibacy removing the queer voice boxes of all faith's citizens?

It is truly amazing how silent the supporters of Akinola are. Nary a mention on Kendal Harmon's TitusOneNine blog - and that blog is one of the more "moderate" conservative blogs!

NP ; thats a clear case of blaming the victim.

Has it not struck you that Davis believes that he has a role to play in terms of achieving justice and fairness within Nigeria? I am sure that if he wished to seek asylum elsewhere, he could have done so.

The real question is why those with your views are causing him to have to go into hiding, and why people like you are deflecting the debate towards the need for him to do something - whereas it is Akinola and Co. who actually have the ability to do something.

But they don't want to. And neither do you. Because it is your religion which is leading directly to this sort of persecution - and it is your religion and its practitioners who have blood on their hands and who are vicariously responsible for homophobic attitudes and actions.

NP
Who is using Davis?
Why should concern for his safety not lead one to call on the head of his church to protect him, especially when it's that head of his church who actively promotes the legislation that endangers him and those like him?
As far as getting him out of danger is concerned - have you read any of his posts recently?
But I can only support your call for people to help finance his efforts! Donations can be made via Changing Attitude.

NP,

Davis MacIyalla chose to take his bold and courageous stand of his own free volition because like generations of gay liberation heroes before him he was no longer prepared to live in denial. No-one is using him and it is patronising and offensive to suggest that he lacks the intelligence and wisdom to make his own choices. Praise God for Davis MacIyalla and his courageous witness for Christ and for freedom!

Like other gay men of my generation in Europe, I owe my freedom to a previous generation of Davis MacIyallas - in my native Northern Ireland to men like Jeffrey Dudgeon and P.A. Maglochlainn - who were no longer prepared to hide in the closet and silently die. Future generations of gay Nigerians will look back at the sacrifice of Davis Mac-Iyalla with gratitude, on Akinola and his ilk with bewilderment and on spineless facilitators like Williams and Sentamu with nothing but contempt.

Your own attitude is very revealing, NP. Why should someone need to send money to MacIlyalla to get him somewhere safe? Why isn't his own native soil safe enough? Why should it be a problem for Peter Akinola to plead for the safety of one of his own flock?

What a bizarre post from NP. The Primate of Nigeria and his functionaries have been engaged in a campaign of slander and character assassination against Davis Mac-Iyalla for years now. The Primate of Nigeria is actively campaigning for legislation that will make Davis Mac-Iyalla a criminal. The Primate of Nigeria is doing all in his power to create an atmosphere of hatred and violence against homosexuals.

But somehow it is the liberals who have placed Davis Mac-Iyalla's life in danger.

If it weren't so tragic, it would be funny.

“Stop using this man and his safety as a political tool.”— NP

Have you no shame, sir? Turning the victim into the criminal, and those who aid if not abet the criminals, you turn into “victims? I ask again, have you no shame?

NP wrote: "It is terrible that Davis is in any danger but maybe it is at least in part because others are using him to further their own political cause?"

NP, are you suggesting that Changing Attitude England is using Davis Mac-Iyalla to further some political cause of our own, or are you thinking that some other group is doing this? If so, which one(s)?

NP also wrote: "Genuine concern for his safety does not lead one to call on Akinola to protect him - does it?"

Why doesn't genuine concern for Davis's safety involve calling on Archbishop Peter Akinola to protect Davis? It was the Archbishop's own Director of Communications who created this threat to Davis's life in the first place. We hope Peter Akinola has enough Christian compassion and Primatial authority to protect Davis and discipline Canon Tunde.

And: "Do help him in a real way - eg give him some money to get somewhere safe if you really fear for his safey."

That is exactly what happened on Monday, NP, as soon as Davis reported what had happened. The CA UK network moved into action, sent money, and ensured Davis moved to a safe place.

And: "Stop using this man and his safety as a political tool."

I find this a deeply offensive accusation. NP, are you accusing me personally and Changing Attitude collectively of using Davis as a political tool and risking his life for gratuitous reasons. Davis has followed his own vocation every step of the way, and has taken our advice and assessed it on the basis of his own local knowledge. An apology is in order from you, please.

Long live patriarchy! The patriarchal order, supported by scripture, trumps human rights for anyone challenging the divinely order system of male superiority, women and gays.

++Rowan's silence means that he is still a patriarch at heart.

I'm not easily shocked (I've heard too many confessions) but some of the recent blog postings about Davis Mac-Iyalla have succeeded where fornicators, thieves and adulterers have failed (no, I'm not joking, I'm genuinely appalled).

The repeated shifting of the burden of proof of innocence onto Davis by one or two posters seem to undermine basic concepts of justice on both sides of the Atlantic, and whenever evidence is adduced to support him, the goalposts shift: late though I was to this discussion, I can remember a time when his very existence as an Anglican was denied. Now that he has appeared in person to various members of the Anglican lowerarchy (hat tip CS Lewis), that argument seems to disappear to be replaced endlessly by new ones.

But - and I'm sorry - NP's posting I find particularly hard to stomach. I only ask whether he would say the same about Bonhoeffer, who chose to spend the war in Nazi Germany so that he would have the right to take part in the reconciliation and reconstruction - if he survived. Bonhoeffer is therefore entirely to blame for his own martyrdom and deserves no recognition at all, since he could have stayed safe in the US.......?

sauce for the goose....

Gerry wrote:

"..Like other gay men of my generation in Europe, I owe my freedom to a previous generation of Davis MacIyallas..." and Gene Robinsons

Let's play the word substitution game. "Like other African descendants, I owe my freedom to Martin Luther King..."

Or all who are descendants of slaves who predominantly owe their freedom to the ending of the slave trade...

Or women who can choose to earn an income to raise their family or be a primary home nurturer, because of women who pioneered the right to work when it was illegal for married women to do so.

Or people born "on the wrong side of the tracks" who have been able to build decent lives because there was free access to education and the chance to build a new life. Where visionaries saw that souls given a chance can transcend the limiations of their forebears.

And on the "we're better than the Muslims" duck shoving. Who taught the Muslims violence and castigation and repression of women and gays? Wasn't it their older Christian cousins. The same cousins who sought to wipe out their religion when it was first being formed. Instead of holding their hands and helping them walk, you tried to exterminate them. The same as you have overlooked God's vision for women to become wives not slaves; the same as you glossed over caring for the environment, and denied that God cares about justice in this world.

Love does not always flatter. Sometimes love rebukes. Hosea 11. Stop blaming other souls for your own mistakes and start taking responsibility for your own mistakes rather than looking for the scape goat. You are no better than Adam.

When a church claims that anyone who rebukes them is from the antichrist (the Catholics are doing this too now), then the church is more concerned about its infrastructure than true justice or God's honor. You are fighting not to protect God's name but to protect your human institution. God will not flatter such idolatry and anyone who flatters you is not from God.

Cheryl Clough, I'm a little puzzled by your question:-

"Who taught the Muslims violence and castigation and repression of women and gays? Wasn't it their older Christian cousins. The same cousins who sought to wipe out their religion when it was first being formed. Instead of holding their hands and helping them walk, you tried to exterminate them."

Er, no, I think you'll find violence, castigation and repression was hard-wired into Islam from the get-go. Have you read the Koran and hadith? And given that most of the now muslim middle east was once Christian before it was invaded and subjugated by muslim force of arms, the boot is on the other foot, so to speak, as far as the extermination of a religion is concerned. Ask the Palestinian Christians.

Your post also puzzles me for another reason. It's entirely possible that both Islam and Christianity are untrue but, and here's the thing, they cannot both be true. Muslims recognise this even if your particular brand of Christians don't.

I've spent the morning fuming. I wonder if these souls even realise how insulting they have been to God?

This theology that defines the OT God as being vengeful, capricious, cruel and is somehow tranformed by Jesus into a God of Love - but only of the pure males and repentant submissive slave castes.

Their theology dishonors the one who entered into the covenant with Jesus. Their theology forgets that if you dishonor the one who entered into the covenant, then God has the right to dishonor the covenant. The covenant stands, not because God is particularly enamoured of Jesus but because it is simply too inconvenient and creates too many problems to replace the covenant.

Even the devil honours the covenant where the covenant honours God. The devil knows the boundaries that preserve the devil's space are only valid if God's honor is valid. The devil can trust God and therefore the devil will defend God. The devil has a place in God's creation, because the devil catches all the souls you wish to expunge from reality. The devil also knows that there are falsely accussed souls within his dominion because there are pockets of stability and peace because some souls can bring about peace, even when they are in hell.

The devil will gladly surrender such souls back to God as and when God asks for them, because they ruin his reputation of making the most unpleasant place possible.

If your theology dishonors the one who entered into the covenant, the forces of the universe and all the heavenly realms will be against you. If Jesus is silent when God is insulted, that infers that Jesus approves of this idolatry. Jesus has no right to complain if his name is besmirched, after all he has been allowing you to besmirch God's reputation for centuries.

Pedantic question: "duck shoving"? This is new to me. Sounds like a useful phrase, if a messy and awkward process.

I think use of the word 'challenge' by Changing Attitude is very unfortunate - I think it diminishes an otherwise important, urgent and perfectly reasonable request. Should the people at whom this 'challenge' is aimed not respond positively, it would not seem quite as negligent and unchristian as it might have seemed if the framing of the request (?) had been less antagonistic.

I would think anyone or any organisation operating in an official capacity, generally would have it as policy to disregard public 'challenges' (I would), but feel obliged to respond to public communications from other official organisations which engage them in more level-headed, professional terms which acknowledge and appeal to their better natures.

Observers look more closely at the respondant who fails reason, justice and duty, rather than one who fails to respond to playground taunts.

I think it is probable that this press release would be ignored by its targets either way, which is why it's a shame that it seems so pointlessly antagonistic.

Cheryl Clough: 'Who taught the Muslims violence and castigation and repression of women and gays? Wasn't it their older Christian cousins. The same cousins who sought to wipe out their religion when it was first being formed. Instead of holding their hands and helping them walk, you tried to exterminate them.'

You are clearly either ignorant of Christian history, or Islamic history, or in all probability both.

It is also obvious that you are ignorant of the Holy Koran and the Hadith. Please find a copy and examine Suras 4.16, 4.34, 9.5, 9.29, 27.55 in the Koran and in the Hadith Bukhari vol. 8 no. 6834, Sunan Abu Dawud vol. 3 no. 4447, Bukhari 72:715 and Sunan Abu Dawud no. 2142.

Hopefully this will be enough to persuade you against posting such inane drivel.

Personally, I think that conservative forms of both Islam and Christianity have much in common, and are equally unappealing.

The fact they 'compete' against each other by behaving in an essentially uncivilised and pre-modern manner sums up their lack of development.

Personally, every Muslim person I've ever known (you know, personally?) has been a charmer and a extra decent human being/citizen (both here at the Global Center and abroad)...wereas many Christian brothers and sisters I know (both inside and outside of the Anglican Communion) have been hateful hypocrits,liars, and sometimes even diocese crossing thieves and instigators of hate crimes...I'm especially destressed by the bigoted Primates who discriminated against fellow Christians at Communion at the Cathedral in Zanzibar built over a slave trading/beating post.

Drivel, indeed.

Probably just plain luck that I wasn't decapitated while shaking a Muslims hand while meeting to exchange PEACE ideas.

James Akinbaya, I am ignorant of neither Islamic history nor Christian history; unlike yourself, however, I don't wear rose-coloured spectacles when viewing the former. Why do Islamic reformers like Tariq Ramadan call for a moratorium on stoning rather than an outright ban? Isn't it because to do so would be to obliquely criticise the founder of Islam who himself stoned women and so put Ramadan himself at risk of violent reprisals from his co-religionists who seem not to have grasped that it's a religion of peace?

Doesn't Islam promote the death penalty for apostasy? Aren't muslims who convert to Christianity at serious risk of harm in most muslim majority states? Do posters on this site get as excited over that as they are over the fate of Davis Mac-Iyalla? It is Islamic Iran that hangs gays and stones women for adultery; it was in muslim Indonesia that 3 christian girls were beheaded on their way to school and it's in muslim Pakistan where Christians are on death row.

And how do Islamic countries treat their religious minorities? It is nonsense to talk of Islamic tolerance; Islam is most certainly not tolerant in the modern understanding of that word. Its history is one of dominance and submission - easily evidenced by reading of or listening to the experiences of, say, Coptic christians or Palestinian christians or Iraqi jews. Read any of Bat Ye'or's books on dhimmitude.

Cheryl Clough's post implied that early Christians had some sort of duty to help establish Islam - I must own myself baffled by this. It is entirely possible that both Islam and Christianity are wrong but, really, they cannot both be right. Surely this is Theology 101.

Leonardo Ricardo, the plural of anecdote isn't data.

"...early Christians had some sort of duty to help establish Islam..."

Absolutely. And we have a responsibility to help Jews and other branches of Christianity.

If Jesus is meant to be responsible for all the peoples of all the nations, then we are responsible for helping all the peoples of all the faiths to be the best that they can be.

We are called to bring out the best in others, not to use others immaturity to justify our own negligence.

Cynthia "duck-shoving" is a term I learnt with my previous husband. Whenever there was a problem, you could rely on him to duck for cover and shove responsibility onto someone else. One of my friend's nickname for him was "teflon man" because nothing ever stuck to him.

The parallels of the dynamics of that marriage and the appalling behaviours we see in the communion today still astound me. I think it is one of the reasons God chose me to do this work, I had already been dealing with a pesonal fractal pattern with the same dynamics. (We could then have the chicken and egg story of did I have that marriage so I could do this work, or did God use me because I had that experience? It depends on whether you perceive it as pre-ordained or making a pragmatic choice from what was available.)

Back to topic Go read Micah 4. e.g. 4:5 "All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever." This vision does not seen an end of Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists... The nations will continue to walk in the name of their gods, but they will all acknowledge the God of gods, the supreme being, and acknowledge that they must all cohabitate 4:4 "Every man will sit under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid..."

If your vision involves the extermination or assimilation of every other faith and culture; then your vision is not from God.

Fern Winter,

Why don't you ask the Jews of Constantinoples? or the Jews of Lithuania and Ukraina?

You seem to forget inconvenient parts of the background. Might it be in the service of a post 1989 "need" in certain circles for a new Enemy; a new Evil Empire?

The Byzantine State church and its Russian and so on daughters have always been extremely intolerant.

The total absence of Jews from Constantinople until after its fall in 1453 and their forced exile from Spain after 1492, along with the late 19th century Russian orthodox persecutions (the infamous Protocol included) in former Lithuanian provinces should be enough show you.

Also, the time frame of the so called Islamic "conquest" indicates that Islamic armies did not so much conquer anything as liberate the oppressed peoples, Christian as well as other, living under Byzantine rule.

Cheryl, I'm sorry but your post (and, I assume, your position) is theological nonsense. You are assuming that, at the heart of all faiths, is a supreme being who is exactly the same as the Judeo-Christian God -
but I'm afraid it just ain't so. Buddhism rejects a deity; Hinduism is both pantheistic and polytheistic while Allah is very different from the God of the Bible. Pretending that all faiths are essentially the same just won't do. Steve Turner expressed it well in a poem:-

"Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed and ourselves.....
We believe that all religions are the basically the same...they all believe in love and goodness,
they only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation."

This has nothing to do with wanting to "exterminate" other cultures but it is demonstrably incorrect, surely, to pretend that all belief systems are equally worthy of respect. You don't, presumably, think that fascism is as worthy a system of government as democracy so if you can exercise judgement in the political sphere, why not in the religious?

Either Christianity is right or it isn't. If it is, then, by default, other belief systems must be false.

And isn't "the assimilation of every faith and culture" exactly what Micah 4 is talking about when the Messiah reigns?

"...and many nations shall come and say:
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.""

Many nations walking in the paths of the God of Israel presumably doesn't mean they continue as Buddhists, Jainists, Muslims, Hindus, or Shintoists.

Goran Koch-Swahne, your view of the delightful and peaceful nature of Islamic conquest is popular but contradicted by many fifth, sixth, seventh & eighth century sources. The conqueror's attitude towards the church was determined by relations between the caliphate and Constantinople; co-existence in peace time changed into violent confrontation during hostilities with many massacres of Christians, persecution and destruction and confiscation of church buildings.

As for your other point, yes, sure, the Christian church has had many dark periods in its history and done much of which it should be ashamed. But such behaviour is not that of its founder, something easily demonstrated whereas brigandry, looting, rape and murder were activities Mohammed was involved in and which he commended to his followers. There is one other point; Christians today are prepared to acknowledge and repent of past behaviours. Islam, which also has dark periods in its history, shows no such ability or inclination to reflect on and express sorrow for its past.

Islam advanced in battle, but when it took an area it was tolerant of other peoples of the book, and certainly more tolerant than Catholic power. Jews and Christians had special rights under taxation, and this was significantly different from absence of rights given to Jews and Muslims by Christians. Women also had rights unseen elsewhere.

What is different now is that, first of all, Islam became more bureaucratic and clericalised; secondly, it could not understand why it, the last and correcting revelation of all others by God (as it sees itself) was in effect superseded by the Renaissance and Western development, after Islam had been in the ascendancy of culture for so long. Then came Western colonialism, and after the First World War the break up of the Ottoman Empire and a series of failed nationalist states and current Islamic states or Islamic resistance to corrupt states. With Israel emerging there is also a particularly modern feature, which is a nasty antisemitism. There is also the Puritan-equivalent Wahabi Islam of Saudi Arabia which has spread to Pakistan, and the money for which has affected many schools and mosques, including in the UK.

Islam is in a difficult phase, at present, but it was once tolerant and advanced. Some inside it are reacting with increasing fundamentalism, others see the need for reform.

There are similar dangers with right wing Christianity. We are not that far from a Christianity that could persuade a US President to start a war (eg against Iran) that would start events for the second coming, as Jews return to Jerusalem. Madness is not limited to Islam.

This is why the kind of Christianity represented by TEC, with an inclusive ethic, is so important.

You are assuming that, at the heart of all faiths, is a supreme being who is exactly the same as the Judeo-Christian God -

I am also sorry now, to have to inform Fern Winter that there is no such thing as 'the Judeo-Christian God' (or indeed the 'Judeo-Christian traditon'). Although these terms are beloved of Christians, Jews do not subscribe to this notion. Indeed, the very term 'the Judeo-Christian tradition' is offensive to Jews and to Judaism, as it is unreognized by them. And once pointed out, and pondered we can soon see that the Jews have a point.

I am often amazed by the degree of ignorance, the Church and Christians, have of Judaism, and the degree of insensitivity toward Jewish sensiblities.

There is a difference between people wanting to emulate your best to people having your totality forced down their throat, regardless of whether they want it or it is beneficial or otherwise.

Fern quotes the passage that says "come let us go up to the Mountain of the Lord." That is a sentence of people choosing to come to the mountain.

Zechariah 8:23 "...men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’"

Again, seeing that God is with them and wanting to find out more, again consent.

Jeremiah 35, the Recabites are held up to reprove the Jews because they respected boundaries. (And like with Haggar and Ishmael, God makes a promise for their future ALONGSIDE God's promises to the Jews).

Again Micah 4:5, the nations will walk in the name of their gods, whilst honoring God.

Isiah 54, especially 14-15 "In righteousness you will be established: Tyranny will be far from you; you will have nothing to fear. Terror will be far removed; it will not come near you. If anyone does attack you, it will not be my doing; whoever attacks you will surrender to you."

God has a vision and a promise that Tyranny will end. It is the High Priest's responsibility to make sure that happens, he was annointed based on a promise of gentleness. Someone give him a dictionary - tryanny is NOT gentleness.

I hope that the Nigerian church will oppose this severe encroachment on Davis's Human Rights - and those of all people just because of their sexual orientation.

Colin

So, hand on heart, would you say there was nothing political in the motivation for issuing a public "Challenge" to +Akinola?

If a traditionalist vicar in New Hampshire were to publicise a request to VGR for protection from the recent innovations of TEC, I would say there was something political in that move - especially in making it public and involving the media - wouldn't you?

Perhaps the best thing to do with regard to the Primate might have been to make a request for help via a private communication? Imagine how the ABC would respond to such a letter to him! (I suspect he would not respond to such a public challenge)

I am sure you care a lot about Davis' safety. None of us here would want him harmed in any way whatsoever. The practical help you have sent is clearly more important for Davis' safety than issuing a public "challenge" +Akinola - did you really expect such action to produce a helpful response from the Primate?

NP, I'm not sure I understand your comments.
For all we know Colin may well have tried other ways of influencing Akinola, for all we know he has written to the ABC.
But there seems to be very little positive reaction, whatever Colin may or may not have done privately.

Davis is still in danger of his life, still undefended by his own Primate, the danger is still a direct cause of very public false accusations and defamation by the Primate's own communications director.

Seeing that nothing Colin may or may not have done privately has decreased the danger Davis is in, is it not legitimate to demand/request/challenge the Primate publicly to withdraw the false allegations his own office put out?

The "political" motivation is simply to reduce the risks for Davis and others like him who will be badly affected by the new law. Is that not enough?

Dave wrote: "I hope that the Nigerian church will oppose this severe encroachment on Davis's Human Rights - and those of all people just because of their sexual orientation. "

No Dave, this law does not encroach on peoples lives just because of their sexual orientation, it encroaches on peoples lives - heterosexual in orientation as well as homosexual in orientation - if they in any way support fellow human beings who are homosexual and their human, civil and constitutional rights.

I repeat, this legislation - as conceived and written - is directed against ALL.

Cheryl Clough: "Again Micah 4:5, the nations will walk in the name of their gods, whilst honoring God."

Micah 4:5 -

"Though the nations around us follow their idols, we will follow the Lord our God forever and ever."

That's not granting permission to follow other gods and fails as a pluralist justification.

It's a statement that shows contract between our LORD and other gods. Our LORD will bring peace; other gods won't. Our LORD is powerful and His power will be seen on the Earth; other gods won't. The people of the nations will want to go to our LORD's mountain, not the place of worship of other gods.

Preaching an exclusive Gospel (justification by faith in Christ alone) is not tyranny.

Dear Göran, I agree !

Fern Winter wrote: “… the plural of anecdote isn't data.”

Perhaps not, but the singular of Data most certainly is Anecdote ;=)

Fern Winter quoted:

“Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Mohammed and ourselves.....
We believe that all religions are the basically the same...
they all believe in love and goodness,
they only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation.”

Well… so do Christians among themselves, it seems.

Fern Winter wrote: “Either Christianity is right or it isn't. If it is, then, by default, other belief systems must be false.”

O dear, o dear, o dear… I false dichotomy if ever there was one.

Fern Winter wrote: “... yes, sure, the Christian church has had many dark periods in its history and done much of which it should be ashamed.”

Now, I wasn’t talking of dark “periods”, but of s y s t e m a t i c oppression, torture, killings and war by the Byzantine State Church and it's successors century after century.

I gave its consistent anti-semitism as an example.

“… whereas brigandry, looting, rape and murder were activities Mohammed was involved in and which he commended to his followers.”

Maybe Fern Winter should be reminded that Mohammed (Blessed be his name!) is considerably less documented than Jesus of Nazareth; that is not at all…

There simply is no way of saying whether these legends reflect contemporary happenings or (merely) later symbolic political “truths” ;=)