Why don’t people include the title “of Nazareth” when referring to Jesus?

Why don’t people include the title “of Nazareth” when referring to Jesus?
Well…I’ve noticed recently that when people talk about Jesus Christ, they never refer to his title like the other saints or historical figures of the Bible – you know, like John “the Baptist” or Achish “of Gath”. Is there a reason people prefer not to say “Jesus of Nazareth”? This is just something that I, as a deist, am curious about.

Best answer:

Answer by Esther
No reason, really. I just refer to Him as Jesus or Jesus Christ. Nazareth was the town he came from, that’s all.

Know better? Leave your own answer below.

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “Why don’t people include the title “of Nazareth” when referring to Jesus?”

  • She Devil says:

    Takes too long to type, John is a common name, needs distinction.

    Too lazy to expand upon.

  • theway says:

    Most people know who Jesus Christ is.

  • Magpie says:

    Because it leaves them open to someone pointing out that “Nazereth” didn’t exist at the time Jesus supposedly lived.

  • Skeptikitten says:

    Because the original translation was not “of Nazareth”. There is no evidence that a Nazareth existed at the time.

    The original translation is “the Nazarene”, which doesn’t mean “from Nazareth”, but refers to the sect of Essene Jews that his supposed father Joseph belonged to.

  • T says:

    There probably isn’t a more famous or influential person in history than Jesus (aka Jesus Christ aka Jesus of Nazareth). People don’t always call Hitler Adolf Hitler, people don’t usually call Beyonce Beyonce Knowles. These are silly examples compared to Jesus, but basically what I’m saying is that everyone knows who you are talking about (unless, of course, your talking to someone who knows someone currently named Jesus, a common Hispanic name. then, and probably ONLY then, it might get confusing!) But “of Narareth” is not a title, really. It is just where he came from and generally not at all a needed clarification.
    Basically it is unnecessary and everyone already knows who you are talking about.
    To contrast that, if you refer to John, you need to specify. When you say John, people will wonder if you are refering to something that the book of the bible, the Gospel of John, said, or if John the Beloved Disciple said that, or if John the Baptist said that, or if one of the many Johns we might happen to know in person said that!
    And Achish of Gath is honestly not refered to nearly often enough for the average person to notice if you say Achish that you mean Achish the king of Gath, so they might use that to make the reference more recognizable to people. Also, Achisch was a common name and there is a similar name (I forget it at the moment) that was the king of Ekron which might confuse people, as well as Anchises, a Greek mythological character (lover of Aphrodite). So, anyway, people would get confused without his clarifier at the end “of Gath”.

Leave a Reply

Search MikeAdkins.com:
Article Categories
Most Popular Articles