leading biblical family, a leader of the Nazarene guardians of the Temple of God and Holy places, it is easy to forget that he was born with a mission. Without knowing the identity of the father, it is even more perplexing, but that he was what we assume we see, is due to the amount of information that is given to us in the bible texts. The attempt to divert attention from the concept of Nazarene which is almost synonymous with terrorist (liberator sicarii) is precisely because the Church wanted to get away from that image. He is instead classified as a man from a non existant Nazareth and the INRI is badly translated as Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. It is Jesus the Nazarene, King of Israel – Iesus Nazarenus Rex Israel with exactly the same letters. Then we have “his hair was parted in the manner of the Nazarenes” to quote just one example of duplicity in the bible texts. In fact, it was more than that, he belonged to a sect whose members did not cut their hair – a tradition which has been inherited by the Sikhs among others like the Rastafarians who curiously trace their ancestry to the land of the Lion of Judah – Ethiopia. Samson was another, amid a great many bible characters. Talking about a non existant Nazareth when he was supposedly born in Bethlehem is an attempt to get him away from the Nazarene connection and the added fear of tracing his father through that line of responsibility. Whereas his father was a fully fledge warrior and the bane of the Romans, he had told Jesus that that was not the way to go about things and to keep away from direct conflict. Jesus almost certainly said the same thing to John and which betrays a family connection. His remark about his role to the disciples, can be loosely translated as explaining