Where was Jesus between the ages of 12 and 30? And after the age of 33?

Hi

Just noticed your OP. Who know what agenda there is behind the 'organised' religion of Christianity. May be it was unknown to the early church or suppressed information. So much of that time period is lost, one way or another.

It has been discussed with great warmth on HP before.

But I have to admit that the stories of Jesus coming from the even more East are interesting and fill the gaps. And not forgetting the unincluded gospels, that many a Christian seem to denigh, eventhough it may enhance their faith 😉

But you say for a "good reason", what reason is that?

RP

Hi

It has been discussed with great warmth on HP before.

Here's one:

Hi

But you say for a "good reason", what reason is that?

I wondered that too. Spiritual Nut makes it sound threatening. 😡

Glad you picked up on "good reason" Judy, since it is quite loaded statement. Please come back SN, and tell us more 🙂

The missing years of Jesus

The facts are simple. The early life of Jesus was never recorded because the gospel writers did not deem this important. After his prologue John, the closest to Jesus of all the apostles, simply records his last three years of ministry - what he knew to be important. Mark does the same. Matthew does the same except to record his birth stories solely with the purpose of showing fulfilment of the prophesies foretelling the messiah. Luke records the birth stories, and the story of Jesus in the Temple solely for the purpose of reinforcing Jesus' divinity. If one, even today, was compiling, say, a biography of Adolf Hitler, one would not include any information about his childhood, or his teen years, unless it was relevant to what made him an evil tyrant during World War 2, and any biography would naturally concentrate almost solely on his rise to power and his leadership of Nazi Germany. The Gospels are concerned primarily with the divinity and mission of Christ and therefore concentrate on this period only - after all, this is the period with which followers were interested.

Read more: [url]Where was Jesus Christ between the ages of 13 and 30[/url]

Very sensible reply, Podorama, and thanks for the link, too.

It's not inconceivable that Jesus could have travelled to India, or Britain, or indeed other places, during those years. But none of the various sources that suggest he did are considered authentic or reliable by serious Bible scholars. (And Bible scholars really do come in all stripes, so to speak - there are those who are immensely sceptical, just as much as those who are bound by a strict denominational viewpoint.)

I had a wonderful teacher in New Testament Greek and Biblical history classes at university, who used to always point out that the Gospels are not "biographies", in the modern sense, at all. The writers or compilers - and we still don't know for sure who they were - weren't giving accounts of Jesus' personal history. They don't even give a hint of a physical description, nor any details of his day-to-day life. They only recorded what was pertinent, to them, in light of what they believed his mission to be. Either they didn't know where Jesus was during his youth, or didn't see it as important.

Again, none of this means that he didn't live for some time in other lands; perhaps he did, and perhaps he didn't. There simply is no hard evidence either way. But frankly, to me, a lot of the accounts of him travelling to other nations as a youth sound a bit like wishful thinking - wanting, understandably, to be able to claim that Jesus Christ himself walked in our land, or influenced/was influenced by our culture's spiritual traditions. (I'm not even a native of England, and right now I can't get "Jerusalem" out of my head. 😉 )

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't have a friendly discussion on these possibilities, either - I'd be happy to. Just that it's wise to remember that little or none of this can be proved with anything like certainty.

All love,

Charis

The missing years of Jesus

The second question, 'where was Jesus after the age of 33?' is also quite easily answered.

Christians believe that Jesus died but rose on the third day. After several appearances to his followers, for proof of His Resurrection, He Ascended into Heaven where He is now.

Those that do not believe this are not Christians

The second question, 'where was Jesus after the age of 33?' is also quite easily answered.

Christians believe that Jesus died but rose on the third day. After several appearances to his followers, for proof of His Resurrection, He Ascended into Heaven where He is now.

Those that do not believe this are not Christians

As a Christian, I believe this as well. But to me, that doesn't mean that people of different faiths (or even other Christians!) don't have a right to comment on Jesus or to question the accepted accounts of his life. And if someone else's beliefs or conclusions about Jesus happen to differ from mine, I don't see it as a personal insult or a threat to my faith.

I'm sorry, Podorama, but your last line there - "Those that do not believe this are not Christians" - reminds me a bit too much of the kind of exclusivist, dismissive attitude I've seen on websites and forums run by fundamentalists. I'm sure that's not how you meant it to come across, but it just doesn't seem to sit well in a very diverse, inclusive, respectful forum like HP. As a member of a church that differs somewhat from mainstream denominations on some theological points, I've copped a fair bit of "You're not Christian" rhetoric, directly and indirectly, myself, and it's not fun. 🙁 So it's not an attitude I ever want to hold towards anyone else, even if I don't personally agree with them.

Back on the topic, there are various stories and theories about Jesus surviving - or outright faking - his crucifixion and going into hiding afterwards, to re-emerge somewhere else in the world. As far as I know, none of these accounts are taken seriously by any respected religion scholars either; it's more the stuff of fiction or polemic.

Virtually all scholars, even sceptical ones, agree that there was such a person as Jesus of Nazareth, and that he was put to death by the Roman rulers of Judea. His earliest followers insisted that he had risen from the dead and had been seen by many reliable witnesses before his ascension; the Apostle Paul's letters, the earliest Christian writings we have (from only a few decades after Jesus' time), are adamant about this. That in itself isn't conclusive proof of anything, but that version of the story certainly pre-dates any accounts in which Jesus evades his execution and goes on living on this earth afterwards. So I would conclude that such accounts are not likely to be authentic.

It's not about who's "Christian" and who's not, but about what reliable scholarship and common sense point to as most likely.

Blessings,

Charis

As a Christian, I believe this as well. But to me, that doesn't mean that people of different faiths (or even other Christians!) don't have a right to comment on Jesus or to question the accepted accounts of his life. And if someone else's beliefs or conclusions about Jesus happen to differ from mine, I don't see it as a personal insult or a threat to my faith.

Surely all religions have basics that have to be believed in in order to follow that religion? And – I’m no expert, nor am I a Christian, but from what I have read and what friends who are Christian have said – I would have thought that a belief in the resurrection is part of being a Christian.
I appreciate that you want to be inclusive, but wouldn’t you agree that it is possible for too much inclusivity to diminish a religion?

Hi Crowan,

Sure - I wasn't suggesting that Jesus' resurrection isn't an essential part of Christianity's teachings. Every religion does have to define its parameters somehow, although individuals and groups within that faith may differ on exactly where the boundaries lie.

I was just a bit saddened by the implication that anyone who is "not Christian" doesn't have the right to speculate about Jesus' life and come to their own conclusions - whether or not those fit with what Christians themselves would define as Christianity.

Blessings,

Charis

Okay. I didn't take Podorama's comment like that - although I see that it could be taken that way.
(On the whole I know little of the subject but I'm finding the discussion of interest.)

The missing years of Jesus

Charis,
I never suggested that anyone who was not a Christain couldn't make comments about the life of Jesus.

What I was pointing out was the Resurrection is one of the central tenets of the Christian Faith. This was for the benefit of those who are of other faiths.

For you to suggest that only those of an inclusive Christian viewpoint can post on HP is itself exclusive. 😀

As Crowan says ;-

I appreciate that you want to be inclusive, but wouldn’t you agree that it is possible for too much inclusivity to diminish a religion?

which is demonstrated by the C of E at present which doesn't seem to know what it believes from Synod to Synod. There seems to be some liberal viewpoint within the organisation that thinks that by diluting the message to make it more acceptable to modern society it can fill empty pews.

The original question was about the "missing years of Jesus" and I have answered that from an Anglo-Catholic viewpoint as that is my particular perspective.

Hi Podorama,

I'm very sorry if I offended you. As I said, I didn't believe you were intending to sound exclusive - just that it could be taken that way.

Personally, I find it hard to understand how anyone could consider themselves a Christian unless they believe in Jesus' resurrection. And yet I've met Christians who professedly don't. But since I know how painful it is to have someone try to argue that I'm not Christian, I don't go around doing it to other people - even if I don't agree with their definition of Christianity. I'm willing to simply agree to disagree.

For you to suggest that only those of an inclusive Christian viewpoint can post on HP is itself exclusive. 😀

I wasn't suggesting that at all, if you read my posts. 😀 Just that a forum like this isn't a good place to post anything that suggests "my way is right and I don't care about anyone else's" - regardless of one's faith or viewpoint. But as you said, that's not what you were suggesting, so how about we let it drop and allow the discussion to get back on topic? 😉

Blessings,

Charis

The missing years of Jesus

Hi Charis,
there is no need to apologise I am not offended 😉

Personally, I find it hard to understand how anyone could consider themselves a Christian unless they believe in Jesus' resurrection. And yet I've met Christians who professedly don't.

What these people say is, IMO, an oxymoron. I cannot see how anyone can call themselves a Christian when their beliefs differ from Biblical Christianity on a central doctrine. However, as you say people have a right to call themselves whatever they want but see

Matt 7. 15-16

so back to the topic .......

Incoherence in Accounts of Jesus' Life Story

The facts are simple. The early life of Jesus was never recorded because the gospel writers did not deem this important. After his prologue John, the closest to Jesus of all the apostles, simply records his last three years of ministry - what he knew to be important. Mark does the same. Matthew does the same except to record his birth stories solely with the purpose of showing fulfilment of the prophesies foretelling the messiah. Luke records the birth stories, and the story of Jesus in the Temple solely for the purpose of reinforcing Jesus' divinity. If one, even today, was compiling, say, a biography of Adolf Hitler, one would not include any information about his childhood, or his teen years, unless it was relevant to what made him an evil tyrant during World War 2, and any biography would naturally concentrate almost solely on his rise to power and his leadership of Nazi Germany. The Gospels are concerned primarily with the divinity and mission of Christ and therefore concentrate on this period only - after all, this is the period with which followers were interested.

Read more: [url]Where was Jesus Christ between the ages of 13 and 30[/url]

Many thanks, Podorama,
for clearing this all up for us.

Hi Charis,
there is no need to apologise I am not offended 😉

What these people say is, IMO, an oxymoron. I cannot see how anyone can call themselves a Christian when their beliefs differ from Biblical Christianity on a central doctrine. However, as you say people have a right to call themselves whatever they want but see

Matt 7. 15-16

so back to the topic .......

There are 2 types of christians.

Those by faith, and those by principles.

Some believe in christ as a God. And some just happen to find his way of life attractive, and they adopt his lifestyle and morals, but they don't consider him to be a God.

I personally am confused on this. But I think I am open minded. Because I like him.