The real Jesus. Part 2

Originally posted by chaney3

What does the Bible tell us about the relationships Jesus had between the ages of 18 and 28?

Economically few details are told about this period. We know He was known as the carpenter's son. We know he grew in wisdom and in the grace of God.

I am sure that His experience as a human being between 18 and 28 were rich with events, circumstances, situations, problems, temptations, hassles, difficulties and all other things accomanying typical human adulthood.

Except with Jesus the 18 to 28 year old, as with the entire rest of His earthly life, He committed no sin. He was preparing a life for us. He was preparing His victories of every kind for us so that when He dispensed Himself into us as "a life giving Spirit" all of His strength could be distributed to us.

It is my firm belief that Jesus emotionally normal. These words, I am sure, come out of His personal experience of victory over every kind of temptation to commit sin.

" You have heard it was said, You shall not commit adultery.

But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman in order to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:27,28)

He was a man with perfect self control.
Being in every way emotionally normal I am sure He saw and noticed attractive women.
He did not lust after them because He was a perfect man with perfect self control.

When we receive Jesus into our hearts as Lord, that pristine and holy self control is AVAILABLE for us to live in oneness with. That is part of the salvation!

" He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)

It is like power steering in an automobile. It is wonderful.

Jesus was a human man. And it seems that He really didn't know 'who' He was, or what His 'purpose' was until near age 30.

He did seem to know that He must be about His Father's business as 12 years of age.
He said this when He lingered back and stayed in the temple.

Why would we believe this conviction would wane latter?
At 18 to 28 He still was single eyed about being on earth for His Father's will.

It is possible that as He read Old Testament Scriptures He realized that this was speaking exactly about Himself.

But this is the mystery of the incarnation of God as a man. And we can really only imagine how this all developed in Jesus of Nazareth.

The message of the Gospel is not "He who can explaineth" but "He who believeth".

Why the assumption that He possibly didn't have a girlfriend or wife before He 'became' Jesus?

He had something more important to attend to.
You have to get use to the fact that a man could have something which means more to him then legitimate emotional or physical needs.

Jesus had something more important in His life for which He dedicated His entire being unto. It is not a matter of Jesus saying a wife was wrong to have. Some of the apostles had wives.

It was a matter that He came for something higher and more important than His personal happiness in this typically human sense. He came to be the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world and to prepare a perfect human life to transfigure into the Holy Spirit for us.

" The last Adam became a life giving Spirit " (1 Cor. 15:45)

Originally posted by sonship
[Jesus] did seem to know that He must be about His Father's business as 12 years of age. He said this when He lingered back and stayed in the temple.

Who witnessed it when he "lingered back and stayed in the temple" and when he said that he "must be about His Father's business", and who reported these things to the people who wrote the gospels?

The account of Jesus at twelve lingering behind in the temple is found in Luke 2:40-52.

I am not told who was the eyewitness source of the account.

However we ARE told that Luke did a thorough investigative journalistic research into his subject matter.

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us, Even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, It seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first, to write then out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus, So that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1-4)

I suspect that in many cases people named in the Gospel of Luke sometimes provided testimonial to what he was investigating and reporting. Mary, the mother of Jesus, priests possibly who were still alive, family members of Jesus, soldiers, neighbors who were in the company spoken of in the second chapter, scribes possibly, were the witnesses.

He says he carefully investigated all things from the first.

Originally posted by sonship
The account of Jesus at twelve lingering behind in the temple is found in [b]Luke 2:40-52.

I am not told who was the eyewitness source of the account.[/b]

So while there is evidence that early Christians wrote the story and included it in their texts, there is no primary evidence that it actually happened, right?

Originally posted by chaney3
Who is He?

Never existed?
Man only?
Son of God?
God?

If a person claims to be a Christian, this answer should easy.

But facts prove otherwise.

Why should it necessarily be easy ?

You don't even thoroughly understand yourself.
Why would it be so "easy" to thoroughly understand God or the incarnation of Christ ?

Originally posted by sonship
Why should it necessarily be easy ?

You don't even thoroughly understand yourself.
Why would it be so "easy" to thoroughly understand God or the incarnation of Christ ?

Hi sonship,

I make NO claims to understand God.

Originally posted by FMF
So while there is evidence that early Christians wrote the story and included it in their texts, there is no primary evidence that it actually happened, right?

That Christians took the main interest in preserving the stories is understandable.

if you're arguing something like - "Why didn't someone like me, an atheist, say it happened? That might be more convincing."


But it is unlikely that the Christian church could have taken root and flourished in Jerusalem if unbelieving contemporaries of Jesus could come forward to prove the accounts related by the disciples were fabricated.

The evidence to me leans much more toward Luke as reliable history even though it has a propagandizing purpose to it. I think there is such a thing as propaganda which is also true.

Originally posted by sonship
if you're arguing something like - blah blah blah something else that I wasn't arguing...

Actually, I was asking you about the nature of the "evidence" you have supporting your claims about an incident when Jesus was 12 years old.

Originally posted by FMF
Actually, I was asking you about the nature of the "evidence" you have supporting your claims about an incident when Jesus was 12 years old.

Actually, I was asking you about the nature of the "evidence" you have supporting your claims about an incident when Jesus was 12 years old.

Exactly who informed Luke of the incident no one I am aware of knows.

I anticipate in what direction your objection is headed, That's what the "blah, blah, blah" was about.

I anticipate that your line of thinking is that the source of the evidence for the factualness of the boyhood story of Jesus in the temple, is not adequate.

Then it would be just a matter of moving the goal post around indefinitely.
ie. basically - "Its never enough evidence for me to believe its true, especially as you a Christian claims it so."

Originally posted by FMF
Actually, I was asking you about the nature of the "evidence" you have supporting your claims about an incident when Jesus was 12 years old.

The nature appears to be eyewitness account.
I don't know who the specific eyewitness/es was / were.

For those reading along in the Gospel of Luke:

If you doubt that the account of Jesus as a 12 year old is true, or are unsure about it, I would suggest the following:

Keep reading and consider if it would be consistent with the accumulative biographical sketch we are getting of the character of Jesus. This is only chapter 2. You have book there of 24 chapters.

Examine the man Jesus in His recorded absoluteness for not His own skin but the will of His Father, whom He definitely believed was God.

If you compare this story with the apochyphal story of Jesus changing clay pigeons into real ones to get back at some bad people in one of the non-canonical books, I can see why the latter was regarded as spurious.

It is not really consistent with the character of Jesus in the rest of the biography.
The legendary and the authentic, i believe, were distinguished by people much closer to the earthly life of Jesus then we.

Originally posted by sonship
The nature appears to be eyewitness account.

You mean it appears to you that it was written by an eyewitness?

That's what "eyewitness account" would mean.

Who wrote the Gospel Of Luke?

Originally posted by chaney3
I would like to know who Jesus is first...

So you are not a Christian?

Originally posted by chaney3
'Your' understanding of Jesus should be the same throughout ALL of Christianity.

Because it is not, creates divide, which means Christianity is very much flawed and not to be trusted.

And yet you say you have always been a Christian, so which side of this "divide" are you on then?

Originally posted by divegeester
So you are not a Christian?

Why is your Jesus different from robbie's Jesus?

This fact troubles me.