or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Historical Jesus: Where and When He Grew Up
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Historical Jesus: Where and When He Grew Up

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
From Jesus to Christ:
This FRONTLINE series is an intellectual and visual guide to the new and controversial historical evidence which challenges familiar assumptions about the life of Jesus and the epic rise of Christianity.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/


If you want to watch, click on the tool bar the tab "Watch Online" It will load a player with several segments. The first segment is "The Quest for the Historical Jesus." This first segment is only 5 minutes long. The next "Places and Times in which Jesus Grew Up" is 14 minutes. On this thread, we will discuss these first two segments of the program.

There is also a script you can access on the homepage.

After watching, share your thoughts. Please feel free to join in at any time. Any questions?
post #2 of 31
I had always thought that jesus grew up in Egypt? Isn't that what the scripture states? But that would have had the same influence either way. a big city/town he would have a heard many other theological ideas.

Here is a question.
If he did grow up as a "Have" vs a have not- How would that change the idea of "WHO" jesus is to you?
post #3 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkowell1 View Post
I had always thought that jesus grew up in Egypt? Isn't that what the scripture states? But that would have had the same influence either way. a big city/town he would have a heard many other theological ideas.

Here is a question.
If he did grow up as a "Have" vs a have not- How would that change the idea of "WHO" jesus is to you?
He was born in Bethlehem in Judea, but they fled to Egypt soon after, because King Herod was going to kill Jesus. They returned when he was still a young boy.
post #4 of 31
I don't think if he had grown up a 'had' it would change MY view of him personally. I think it might change the view of him throughout history, though.
post #5 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkowell1 View Post
I had always thought that jesus grew up in Egypt? Isn't that what the scripture states? But that would have had the same influence either way. a big city/town he would have a heard many other theological ideas.

Here is a question.
If he did grow up as a "Have" vs a have not- How would that change the idea of "WHO" jesus is to you?
Matthew is the only gospel to give an account of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus fleeing to Egypt. I think I read that historically, this may not have actually happened, considering the Herod that is refered to in Matthew died before Jesus was born. Matthew was writing for Jews and this story of Jesus fleeing to Jesus is reminiscent of the Israel's history. Jesus also fulfills the story of the Babylonian exile. Matthew writes to say Jesus is a way to fulfill Jewish hopes.

Read more in this link:

page 138 http://books.google.com/books?id=SXB...sult#PPA138,M1

I don't think it really matters a whole lot to who Jesus is as far as I'm concerned. It's what he did in his adulthood that is significant.
post #6 of 31
To be honest, it would make more sense to me if Jesus did grow up with a bit of money. From a biblical point of view it states that Jesus was the second Moses...

Moses grew up rich and with education---> and led the Israelites out of physical slavery from Egypt

Jesus grows up well to do leads us out of religious slavery

I guess I'm coming from the culture of poverty theory.
post #7 of 31
I do think it matters who He was as a child growing up, otherwise what He did as an adult really does not have a foundation.

He went to Egypt as a very young child (somewhere between 30 days and 2 yrs) as they fled from Bethleham. (And even though only Matthew records this account, that does not mean it was all imagined up in the authors mind.)

He would have had plenty to live on in Egypt as the wise men had given them treasures when they came. His father also probably learned a lot as a carpenter there (but that is just my assumption). They returned to Israel, and subsequently Galilee, before the age of 12. Since he was at the temple at age 12.

I don't think he was "rich", but I also don't think he was "dirt poor". He was a working class person from a working class family. (Or would that be tradesmen class?) Anyways, that is what I see as Biblical as well as realistic.

Quote:
From a biblical point of view it states that Jesus was the second Moses
Please state source for this. I can't find it.

I know Jesus was called the Second Adam in 1 Corinthians, but have no source for the "Second Moses".

Jesus, being the Second Adam, was representing that all "New Life" would begin in Him, as all "original life" began in Adam.
post #8 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidzaplenty View Post
I do think it matters who He was as a child growing up, otherwise what He did as an adult really does not have a foundation.

He went to Egypt as a very young child (somewhere between 30 days and 2 yrs) as they fled from Bethleham. (And even though only Matthew records this account, that does not mean it was all imagined up in the authors mind.)

He would have had plenty to live on in Egypt as the wise men had given them treasures when they came. His father also probably learned a lot as a carpenter there (but that is just my assumption). They returned to Israel, and subsequently Galilee, before the age of 12. Since he was at the temple at age 12.

I don't think he was "rich", but I also don't think he was "dirt poor". He was a working class person from a working class family. (Or would that be tradesmen class?) Anyways, that is what I see as Biblical as well as realistic.


Please state source for this. I can't find it.

I know Jesus was called the Second Adam in 1 Corinthians, but have no source for the "Second Moses".

Jesus, being the Second Adam, was representing that all "New Life" would begin in Him, as all "original life" began in Adam.

Jenny - Kidzaplenty, Did you happen to watch the Frontline program about this topic which I linked on the first post? It give further information which might answer your questions.
post #9 of 31
I did watch most of it, (I plan on finishing it soon, I really enjoy archeology, and these are really interesting).

What I find interesting is how they take what the Bible says, in some instances, and counter it with supposition and theory. (Like the idea that He was not born in Nazareth but raised in Galilee. The Bible is very clear He was raised in Galilee, and since it does not really say when they came back from Egypt, He could have been there from a very early age. But they can give no reason to assume that He was not born in Nazareth other than their assumptions with no basis.)

I know the Bible is the Word of God. Litterally. So while they suppose this or that, they have no reasons to do so other than just guessing or theorizing. I would not take someone's educated guess over the written Word. And what they have proof of, does not contradict the Bible at all.

But then, I guess I just always held a different view of Jesus than some. Most of what they suggest Jesus was like or grew up like, I have always believe it to be that way. And I am not surprised that they assume He spoke three languages. It would have likely been so.

Thanks for the links, BTW. I am really enjoying checking out all the information. This stuff facinates me.
post #10 of 31
Its not stated "Second Moses" there are many comparisons of Jesus and Moses
I use biblegateway.com. its a useful tool.

Moses brought - Law
Jesus brought- Grace
post #11 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidzaplenty View Post
I know the Bible is the Word of God. Litterally. So while they suppose this or that, they have no reasons to do so other than just guessing or theorizing. I would not take someone's educated guess over the written Word. And what they have proof of, does not contradict the Bible at all.
How do you know the Bible is the literal Word of God? How would the writer of Matthew know that Jesus went to Egypt? The gospel was written some 40 -70 years after Jesus's death and resurrection. Who exactly wrote this gospel and who and how did the translations that ultimately led to the Bible you are reading today? Could the nonprofessional scribes perhaps altered the wording to suit their purposes? Could perhaps this writing, since it was directed to Jews, been enhanced with an analogy to Israel's history that Jews could relate?
I don't know.

Why wasn't this mentioned in Mark if it is so important? From my limited knowledge, Mark was the first gospel written and served as the basis for Matthew and Luke.
post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzukimom View Post
How do you know the Bible is the literal Word of God? How would the writer of Matthew know that Jesus went to Egypt? The gospel was written some 40 -70 years after Jesus's death and resurrection. Who exactly wrote this gospel and who and how did the translations that ultimately led to the Bible you are reading today? Could the nonprofessional scribes perhaps altered the wording to suit their purposes? Could perhaps this writing, since it was directed to Jews, been enhanced with an analogy to Israel's history that Jews could relate?
I don't know.

Why wasn't this mentioned in Mark if it is so important? From my limited knowledge, Mark was the first gospel written and served as the basis for Matthew and Luke.

Some people (myself included) have FAITH that the Bible is the literal word of God. We believe that the words written down were inspired by God and penned by man. My dh has done a lot of research into the methods of scribes. The scribes who copied the scriptures were under very strict supervision and were not allowed to differentiate. There is a reason that the dead sea scrolls are pretty much the same verse as we see today. It hasn't changed.

You are welcome to argue otherwise, it doesn't change my belief or Faith. As my beliefs probably won't change your cynicism.
post #13 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DahliaRW View Post
Some people (myself included) have FAITH that the Bible is the literal word of God. We believe that the words written down were inspired by God and penned by man. My dh has done a lot of research into the methods of scribes. The scribes who copied the scriptures were under very strict supervision and were not allowed to differentiate. There is a reason that the dead sea scrolls are pretty much the same verse as we see today. It hasn't changed.

You are welcome to argue otherwise, it doesn't change my belief or Faith. As my beliefs probably won't change your cynicism.
I'm not at all interested in changing your beliefs or faith. I also don't feel I am cynical. I am asking quesitons.

The earliest scribes wrote down the oral stories of Jesus and his teachings. The Christian faith was just beginning and they still used OT scriptures. It wasn't until years after Jesus died that his followers decided to record their remembrances. These first scribes were not necessarily the Jewish scribes of the sort that wrote the documents in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Later on I know the scribes were monks who adhered to great accuracy. But the first to write the gospels? Do you ever question how they can remember so well? I can hardly remember what I did last week! I suppressed those questions for years because I knew if I found the answers it might rock my world.
Then I read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product...R3S9L9RZMO85IK

Read some of the reviews and if you're interested in more, read the book.
post #14 of 31
When one is thinking of passing stories down from one person to another, they tend to put it into context of modern day "gossip", it changing with each telling.

But history is full of cultures that passed oral records down, word for word, careful not to alter or omit any of it. So, it is not so surprising that this happened here until they penned their words accurately. Additionally, it was inspired by God, or "God breathed". Therefore, the accuracy is based on what God had them write.

Also, the in just the four Gospels, there is minimal amount of words compared to the entire life that Jesus led. So, it is reasonable for four different accounts to contain different stories and different events. That does not mean that any of them are wrong or even out of order. They were each written by different people and for different audiences. So therefore their focus would not have necessarily been on the same thing, so their telling would have been different. And the amount of works Jesus did was so much that it would not be contained in any book, if any book had attempted to catch everything. He had three years worth of life to record, that is 36 months, roughly 156 wks or 1,100 days. And His days were packed solid of constant ministry. And the four writers captured only a snap shot of that life and penned it into 89 chapters.

It would be no different that if I told "my" story to different audiences. I am more "medically minded" when I speak to an OB about my birth history. I am more "naturally & AP" minded when I speak to my MDC crowd. I am more "fun" minded when I speak to my children. I am more emotional when I am speaking to my DH.

Yet, I am 100% accurate for each and every version. I just may leave this or that out when speaking to a certain group, if it was unnecessary information to them or would make no sense to them. I may use different words to describe the same thing depending on who I am speaking to (like children verses OB). So, just because the Gospels are not identical, nor do they have all the same "stories", that does not make them any less accurate than my own "story".
post #15 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidzaplenty View Post
When one is thinking of passing stories down from one person to another, they tend to put it into context of modern day "gossip", it changing with each telling.

But history is full of cultures that passed oral records down, word for word, careful not to alter or omit any of it. So, it is not so surprising that this happened here until they penned their words accurately. Additionally, it was inspired by God, or "God breathed". Therefore, the accuracy is based on what God had them write.

Also, the in just the four Gospels, there is minimal amount of words compared to the entire life that Jesus led. So, it is reasonable for four different accounts to contain different stories and different events. That does not mean that any of them are wrong or even out of order. They were each written by different people and for different audiences. So therefore their focus would not have necessarily been on the same thing, so their telling would have been different. And the amount of works Jesus did was so much that it would not be contained in any book, if any book had attempted to catch everything. He had three years worth of life to record, that is 36 months, roughly 156 wks or 1,100 days. And His days were packed solid of constant ministry. And the four writers captured only a snap shot of that life and penned it into 89 chapters.

It would be no different that if I told "my" story to different audiences. I am more "medically minded" when I speak to an OB about my birth history. I am more "naturally & AP" minded when I speak to my MDC crowd. I am more "fun" minded when I speak to my children. I am more emotional when I am speaking to my DH.

Yet, I am 100% accurate for each and every version. I just may leave this or that out when speaking to a certain group, if it was unnecessary information to them or would make no sense to them. I may use different words to describe the same thing depending on who I am speaking to (like children verses OB). So, just because the Gospels are not identical, nor do they have all the same "stories", that does not make them any less accurate than my own "story".

Good explanation.
post #16 of 31
Interesting segments. Things like that help me to see the Bible in 3-D, as it were. It's interesting to think of what Jesus was like in his regular person-hood! As for his social class, I do remember hearing it suggested somewhere that the reason the soldiers cast lots for his garments was because they were too nice to tear into pieces.

They mentioned that there was no middle class in those days, just like there's really no middle class in a lot of countries nowadays. Hmmm..... I'd like to know more about that! I know that when I've travelled to places like China and Mexico, things I'd read in the Bible make way more sense than they do when I'm forgetting how different it was. (If that makes sense!)

Thinking about your question hkowell1
post #17 of 31
Suzukimom:

Thanks so much for posting those. I've watched the first one and will try and watch the second part tomorrow.

I totally these things.

Did anybody used to watch "Mysteries of the Bible" on A&E like a gazillion years ago? I used to own all of the VHS tapes back in the early 90s.

Peace.


Oh...re the question, "If he did grow up as a "Have" vs a have not- How would that change the idea of "WHO" jesus is to you?"

I don't think it would. I don't think it would change his message, and that is what is key to Jesus IMHO. St. Francis of Assissi grow up extremely wealthy, as did Siddhartha Gautama, yet I don't think either of their messages were affected (in a negative way) by their wealth. If any thing, it gave them insight into both lifestyles.
post #18 of 31
Suzukimom,
thanks for the link. I had not thought about the gospels being metaphorical before. It gave me some new insight to the message. It is seems that it could have been a "code" almost. I've been struggling with the inconsistency for a while with the 4 gospels, this really did help to clear some up for me. I've heard many people tell me about dates and this and that...this makes much more sense and it doesn't take me down a road of far fetched theology.
post #19 of 31
See, this is where I find it wrong. The Bible does not say the Gospels are metaphorical, they recount it as "history". Therefore, it is not accurate to just assume they are metaphorical or "good stories" shared to just help us understand.

Otherwise, if the words were just made up stories, not fact, then the entire book could be called into question of validity. And if it were not fact, then the entire Christian beliefs would be based on lies and therefore, useless. Further, based on ficticious stories and an infactual basis, Christianity would be no different than any other religion.

And Chrisianity is not the same as every other religion. It is different. It is unique. It is built on fact. It is built on the Word of the Living God. Not on false stories to bring gladness to our hearts and to make a point.
post #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidzaplenty View Post
Christianity would be no different than any other religion.

And Chrisianity is not the same as every other religion. It is different. It is unique. It is built on fact. It is built on the Word of the Living God. Not on false stories to bring gladness to our hearts and to make a point.
While, it is obvious that Christianity is different from other religions (as every religion is different from each other), this is where Christianity becomes offensive, imo. I simply can not live in a place (emotionally, mentally, spiritually) that believes that there is only one way to be. It contradicts every commonsense observance I have made during my life here on earth.

kidzaplenty, is it really your desire to have everyone be a Christian?



Back to topic, I really enjoy discussing Jesus as a historical figure. I remember reading somewhere that he was mentioned to wear a seamless robe which in those times referred to a wealthy, educated status. Or maybe it was a gift? Of course, just b/c he was into helping and advocating for the poor doesn't mean he was from a poor family.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › Historical Jesus: Where and When He Grew Up