We can sort through and learn who Jesus was through a few different sources. The most abundant source is of course the scripture. But it’s not by far the only source. For example, just the fact that he was Jewish tells us a lot. His family and friends probably called him Yeshua bar Yosef, which basically meant Jesus son of Joseph. He grew up mostly in the village of Nazareth, in the province of Galilee. That was the back woods of the Middle East at the time, and far from anything the Romans would call civilized.
One of the most significant things to understand about Yeshua is his life as a peasant. He is identified in the gospel of Mark as a tekton -- Greek for hand worker. He would’ve been trained to this trade by Yosef himself. They also would’ve traveled across Galilee together looking for work.
The first most apparent life lesson to the boy would’ve been the inequality of the poor. Life is not fair, and we all learn that from a young age, but in Yeshua’s time this was disproportionately the case.
He would’ve seen the Romans squeezing the people for every bit of power they could, then repaying what they got by torturing and murdering the people. He would’ve seen the priests who were meant to be the shepherds guarding and guiding God’s people, instead abusing their authority as well. And he would’ve seen frequent rebellions formed by citizens, who wanted to take that power back, but instead got a lot of innocent people killed and drove the Romans to tighten their grip.
Also, in Luke's view, Yeshua could comment authoritatively on scripture ever since he was a boy. He recites a story probably told to him by Mary, about when he was in the temple at age twelve. He was later found discussing scripture with the teachers in the temple.
What are your thoughts on the childhood of Jesus? What else do we know about his upbringing?
Recommend
Comments (76)
There is nothing in scripture to support this view which is the usual Marxist-Socialist re-write of all that is sacred.
And there is everything in scripture to refute it.
Jesus was a man of peace, not a Jewish Zealot.
"Blessed are the peace makers. Blessed are the poor. Blessed are the persecuted."
Those are not the words of someone embittered by worldly injustice. They are the words of God who promises eternal Divine Justice.
Heresies that deny Jesus' divinity were common from the very beginning. The Church has always fought against them with sound teaching and uncompromising adherence to the truth.
And saying Yeshua instead of Jesus is multiculturalism run amok. It is customary to say and spell names according to the native language of a people. There is nothing special about Hebrew, Latin or Greek.
I'm actually a bit disapointed, because you kept my opening, but then cut off before I got into the real focus of the post. But then, it was a rather long post, so if you have a character limit then that's understandable.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - "There is nothing in scripture to support this view which is the usual Marxist-Socialist re-write of all that is sacred. And there is everything in scripture to refute it." In accordence with, 1 Peter 3: 15:
Daniel 7:15-28, Matthew 2: 22-23, Matthew 21: 11, John 18: 5, Psalm 22:6, 13; 69:10, Isaiah 49:7, 53:3; Micah 5:1, Acts 5:33-37, John 1: 4-6, Mark 6: 3, Mt 13: 55, Luke 2: 51-52, Mathew 7: 24-27, Mathew 20: 1-16, Luke 6: 20-22, Mark 1: 21-22, Luke: 2:39-52, Proverbs: 3:5-6, Hebrews 4: 12, John 8: 31-32, John 16: 13-14,
Nice! Mary hid in her heart some amazingly freaky stuff about young Jesus. Shepherds and kings show up with wacky stories of her baby's divinity and royalty...not to mention a virgin birth.
...and right, talk about squeezing the people, all boys Jesus' age in his birth town are killed by the local authority.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - dude! The man is exploring elements of his faith honestly and vulnerably. Perhaps you'd care to join him there...vulnerably share your hopes, experiences, joy, and pain of your own real life faith journey...rather than the well worn and uninspired bit of presumption that perhaps you choose to hide behind. And it occurs to me maybe you're unable to go there right now, but gosh what you chose to offer doesn't look like an opening for loving relationship.
Hai, I'm G, sisters and I'm about to come all over your faces XD
All we "know" is in the gospels, and they are suspected to have been written by people who knew the apostles at best. In other words, hearsay upon hearsay. Stories passed down. That is all we have about Jesus' everyday life and there is hardly anything there. Anything outside the gospels is absolute pure speculation and the gospels themselves are more religious/spiritual text than history.
It seems to me that to focus on his person rather than his message is to draw close to idolatry. Yes, it is possible to make an idol of God.
@god_stories@xanga - Just as a defense for Mr Comeback, he's starting at what I've identified as at least seven false presumtions, an emotional attachment to a particular political system, and his own pride. we are all susceptible to such forces, even you and I. I thought replying to him with some of the scripture that I used in writing that quarter of the post was enough of a response to him. After all, that is what this is supposed to be about, right? Jesus/Yeshua, not our own pride.
But I do thank you for giving a defense. That was really nice.
@Nidan - Thanks...and that sounds like wisdom!
@Lovegrove@xanga - 'It seems to me that to focus on his person rather than his message is to draw close to idolatry. Yes, it is possible to make an idol of God.'
That's interesting...can you say more? And here's some context for my asking. My life is much better having known the 'person' of Jesus. His message is helpful, but its actual relationship that is most interesting and helpful to me. And for just a bit more context. God chose to come Himself to earth in the form of a human being...to enter the story being lived communally by humanity. The Bible is a story told by those involved in these amazing experiences. The Gospels are commonly agreed to either have had first hand relationship with Jesus (John and possibly Mark, who many believe may have been one of the 70 disciples), or had relationship with those that knew Jesus (Matthew and Luke)....not to mention Paul...via a vision, who wrote much else of the NT.
Just interested in your perspective that seems so very different than my own. I wonder if I'm missing something that I should be aware.
This is a very interesting post to me. Thank-you for all your research and
effort you put in. I must admit I am completely dumfounded with the type of
comments you are getting. These comments seem to have absolutely nothing to do
with your post.
I do not agree with everything you said but most. I would contend with your view that
the Romans thought of the Jews being uncivilized at the time of Jesus.
Their country was based on the Greek civilization and the Hellenist of the Greeks
would have been common information among the educated Romans. Plus many Jews
such as Josephus the historian were famous among the Palestinian stationed
Roman officers and soldiers having risen to the highest educated circles in
Roman Palestine. So, I think it would be a stretch to say the Jews were
thought of as uncivilized. In fact also consider this: The Jews had the most
advanced religion of all in compared to the propopolymorphic characteristics of the common Roman Gods. The
Jew's God was more mystical, and more authoritative while the Roman God's looked
like nothing more than glorified overly exaggerated comic book heroes. If
anything the roman's took great pride in the advancement of the Jewish
civilization possibly trying to take credit for many things they had nothing to
do with.
I do agree that one of the first lessons would have been the harsh relatives
of being poor. Another first lesson would have been growing up as a child in
which the parents, Mary and Joseph would have been very frightened if someone
found out about Jesus being born of a virgin. What I am saying is the failure of
Jesus being executed by Herod Sr. would have left a long term almost PTSD type of symptoms always thinking someone from the educated
religious elite (Pharisees and Sadducees) would come back and execute Jesus,
their beloved miracle baby. For this reason Mary and Joseph must have many
stressful all night conversations while Jesus was peacefully sleeping.
Yes,I agree we can learn a lot by studying the historical context of our
Savior. Yes, Jesus was a person that was unconcerned with the materialism of
this world. Yes, Jesus seems to have come from at best a working class
background. I wouldn't say pheasant but I can see how you would derive that
conclusion, and these things are important to be discussed and considered.
@god_stories@xanga - Religious language always needs deciphering. You don't "know" Christ. To talk of a relationship with a spiritual being as if he is your pal you have a drink with down the pub is misleading and only suggest to those who don't know the code,that you are offf your trolley, so to speak. No offence meant. And it is not a "relationship" when it is all one-sided, unless you are saying that you chat to him like you do with said pal in the pub. That said, lets continue.
I know the Trinitarian doctrine. I just have my troubles with those who push one "persona" over the others, and the more Protestant of the protestants tend to raise either Jesus or the Holy Ghost over the Father, which makes me uneasy and makes the group doing so sound like a cult. But that's just me. :)
My understanding of the gospels is that the authors are unknown or at least unproven. The earliest is Mark, said to date from c70, that is, near forty years after Jesus' execution. To stay with Mark, my understanding is that ascribing to Mark himself was first mentioned by Irenius in the 2nd century. That's not good enough to show actual authorship, but I digress as is my wont. In other words, I do not believe any gospel can be firmly ascribed to the author as stated, but I would counter balance myself by saying oit does not matter. It is the spiritual content that is of concern.
Paul the name changer, the real founder of Christianity, probably did write his letters. However, he never met Jesus and indeed, appears to have no interest in the man. Paul seems to be totally preoccupied with the Risen Christ. He seems to start from the idea that Jesus is equal to God, or at least stresses that over all other things.
I am one of those struggling to hold on to Christianity and at this stage am sure I would be counter amongst the heretics. I do have a tendency, especially with myself, to put people in boxes. "All the better to see you with" so to speak. My own self-deception changes according to the season and whether I have a headache or not. At present, I count myself amongst the heretics, not the pagans or the Jews or the Musslemen or whatever other labels apply to western religion. A reluctant agnostic I suppose.
I see the rise of the concept of the Trinity to be a tale of woe and murder, indeed, I suspect it was one of the causes of the rise of Islam, but that is just a view on history.
The first of the early church fathers recorded as using the word Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late second century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia). It seems to have grown from there.
In a nutshell, I am in a difficult position. I hold the bible as a set of guidelines, jumbled up with all sorts of early writings, some inspired, some not so, some mixed. However, I still use it as a guide for what is essential. I don't see the Trinity in it.
Confusing enough for you? :)
@Lovegrove@xanga - Thanks for honestly exploring with me...and like you I only have my own experience and research (I'm convinced no one has a lock on truth). So it seems the concept of Trinity has caused you discomfort...sorry for that. I've not explored that concept much other than to understand there's a person of God named and with some characteristics of Father (somehow encompassing both masculine and feminine), and Jesus who walked the earth as a human and acknowledged Himself to be Christ and son of God, and the Holy Spirit who Jesus somehow 'released' through His death.
So I've experienced stuff that the Bible offers me some language for me to fit it into a reality. And I lean very much on trying to understand the concept of Gospel or good news...as if I (or anyone) would recognize what's offered as actually good. So a lot of my exploration of faith happens from that perspective. I clearly feel the limitation of finding guidelines to be 'good news'...my own bias. I see they are not without value, but they aren't enough to be helpful for me to live the life I hope to live.
I'm still not sure why exploring Jesus' story as a man is off-putting for you (just how I interpret what you've shared). It seems you are comfortable with the idea that the Bible is a set of guidelines, but perhaps not with the idea that God (any or all of the three persons) is relatable...in terms of an actual relationship with a being or 'person.' That's a reasonable conclusion if one has never had an actual experience of two-way relationship...seems to me.
I see many religions offer practical ways to invite people into relationship with God, eg creeds, weekly service, certain spiritual disciplines...and my personal bias is that they oversell by suggesting that following guidelines guarantees a result. And I personally hate buying something and finding out its totally less than what I expected!!
The God I've come to know is the one doing the wooing and the calling...and He seems to like me (love me even). That feels really good, and not burdensome .... way different than following guidelines. And so I can understand our different perspectives. Can you not relate to what I've said, ie are you thinking I'm off my trolley for example :)
@god_stories@xanga - Catholics explore the elements of faith as a matter of routine in such meditative prayers as the Rosary.
The Rosary is a prayer in which 20 individual scenes from the Gospels are examined. It is important that the disciple train himself to think with the mind of the Church, not with the modern, Marxist mind.
In so doing the disciple opens himself to Holy Spirit and becomes subject to the Gospel teachings. The way of thinking expressed by this post subjects the Gospel to the teachings of a particular political philosophy.
In so doing the disciple closes himself to the Holy Spirit and becomes subject to the world.
@Nidan - I looked at the scripture quotes you provided. Would you explain how even one of them has anything to do with your assertion that Jesus was shaped by the Marxist version of social injustice and why it is necessary or even acceptable for English speaking people to refer to Jesus as Yeshua, or Saint Joseph as Yosef.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - There is no way I could explain how scripture means what you want me to explain it means. I am generally open to discussing scripture with reasonable people, if you would like me to consider you reasonable you could start by showing me some reasoning.
I don't however argue on the internet with people who don't have an open mind, open heart, or at the very least an open bible. And that would be a good place to start. Open your bible, look up the passages I gave you (Which were directly from my notes on the post above) and any real questions you have, ask me.
You would find that you'll get farther doing that than putting words in my mouth and then tearing down the strawman you created. Now unless you say something inteligent, I think you and I are finished.
@Nidan - I made a comment. You furnished a collection of scripture quotes in response:
In accordence with, 1 Peter 3: 15:
Daniel 7:15-28, Matthew 2: 22-23, Matthew 21: 11, John 18: 5, Psalm 22:6, 13; 69:10, Isaiah 49:7, 53:3; Micah 5:1, Acts 5:33-37, John 1: 4-6, Mark 6: 3, Mt 13: 55, Luke 2: 51-52, Mathew 7: 24-27, Mathew 20: 1-16, Luke 6: 20-22, Mark 1: 21-22, Luke: 2:39-52, Proverbs: 3:5-6, Hebrews 4: 12, John 8: 31-32, John 16: 13-14,
I asked you to explain the scripture quotes because they don't seem to have any connection with the topic at hand.
Why is me asking you to explain yourself a sign of faulty reasoning?
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - Thanky you so very much for your thoughts. I actually specialized on the roman civilization during the Pax Romana in my history degree. While it is true there are a few intellectuals that the Romans may have respected to a limited degree, for the most part anything outside of Rome (and indeed the nobles considered of the inferior classes) was considered savage and uncivilized. There are a few good books on the subject that I could recommend if you would like.
It's not a difficult thing to understand I got the responses you asked about. People who are on shaky ground with their beliefs, are easily threatened by anything they see/hear/read that they perceive as a challenge to their beliefs, even if no such challenge was offered. Attacking the person or thing responsible for causing them to question that which they have an emotional attachment and placing them in the "them" category of their mind as opposed to the "us' category is far easier for to do than questioning the basis for their beliefs. I wrote extensively on that subject in the following post:
http://nidan.revelife.com/758297659/control-or-compassion/
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I did explain myself as far as I need to go with you. You just are unwilling to make any effort, toward understanding.
@nidan@xanga - Asking questions of you is my very sincere and valid effort at understanding what you are trying to say.
The fact is you can't answer my questions. And you are trying to blame me for that.I've done nothing to merit your very un-Christian incivility.
@nidan@xanga
- In many senses your right. One can only think that since they so easily
conquered little countries such as Israel," the Romans must have looked down on
them a little bit.
When I hear savages and uncivilized I always think of some distant
tribe in S. America or Africa with a spear in one hand, a bone in his nose and
eats monkey brains for dinner every day. maybe its just me but don't you think
what the Romans would have thought of as uncivilized at that time were the
tribes outside the limits of where the Roman empire stretched. for example like
the tribes up in say Russia, or Sweden or possibly the at that time unconquered
lands in Ireland, England.
I mean wouldn't they have thought of the lands they had already
conquered as yes, not as civilized as Rome itself, but never the less still a
lot more civilized then those Barbarians in Russia? Not saying I necessarily
disagree, just some thoughts for discussion.
Okay, I reread what you said again. I see where my thought process was
wrong. Your basically saying the Romans thought anyone that lived outside Rome
city limits were uncivilized.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga -
Why are you asking a Protestant to explain his scripture quotes when you know darn well you will not accept any of his teaching anyway? With such a heart of stone that you exhibit you think you are going to convince people to follow your Catholic ways? Are you incapable of looking up and reading scripture? You, my friend, are not a very good witness of Christ's love. Instead of bothering someone that has something to say you should write an article and submit it to Revelife. There are some that are tire of your BS and would like to just see you quit bothering people and open your bible and read it for yourself.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - Untrue my friend. You constantly pester people trying to rule over them like a little dictator and you need to repent of the way you treat people. You act like you are incapable of reading your own bible. He gave you the scripture and that is enough!
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - QUIT BOTHERING PEOPLE!
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - I don't know Nidan's religious persuasion. And I will accept any response that adheres to fact and reason regardless of who gives that response.
Nidan has all but admitted that he is unable to justify his use of scripture. In other words, he listed a bunch of scriptural references hoping that I would be too awed to question him.
The fact of the matter is that I've been around the block a few times and can recognize fraud when I see it.
@sometimestheycomebackanyway@xanga - I truly do not get it. Why did you say:
"Blessed are the peace makers. Blessed are the poor. Blessed are the persecuted."
Do you know something I do not know? If so I am sorry I made the comments I did but why are you bothering the gentlemen?
@RobertLeeRE@xanga - Ideologues are the people who don't want to be bothered. Just like the Pharisees didn't want to be bothered with Jesus and his disciples.
When it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ such fanaticism must always be "bothered" by authentic disciples who need do nothing more than ask for an explanation.