The Childhood of Jesus...

[Stranger]

Anything that can be known of Jesus in his childhood years is written in the Greek "gospel" of Luke. There are several other very interesting gospels written about Jesus in his childhood and teenage years, but they are not accepted as inspired, only the story of the Greek writer made it into the NT canon. I did an analysis of it and I'm deeply disturbed by the seemingly anti-Jewish flavor of the story.

Luke 2:40-52 (NIV) And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.
41 Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.
42 When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom.
43 After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.
44 Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends.
45 When they did not find him, they went back to Jerusalem to look for him.
46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.
47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.
48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49 "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"
50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
51 Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. But his mother treasured all these things in her heart.
52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

We see in the story that by age 12 Jesus seems to be known to sneak away from his Jewish parents without telling them where to find him. When this event took place his parents didn't miss him for a full day.

I find it so strange that his parents didn’t want to MAKE SURE about the safety of their son after they started their long journey back home from a strange big place. This is a clear case of gross parental negligence.

According to the report Miriam (a.k.a. Virgin Mary) and Joseph (a.k.a. Saint Joseph) felt very comfortable travelling back home without Jesus. Apparently, they must have enjoyed an overwhelming spiritual experience at the Temple that made them forget about their son Jesus for a full day. How negligent can they be? You do that today in our society and you end up in jail!

After one long day of travel Jesus' parents return to Jerusalem. It must have taken them another day on the road before getting back to Jerusalem. We don't know if the rest of the relatives went back to Jerusalem with them. In Jerusalem they spent 3 days looking for the kid. They found him at the temple. Obviously the alleged "house of my father" was the last place in the world that they expected to find him. Jesus doesn’t seem to have given them any clue that he was interested in any Scripture training. He had no such pattern previous to this event. Not even a maternal heart like Mary's have guessed that boy Jesus wanted to have some Bible study at the temple.

I'm surprised at the attitude of the teachers at the temple that after 5 days they did not seem to have questioned the kid about his parents. Jesus was not a teenager yet.

I'm surprised that nobody asked Mary and Joseph about Jesus' whereabouts. If any did, I can't picture Mary dismissing the question with, "oh, he is probably with someone else." What kind of a mother would have that attitude?

It is strange that the alleged author of the Scriptures needs to be trained in the Scriptures that he allegedly inspired like the rest of us.

Maybe Jesus was not fully trained in HaTorah at home. He seemed to have acted in full contempt of the 5th word about honoring one's parents. He made them look like morons for not knowing that he needs to be at his "father's house" to learn the Scriptures. This is what I read. Jesus attitude is so far out that it is no joke. Nobody has the right to break the law for "spiritual" reasons, or do we?

Was Jesus afraid to ask his parents permission to stay at Jerusalem to study the Scriptures? Maybe he thought that they would not let him stay. So he stayed there without asking them for permission.

Jesus spent a total of 5 (i.e. five) days in the temple learning from the teachers and I wonder who fed him. Where was he spending the nights? Did everybody agree with him about splitting from his parents without telling them? We don't know what white lie he must have told everybody.

The fact that his parents after were looking for him for 3 days in the wrong places makes me believe that they were awfully ignorant about everything related to Jesus "mission." Or maybe the Greek writer of this "gospel" is giving Jesus' Jewish parents a bad jive just for the record. This is a glitch that some Bible versions try to play down.

Apart for making his parents look like morons he must have caused them a certain degree of pain and suffering while they were looking for him. Unless the Jews of Jesus' times were of a different breed I question Jesus attitude about not telling his own parents about his intention of staying at the temple to study the Scriptures. This kind of behavior of hurting people violates all kinds of other commandments in the Law. Even the animals that are sacrificed do not undergo so much pain and suffering as Jesus' parents did in real life looking for him.

The pain continued on for a long time after that too because Jesus never made his intentions plain to his parents. His mother kept all these painful experiences in her heart. It says that they didn’t understand. Obviously the "greatest teacher the world ever knew" had a sadistic way of keeping people wondering in the dark, too, especially his own parents. In fact they even thought that he was crazy.

Most Bible versions say that Mary KEPT these things in her heart. What, if not all "these things," is open for interpretation. However, some versions like the NIV does some manicuring saying that she TREASURED these things in her heart. Was Mary known to be into some weird masochistic lifestyle?

Mary doesn’t seem to have a good record of controlling her son. Jesus also had some harsh words of correction for his mother at the wedding feast in Cana. Jesus never called her "mother," but woman. Jesus called her Jewish mother woman in Cana and at the crucifixion. Did Mary really treasure that in her heart? Jesus never obeyed his mother when she sent word that she wanted to see him. He used the occasion to disassociate himself from her Jewish mother. Even at the cross Jesus used the occasion of his last breath to disassociate himself from her Jewish mother telling everybody that she was someone else's mother. Did Mary really treasure that in her heart, too? Some Bible versions smooth it out by making Jesus say "dear woman" instead of plain "woman" like in the Greek MSS (i.e. manuscripts).

It is so funny that is no joke that a large segment of Christianity makes Mary the one closest to Jesus heart and the best contact in Heaven to get presidential pardons granted. Actually, the NT record states that Mary had a hard time trying to control his son Jesus.

Actually, the whole story doesn't square with the facts in the Tanakh. Kids are supposed to learn the Scripture from their parents, not from a Shabbot School teacher. That is what HaTorah teaches. The NT is like a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. The more I read it the more I am convinced about it. I wish to hear an intelligent answer to the questions I'm raising in this posting.

[Thummim]

Hello Stranger, I see that you've discovered the author. Authors like to tell you what they want you to believe, often removed from the facts. The gospels are written many years after the facts that are represented within them. At 70+years, my mind wouldn't be very clear either. Most of the writings of the authors are more about their opinions then history. These authors believe in their messiah but haven't truly invited JEWs to participate. I award black crosses to verses of the NT that I think have cost JEWish lives. I keep a list of them beside Esther 3:15. The reason that JEWs so reject christianity is that the NT really doesn't invite them to except it. Ingesting the NT is like eating a bad piece of meat. No matter how hard you try to swallow, the meat just keeps coming up again. This is why (jesus) will never be excepted as messiah by most JEWs. It just hurts to much. The NT often picks apart JEWish traditions. An assault on these values is an assault on being JEWish. ......Michael

[Sandy]

Hi thummim
Here is another slant on the meaning of some things written in the Greek Scriptures concerning Iesous/Jesus.

It is widely accepted, and the Christmas cards keep telling us that Jesus was born in a stable, but the gospels do not say that. There is no stable mentioned in any authorised gospel. The nativity is not mentioned at all in Mark or John, and Matthew says quite plainly that Jesus was born in a house.

So, where did the stable come from? It came from a misinterpretation of the Gospel of Luke, which relates that Jesus was laid in a manger; and a manger was then, and still is, nothing more than an animal feeding box. One only has to study the society of the time to recognise the fact that it was perfectly common for mangers to be used as cradles, and they were often brought indoors for that very purpose.

So, why has it been presumed that this particular manger was in a stable? Because the English translations of Luke tell us, "there was no room in the inn". However, the pre-English translations of Luke do not talk about any inn; the manuscript of Luke does not say there was no room in the inn. It actually states that there was no provision in the room. As mentioned in Matthew, Jesus was born in a house and, as correctly translated, Luke reveals that Jesus was laid in a manger, an animal feeding box, because there was no cradle provided in the room.

If we are on the subject of Jesus' birth, I think we ought to look at the chronology here. The two gospels that deal with the nativity, actually give us two completely different dates for the event.

According to Matthew, Jesus was born in the reign of King Herod, Herod the Great, who debated the event with the Magi and ordered the slaying of the infants. Well, Herod died in 4 BC, and we know from Matthew that Jesus was born before that. And because of that, most standard concordant Bibles and history books imply that Jesus' date of birth was 5 BC, because that is before 4 BC and Herod was still reigning, so that's a good date.

However, in Luke, a completely different date is given. Luke does not tell us about King Herod or anything like that. Luke says that Jesus was born while Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, the same year that the Emperor Augustus implemented the national census, the census which Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be a part of.

There are relevant points to mention here, and they are both recorded in the first-century Jewish annals (such as The Antiquities of the Jews). Cyrenius was appointed Governor of Syria in AD 6. This was the very year recorded of the national census, put into operation by Cyrenius and ordered by Emperor Augustus. As Luke tells us, it was the first and only ever-recorded census for the region.

So Jesus was born before 4 BC and in AD 6. Is this a mistake? No, not necessarily, because in the way it was originally portrayed we are actually looking at two quite specific births.

Both gospels are correct. We are looking at Jesus' physical birth, and we are looking at Jesus' community birth. These were defined at the time as the first and second births, and they applied specifically to people of particular groups and certainly to dynastic heirs.

Second births for boys were performed by way of a ritual of rebirth. It was very physical: they were wrapped in swaddling clothes and born again from their mother's womb. It was a physical ceremony. Second births for boys took place at the age of twelve.

Therefore, we know that Jesus was twelve in AD 6. Unfortunately, the latter-day transcribers of Luke completely missed the significance of this, and it was their endeavour to somehow tie in this event about swaddling clothes and being born then, that led to this mention of the nonsense about the stable.

So if Jesus was twelve in AD 6, this means that he was born in 7 BC, which ties in perfectly well with the Matthew account that he was born during the latter reign of King Herod.

But we now discover what appears to be another anomaly, because Luke says later in the gospel that when Jesus was twelve years old, his parents, Mary and Joseph, took him to Jerusalem for the day. They then left the city to walk home for a full day's journey with their friends before they realised that Jesus was not in their party. They then returned to Jerusalem to find him at the temple, discussing his father's business with the doctors. Well, what sort of parents can wander for a whole day in the desert, without knowing their twelve-year-old son is not there?

The fact is that the whole point of the passage has been missed. There was a wealth of difference between a twelve-year-old son and a son in his twelfth year. When a son, on completing his initial twelve years-that is to say, when he was actually on his thirteenth birthday-was initiated into the community at the ceremony of his second birth, he was regarded as commencing his first year. It was the original root of the modern bar mitzvah. His next initiation, the initiation of manhood in the community, took place in his ninth year, when he was twenty-one; the root of the age-twenty-one privilege. Various degrees followed, and the next major test was in his twelfth year (at the end of his twelfth year) at the age of twenty-four, on his twenty-fourth birthday. When Jesus remained at the temple in his twelfth year, he was actually twenty-four. Not surprising then that they expected him not perhaps to be wandering around the desert with them!

So, his discussion with the doctors related to his next degree. He would have discussed this at the time with the spiritual father, the father of the community; and indeed, he did. It was the father's business he discussed, his father's business. The father of this era is recorded. The spiritual father of the community at that time was Simeon the Essene, and if we look back a few verses in Luke, we see that it was exactly this man, the just and devout Simeon, who legitimated Jesus under the law.

This was taken from a lecture given by Laurence Gardner.

[Thummim]

Shalom Sandy and Stranger. ----Mat.23:35; [That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of righteous Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. ] Now hasn't the author gotten his Zacharias wrong? 2 Chr.24:20 gives us this story, however this Zachariah is not the son of Barchias! This author is accusing the prophet Zechariah, son of Berechiah (Zech.1:1) of something that he is not at all connected to, making him guilty of all the innocent blood of the righteous that is spilt. The author doesn't understand that it is Joash, the king of Judah, that is responsible for this event. Doesn't the author know the difference between the priesthood and the throne of the king, in the telling of this story? The priesthood, to which the scribes and pharisees belong, are not guilty of their own slaughter. Didn't the author even read this story before commenting on it? This is the kind of righteousness that christians have used upon JEWs. They are accused of spilling innocent blood, which they didn't, (Mat.27:25) and made guilty of all. It seems that the author is damn disrespectful of the righteous to me, with christianity pouring out the same injustice upon JEWs. .....Michael

[Stranger]

Shabbat shalom, Sandy,

I'm glad that you are one of the few ones daring to say something on the subject. You are quoting L. Gardner who I imagine is a Christian apologist trying to make sense out of Christianity by rewriting history. I have the impression that you missed the point that I wanted to make. Regardless of Jesus' age, he is not allowed to be disrespectful of his parents. As you know, HaTorah doesn't allow that under any circumstance. HaTorah teaches that the older the parents get the more respect they are due. The fact as narrated by Luke the Greek companion of Paul is that Jesus kept his parents in the dark about himself. He also inflicted a great deal of physical pain and mental anguish to his parents by not telling them his intention of staying behind in Jerusalem "TO LISTEN TO" and to "TO ASK QUESTIONS." Jesus was not discussing anything with anyone. Nothing in that writing tells me that he was discussing anything. It seems to me that Luke is more honest than a lot of Christians today. Although I believe that Luke made up the story to impress on the Heathen Christians how spiteful, unconcerned and ignorant Jesus' Jewish parents were about him. That story was written before the Christians promoted Mary to the rank of "Mother of God." To me and to any other rational human being Luke's story is that Jesus stayed behind in the Temple TO LEARN and not to advance his personal views. No such report is given. Jesus is shown through the "gospels" always very disrespectful of his Jewish parents. I am not quoting Laurence Gardner. I'm quoting the NT as is.

John 2:1-10 (ASV) And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:
2 and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3 And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4 And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with you? mine hour is not yet come.
5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
6 Now there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews' manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece.
7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the ruler of the feast. And they bare it.
9 And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants that had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom,
10 and saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when [men] have drunk freely, [then] that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now.

There are a few bloopers in this story.

(1) The disrespect that Jesus had for his Jewish mother. He never ever called her "mother," but "woman." (2) Jesus said that his time was not up, but he did an undercover miracle, anyway. His time was not up for what? (3) The biggest blooper is in the poor choice of a "first" miracle. Anyone knowledgeable in the art of drinking wine knows that when you mix two distinguishably different kind of wines you end up vomiting all over! It is the inescapable call of nature. To me the biggest miracle here is that none is reported to have vomited at that kind of wine drinking. Although on a second thought, I believe that this story was made up to show how piggy were the Jews at wine drinking and how knowingly they cheat their guests on the quality of the wine that they serve in their feasts. Or, was Jesus a teaser?

I remember reading in some place that this was Jesus' wedding ceremony. I think that the Mormons go for that. In my view, the story is broken beyond repair. So any comments are welcome. Hey, maybe I'm wrong in my assessment.

Mark 3:21 (NIV) When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
Mark 3:31 (NIV) Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.
32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."
33 "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!
35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."

I'm presenting the above story in Old Shep's best tradition that of presenting the full context. In the story we see Jesus giving his family the impression that he was nuts. His mother calls him outside and Jesus is using the occasion to disassociate himself from her Jewish mother and his Jewish family. One honors one's parents by prioritizing any show of affection, not by rejecting them in favor of "whoever is with me."

Luke 8:19 (NIV) Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.
20 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."
21 He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice."

Matt 12:46 (NIV) While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.
47 Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
48 He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"
49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.
50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

In the above quotes Jesus is plainly disassociating himself from his Jewish mother and family. By example Jesus seems to be teaching that to be a Christian is more important than to recognize any family association. This new antinomial doctrine is obviously used as an excuse to break away from one's family on religious grounds. There is no such mitzvah in HaTorah!

John 19:26 (ASV) When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold, thy mother! And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own [home].

In his last breath of life Jesus is officially disassociating himself from his mother. He doesn’t call her "mother." He never did. Apparently the worship of Jesus mother as the "Mother of God" is an afterthought. Otherwise they would have placed her in a better light. Of the hundreds of litanies composed to the "Virgin Mary" none of them include a reference to her Jewish background.

Proverbs 23:22 * Listen to your father, who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old.

Proverbs 30:17 * "The eye that mocks a father, that scorns obedience to a mother, will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley, will be eaten by the vultures.

Deuteronomy 27:16 * "Cursed is the man who dishonors his father or his mother." Then all the people shall say, "so be it!"

In my humble opinion, I do not believe that a HaTorah observant Jew who feels to be HaMaschiach would possibly be that disrespectful, disobedient and scornful to his Jewish parents, especially to his mother. I can't imagine Mary sending for his son and instead of obeying her the son publicly reprimands her by disassociating himself from her and saying that his true mother and family are those who go along with him… All the "gospel" writers agree. They all report Jesus disrespectfully disassociating himself from his mother. Any comments?

BTW, The story that "there was no room at the inn" was probably made up to show how dispiteful of Jesus were the Jews that he was forced to be born in a stable outside with the animals. I agree with most of your comments. Although there is so much fiction written in the NT that it is no joke.

Shabbat shalom, Micheal, Thanks for your comment about the mix up, but I wish to stick to one subject at the time, otherwise I may loose track of my questions.