In the bible Jesus went from being about 12 years old to being close to 30. What happened to the missing 18 years and why?

quote:Originally posted by munchies:

In the bible Jesus went from being about 12 years old to being close to 30. What happened to the missing 18 years and why?

No idea.

Aleister Crowley talked about that sort of stuff in one of his books.

Apparently, a lot of the great religious leaders had some point in their life where they more or less fucked off, and came back and changed the world.

I don't really know if I believe that, I am a Christian, and Crowley is a little kooky, but its interesting to read. I might dig up a link when I get home.

Oh... other thing is, maybe fuck all happened in the intervening time?

Someones been getting their ideas from Kevin Smith films. Always a bad idea, for what it's worth.

well this is how it probably worked.

The birth story and his early childhood are probably bullshit. read all four gospels and you will see the differences of the birth account, 2 of them don't even include the birth story.

Think about jesus' life, he didn't start his ministry until he was about 30, that is why there is nothing recorded till that point. He was just a normal carpenter, so no one would care about him, when he started his ministry is when he gained followers, thusly that's when he would be remembered.

This is alos further proof that the birth accounts are bullshit. If jesus really were born in the way that it is depicted in the bible, with kings and sheperds and the local government knowing about it, don't you think he would be a little bit more important than a carpenter? If he was born under such reverence, he would have a following from childhood, such as a child lama. He didn't and they are bullshit.

3 people knew who he was. besides his family. The local government didn't know who he was. that's why they killed a bunch of people trying to kill him

ok, so biblically, off the top of my head, the magi knew him, his parents, at least one sheperd, and herod knew off him. that makes more than three.

my point is if he was born under such holy circumstances, if the magi really believed he was the prophecized one, he would have had a following from the time he was born.

If he had a following from that time, it would have been much better recorded. However it isn't at all, therefore he was unknown.

yes the magi knew who He was so He did have a following of 3 people. Herod only knew the King of the Jews had been born. He didn't know who or where.

The magi were kings, if they actually knew about jesus, many of their people would follow him from birth also. It's bullshit, how come only 2 of the gospels have the birth account? and Mark was the first one written. His doesn't include the birth account. what does that say to you? and it was only written 30 or 40 years after jesus' death.

quote:This is alos further proof that the birth accounts are bullshit. If jesus really were born in the way that it is depicted in the bible, with kings and sheperds and the local government knowing about it, don't you think he would be a little bit more important than a carpenter? If he was born under such reverence, he would have a following from childhood, such as a child lama. He didn't and they are bullshit.



According to the birth accounts in the gospels Yeshua was born in Bethlehem, which was significantly removed fromwhere he was raised in Nazareth. So all the hooplah that went with the birth occured far away from where he grew up. At least one of the accounts has the family spending the first 3 years of his life in Egypt, again significantly affecting the attachment of the birth stuff with Yeshua.

Also, I don't think there is much of a hebrew tradition of following children from birth, certainly not in the same way that a Lama is (there are some notable exceptions however).

One of the more contemporary theories for the missing years was that Yeshu spent the time in India, learning from the Vedas. However, the gospel texts don't really lean towards that understanding, and it's more of an exercise in guess work than anything else.

they had to tell their people about Him, where He was, His name? that would've been dumb.

I don't think it's a big deal Mark's gospel doesn't include the birth account. and it was written sooner.

Take the Gospel of Matthew

That was written about AD 50 to 70, that include's the birth account.

There are thousands upon thousands of manuscipts of the new testament. also, the early Church fathers of the people in the first couple centuries-if you take their quotes you could construct almost the intire New Testament.

People never accuse other ancient writings like greek plays or anything of corruption..I don't know why people accuse the Bible of being corrupted.

I'm not accusing the entire bible of being corrupt, there is some amazing life truth in it. and if everyone would follow the overall message of jesus as to how to live your life (i.e. with complete love and compassion), then the world would be a much better place. (also if everyone smoked a blunt, relieved the mind, BTNH). However many christians don't even realize the life teachings of jesus, or at least don't follow them at all.

yes there is great amounts of hypocrisy and discrepencies in the bible. maybe if hardcore christians didn't push their shit so self rightously then "pagans" wouldn't attack your holy book so strongly.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

I'm not accusing the entire bible of being corrupt, there is some amazing life truth in it. and if everyone would follow the overall message of jesus as to how to live your life (i.e. with complete love and compassion), then the world would be a much better place. (also if everyone smoked a blunt, relieved the mind, BTNH). However many christians don't even realize the life teachings of jesus, or at least don't follow them at all.

yes there is great amounts of hypocrisy and discrepencies in the bible. maybe if hardcore christians didn't push their shit so self rightously then "pagans" wouldn't attack your holy book so strongly.

I gotta agree with you there. The reason Christianity is put down so much by pretty much anyone and everyone is because of the fanatics. Christianity seems to have more fanatics then non, and that's really hurting the over all impression of everyone about the religion. I will agree, there is ALOT of good morals within the bible, how much of it is actual truth or not is unknown, but the ideas behind it can really make a difference in our society.



Really, if christianity wasn't "push down everyone's throat" so to say, by the fanatics, maybe more people would start to believe in it's most basic ideals, but where it stands now, the ideas are great, but alot of the people preaching it are a little to forceful and ignoreant about it. I'm not saying all are, I know alot of good christians who wont throw their religion in your face, but untill the fanatics are toned down a little, christianity will never really receive any kind of honor or dignity, though it's basic practices really do deserve it.

Edit: Went off talking in the 3rd person... I hate when I manage to do that >.>;

[This message has been edited by Gyhth (edited 08-04-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Gyhth (edited 08-04-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Someones been getting their ideas from Kevin Smith films. Always a bad idea, for what it's worth.

The hell do you know about Jesus? Your people are all about cutting off the foreskins of infants and not shaving. And not believing in Jeusus. Or some shit like that.

Just because it's in a Kevin Smith film doesn't mean it's not a good idea. We don't all just refrain from using the stink palm because Brodie did it.

oh and to get back to the original subject. I like the theory that says jesus went to india or some surrounding area and learned from the buddha or the vedas.



read the vedas, read the lotus sutra and a few others. and read the gospels. Jesus sounds an awful lot like the buddha on many subjects. and don't forget who came first.

(physically i mean, because most christians would say that jesus has been around since the beginning of time, and as a buddhist i would say buddhas dharma has been around since that time too).

Yeah, I've always thought the idea of Jesus going to india during the missing years was kinda cool. Theres also supposed to be a lot of parallels between Jesus teachings and Krishna as well. However, i think alot of people go overboard and do all sorts of crazy shit with the Jesus, Bhudda, Krisha, Horus, Ricky Martin parallels.

Krishna is the Vedas, specifically the veda-bagghita (not sure on spelling)

Bagghita? sounds mexican... like a take-away fajita or something.

*Bhagvat Gita. Hindu holy book.

-0

You could only find one? Look deeper man, you must have low comprehension skills.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

People never accuse other ancient writings like greek plays or anything of corruption..I don't know why people accuse the Bible of being corrupted.

Because writings like Greek plays are just writtings, there for entertainment. Why don't we call 4/5 of the movies out there corrupt, simply because they are there for entertainment purposes. Now when you see errors in the "word of god" you can call it corrupt as you are supposed to base your life around and for it. It's like why not call the government corrupt if you see error in their way.

the point is no one went around and changed entire books...maybe a few verses here and there got messed up on accident but nothing that would change the religion of christianity or whatever... no one accuses the hindu holy book of being changed... not many people say the Koran is corrupted..

And if someone changed the entire bible to alter it's teachings do you think the lay people would not care? That would be like sticking muhammad into the bible and noone saying anything about it... Or taking Mary out of it..

The bible has been changed. Every translation is different as one language may not have a word that is applicable for what is being described, you should know that much. And even at that look at how many different versions of the christian bible there are. Over the years, translation to translation it has been significantly changed.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

no one accuses the hindu holy book of being changed... not many people say the Koran is corrupted..

..



Sam does. hahaha, and no alot of people accuse the koran of being corrupted.

Welcome to the Western Hemisphere, where Christianity is the dominant religion, hence the focus of most attacks on religion. Use your head; those who attack the foundations of religions are going to focus on the ones that are more popular in their culture.

yeah, i know...what was I thinking..?

Most people can't back up claims of the Koran being corrupted to a very high extent, though you don't need to. One letter and Islam is false.

Yeah, I know things are lost in translation but not big important teachings.

More than likely nothing interesting happened, hence it not being included.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

yeah, i know...what was I thinking..?

Most people can't back up claims of the Koran being corrupted to a very high extent, though you don't need to. One letter and Islam is false.

Yeah, I know things are lost in translation but not big important teachings.

yeah, but alot of mistranslations lead to alot of bad teachings.

like what?

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

like what?

I got nothin, speaking out of my ass again.

*MWUAHAHAHAHAHA* !!

Finally, some truth on this site !

Thanks, Tribe, for your transparency. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Zman:

the point is no one went around and changed entire books...maybe a few verses here and there got messed up on accident but nothing that would change the religion of christianity or whatever... no one accuses the hindu holy book of being changed... not many people say the Koran is corrupted..

And if someone changed the entire bible to alter it's teachings do you think the lay people would not care? That would be like sticking muhammad into the bible and noone saying anything about it... Or taking Mary out of it..

How do you know that no one went around and changed things. Up until the mid-late 18th centry most churches had one bible, and only the priest or elders could preach from it. And before that a full bible was something that only the Bigger Churches had.

What about all the books that were left out of the bible. There are a couple of bible worthy books that were out and in some bibles until The Church Elders re-made the bible. Because of the current stand on some of the issues in those books, they left them out. That would be a big change in the bible.

If you were to find a copy of a bible written 100 years after the death of christ, and compaired it to one now... it would be alot different. Even if we are not talking about the books that the church took out (there is no hard evidence about them, but then there is hardly any hard evidence about things that happened in the bible, so I am assuming you are open-minded), over the course of 2,000 years and countless translations, the book changed alot from the original. This is unaviodable, but even with all the changes I for one don't think that the overall message has changed too much in those 2,000 years (that message being how you should live a good life), even if alot of The Bible has changed.

there are something like 24,000 manuscripts of the new testament from very close after Jesus lived. And if you take the quotes from these Church Fathers you could reconstruct the entire New Testament except for maybe 11 verses.

Also thousands of lectionaries which were church service books, that contain Bible quotes.

Someone told me that the time when jesus was a teenager is the missing books of the bible. I was told of a story were jesus killed someone. But I don't know if I buy that.

yeah, i doubt it

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

*MWUAHAHAHAHAHA* !!

Finally, some truth on this site !

Thanks, Tribe, for your transparency. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Your welcome DigiChrist http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) .

but transpenecy? I would have appreciated "honesty", you know, something along those lines. hahaha.

You know I'm an open minded, honest guy.

quote:Originally posted by TJTay89:

How do you know that no one went around and changed things. Up until the mid-late 18th centry most churches had one bible, and only the priest or elders could preach from it. And before that a full bible was something that only the Bigger Churches had.

What about all the books that were left out of the bible. There are a couple of bible worthy books that were out and in some bibles until The Church Elders re-made the bible. Because of the current stand on some of the issues in those books, they left them out. That would be a big change in the bible.

If you were to find a copy of a bible written 100 years after the death of christ, and compaired it to one now... it would be alot different. Even if we are not talking about the books that the church took out (there is no hard evidence about them, but then there is hardly any hard evidence about things that happened in the bible, so I am assuming you are open-minded), over the course of 2,000 years and countless translations, the book changed alot from the original. This is unaviodable, but even with all the changes I for one don't think that the overall message has changed too much in those 2,000 years (that message being how you should live a good life), even if alot of The Bible has changed.



There was no bible 100 years after christ died. In the christian lands there was the Tanakh, and a whole bunch of almost fortune cookie like recordings of Qoutes of Jesus'. Those were the original transmissions of his teachings.

This something I really would like to have a better handle on. Is there much MSS for the Tanakh?

I don't know what MMS means. But I'm assuming you want a small bit of background on the Tanakh.

The Tanakh, contrary to popular belief, is the jewsish holy books. They don't just follow the torah, the torah is just a part of their entire library. Tanakh is just an acronym for Torah, Nevehim, Ketehimh. (TNK).

Don't qoute me on spellings, cause I'm sure I'm wrong on the N and K books. But the Torah is the Laws, The Nevehim is the writtings, and the Ketevimh is the prophets.

You all have posted great answers but i think theres a reason why its not in the biblewhy i think maybe itsbecause hespent those years with his family not just mother and fatherbut brothers and sisters, yes may didgive birth to christ while being a virgin thanks to god but she did have a husband and to believe that a married couple never had sex that is just plain stupid

i forgot to post the "why" part of the question it was not in the bible for protecting his privacy



ps sorry for my bad typing english is not me first language

quote:Originally posted by Muffin King:

i forgot to post the "why" part of the question it was not in the bible for protecting his privacy



ps sorry for my bad typing english is not me first language



eh, it's a thought, but I highly doubt it. I think the best explenation is that this was a time before his ministry, he was irrelevent before he started preaching. I personally believe that the birth accounts are not real, just tacked on to add to his divinity. (remember everyone, people wrote these books, not god). So people wrote about him, from when they knew him, they knew him when he started preaching.

lol... I miss read your post, I thought that you were saying the Tanakah was the "fortuene cookie like sayings"- i thought that they must have given Q/ Q-like documents a name or something....

Edit: dodgey grammer

[This message has been edited by inquisitor_11 (edited 08-09-2004).]

Well, the Bible is pretty long, and if nothing happened for so long, wouldn't it be best to skip it? You know if it was in there, and it was all like 'Jesus came home and ate supper, and had an interesting conversation with Mary about wood working . . .' wouldn't you just skip over it anyway?

ModelFifteen

What was left out was not important for the enhancement of our lives. I don't believe that Jesus' youth and early adulthood consisted of more than learning his father's trade, which was carpentry. (Which brings up an interesting point...most portraits of Jesus show a blue-eyed, sissified waif of a man...high cheek bones, pathetic puppy dog eyes, and always a solemn face. Pretty, shiny hair, and manicured nails. C'MON ! The guy was dirty...as a carpenter, his hands must have been quite rough. His shoulders strong. His skin darkened by many hours of work under the hot desert sun. I imagine that as the son of God, he had a great deal of joy. The way he spoke to his disciples shows his love for them, and the joy that they brought him, as children do their parents. I believe he laughed quite a bit. He also had a sense of humor, as evidenced by the "speck-in-their-eye-plank-in-your-own" parable. Men distort everything !)

The Bible consists of stories and parables for a reason...they are comparitive to what is actually being taught, in layman's terms.

So, if the Bible is to be kept in an understandable format, then useless banter about how many times Jesus blinked, or how many lambs he ate isn't relevant.

That's just my take on it.

It's a spiritual book, and was designated as our "How To" guide to life.

God included in it what He felt was pertinent during this period of iour.

We will find out so much upon our entrance into Heaven, when we have the ability to comprehend such dimensions.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What was left out was not important for the enhancement of our lives. I don't believe that Jesus' youth and early adulthood consisted of more than learning his father's trade, which was carpentry. (Which brings up an interesting point...most portraits of Jesus show a blue-eyed, sissified waif of a man...high cheek bones, pathetic puppy dog eyes, and always a solemn face. Pretty, shiny hair, and manicured nails. C'MON ! The guy was dirty...as a carpenter, his hands must have been quite rough. His shoulders strong. His skin darkened by many hours of work under the hot desert sun. I imagine that as the son of God, he had a great deal of joy. The way he spoke to his disciples shows his love for them, and the joy that they brought him, as children do their parents. I believe he laughed quite a bit. He also had a sense of humor, as evidenced by the "speck-in-their-eye-plank-in-your-own" parable. Men distort everything !)





I commend you Digital Savior. Jesus was a DARK MAN, he was born colored, not just working in the sun made him dark. He would have had much shorter hair with tight curls. You think Jesus was this miraculous Aryan among dark hebrews? please, Jesus was more of an African than a White man. Jesus was from the middle east, he would have had dark brown skin, dark tightly curled hair, a broad nose, larger lips, brown eyes.

I find that many christians will simply not believe this. I think they just have a problem following a man of color, instead of their idealised whitey. One of my friends in particular sticks to saying, "No one knows man, you don't know". Which is true, I don't know 100%, but if I was to tell you that Buddha was a Mexican, you'd think I was retarded.

I leave you with this...

"Immortal Technique will destroy your religion you stupid bitch. / Your faker than a blue-eyed cracker nailed to a crucifix" - Immortal Technique

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

most portraits of Jesus show a blue-eyed, sissified waif of a man...high cheek bones, pathetic puppy dog eyes, and always a solemn face. Pretty, shiny hair, and manicured nails. C'MON ! The guy was dirty...as a carpenter, his hands must have been quite rough. His shoulders strong. His skin darkened by many hours of work under the hot desert sun.

What you are describing is I suppose the modern, American, version of the man Jesus.

OTOH, why whould he have worked under the sun ? With the kind of temperatures there, that would not have been very smart. But of course, there is no reason to suppose that he would not have had a tanned appearance - just as most anybody else.

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

What you are describing is I suppose the modern, American, version of the man Jesus.

OTOH, why whould he have worked under the sun ? With the kind of temperatures there, that would not have been very smart. But of course, there is no reason to suppose that he would not have had a tanned appearance - just as most anybody else.



quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:



I commend you Digital Savior. Jesus was a DARK MAN, he was born colored, not just working in the sun made him dark. He would have had much shorter hair with tight curls. You think Jesus was this miraculous Aryan among dark hebrews? please, Jesus was more of an African than a White man. Jesus was from the middle east, he would have had dark brown skin, dark tightly curled hair, a broad nose, larger lips, brown eyes.

I find that many christians will simply not believe this. I think they just have a problem following a man of color, instead of their idealised whitey. One of my friends in particular sticks to saying, "No one knows man, you don't know". Which is true, I don't know 100%, but if I was to tell you that Buddha was a Mexican, you'd think I was retarded.

I leave you with this...

"Immortal Technique will destroy your religion you stupid bitch. / Your faker than a blue-eyed cracker nailed to a crucifix" - Immortal Technique

Because dwelling was primitive, and most people were too poor, including Jesus' family, to afford the costs of owning a shop.

From the sounds of it (based on Biblical descriptions) the Hebrews pretty much did everything outside, save going to the temple and eating.

Also, it was rare when Jesus found a place to rest his head (indoors) once he began his journey's as a teacher.

aTribeCalledSean - I don't agree that he looked like an African. I don't believe Hebrews have ever looked that way. I believe that they were dark skinned, with dark hair, but I doubt it was kinky.

I don't have a problem with it, if it's true, but if you study the physical characteristics of that region, you won't find too many people that look African, as you have described.

*shrugs*

But that's just my opinion. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

He was learning all his magic tricks, and planning deception and shit.

quote:Originally posted by Uncus:

What you are describing is I suppose the modern, American, version of the man Jesus.

OTOH, why whould he have worked under the sun ? With the kind of temperatures there, that would not have been very smart. But of course, there is no reason to suppose that he would not have had a tanned appearance - just as most anybody else.



I could be wrong, but i think Digital Savior is thinking that a carpenter builds houses, thus working outside... sure, if Joseph and Jesus were making a curio cabinet, they would most likely be working inside (with airconditioning and power tools?). Im not too sure on history, but i would assume that a carpenter, 2000 years ago, meant someone that built stuff with wood and carpentry skills (both inside and outside jobs). Maybe they also made and repaired boats, although a boat builder might have been an occupation in that day, but maybe not all towns had boat builders.