Board index ‹ Jesus

[Johnny O]

Why is so little recorded about Jesus' childhood and life before he started his ministry?

Were the miraculous circumstances of his birth not generally known? Was he famous for being perfect and sinless as a teenager?

[jimwalton]

The Bible is the revelation of God and His covenant. What is pertinent to the Bible's agenda, so to speak, is the person of God and the salvation he is providing for the world. The biographical data of Jesus's childhood, therefore, is peripheral to the point and would only be a diversion to the message the Bible is trying to convey. While we're all curious to know these things, they would distract and amuse instead of contribute. The Gospels record Jesus's person, words, and actions once His ministry was formally inaugurated until it formally came to completion. That's what's important for us to know.

[Johnny O]

This is unsatisfactory. I don't think you can just dismiss the absence of information by saying "God didn't want us to know". Even if that's the case, it's still reasonable to ask these questions.

[jimwalton]

Every historiographer is selective in what he or she tells. Any biographer knows that he has to select material that flows, tells the story, and shows us, from the vantage point of the author, what the subject was like. No writer puts in every little detail, word, and action. No one. It's the same with historiography. Read any account of a Civil War battle, the life of Gen. MacArthur, the Battle for Iwo Jima, or the Clinton presidency. You'll get a selective assemblage of stories as chosen by the author.

Why is it unsatisfactory to think that the Gospel writers used the same selective process in their works? Each one of them writes from a different vantage point with a different point to make about who Jesus is. Some show him to be the messianic king, others a servant of the people, and yet another the Son of God. And yet you fault them for excluding data and information peripheral to their purpose in writing.

When Jesus began his formal ministry, there was an inauguration of sorts like the gun-shot at the beginning of the race. The story of the brushing of the mane and putting on the bridle may be totally superfluous to the incredible race that Secretariat ran on the track.

> Even if that's the case, it's still reasonable to ask these questions.

Of course it's still reasonable to ask these questions. It's always good to ask questions. But tell me about how Alexander the Great combed his hair, or Julius Caesar picked out his clothes in the morning. No one knows. While we may be curious about such things, no one thought them as worthy to write about as Alexander's military prowess and Caesar's political accomplishments, so we are without this information. In the case of Jesus, in an era where books were not 700 pages long as they are now, the writers were selective. I wish for more just as much as you do, but it just isn't out there.

I was very intrigued by Anne Rice's "The Young Messiah," made into film in 2016. Fascinating. We'd love to know this stuff and what he was like. But the authors deemed other information more important. Even John wished to write more about the things Jesus said and did during his 3 years of ministry, but settled for the pericopes he selected. His point was basically, "No one can write everything they'd like to say."

You asked, "Were the miraculous circumstances of his birth not generally known?" It's difficult to know this. It seems that when Jesus was in ministry there was some disdain for him with people assuming he was an illegitimate child (Mk. 6.3). It's hard to us to know how many times Mary tried to convince people that Jesus was miraculously conceived, and how many times she just kept her mouth shut and absorbed people's scorn.

For comparison, for instance, one might ask the question, "How did the Jews feel about the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70?" Well, good luck on that one. Great question, but no writings. We can guess how they felt, but we can't read how they felt. No one wrote about it.

You asked, "Was he famous for being perfect and sinless as a teenager?" It doesn't seem so. Again, the same Mark passage (6.3). There seems to have been a perception that Jesus was a normal guy. That doesn't imply that he was rowdy and sinful, but only that he doesn't seem to have been famous for being perfect and sinless. He wasn't treated with honor (Mk. 6.4), but only scorn and offense for his messianic claims.

So I'm not cavalierly dismissing the absence of information. I'm recognizing that any writer is selective. In the case of Jesus, it seems that the back story was dull. He was just a normal person going about his life doing normal stuff. The one glimpse we catch of him at age 12 (Lk. 2.41-52) is pretty cool to see, but Luke almost wants to tell the story of Mary & Joseph as much as that of Jesus. More to the point, Luke uses the story, in combination with the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24.13-35) like parallel stories, like bookends. Both are at Passover, both a Jerusalem visit. Both upset that Jesus is not with them (in ch 24 Jesus is with them, but unrecognized). Mary and Joe hurry back to the city, as do Cleopas and his friend (after they recognize Jesus). Joseph and Mary search for Jesus in vain for 3 days (that's a pretty obvious parallel to Jesus's death and resurrection in Lk. 24). So even in the telling of this story Luke has an agenda, a reason he brought it up.

OK, I get that. Were there not more stories that could have been used? None that the 4 Gospel writers bothered with. Why? No one knows. It's not a cop-out, but just the hand we were dealt.

[Johnny O]

That's kind of annoying. You'd think God would be a bit more careful if he's guiding the whole process. Too many unanswered questions. Unanswerable questions, in fact. It puts some genuinely curious people off the whole religion.

[jimwalton]

I feel your pain, but it's not fair to impugn God with being uncareful, as if He's not guiding the whole process. Are you actually claiming that God should have put the answers YOU would ask in the Bible? But you certainly know more information just creates more questions. And what about the other untold billions of people who have lived on the planet? People don't even read the 1500 pages we have. Can you imagine if the Bible were 9000 pages? But even at 9000 pages, it would draw out more questions. It's good that humans are so intent on finding the truth, but I think it's misguided to impugn God for not being more careful. At some point more information could possibly become counter-productive.

I mean, I have a lot of questions myself that aren't answered. But I have a lot of those about science and history, too. And those math boondoggles that no one seems to be able to solve. But if that doesn't put people off to science, history, and math, why does it put them off to religion? I suspect there are other elements at play in the rejection of religion.

[Johnny O]

Maybe just the fact that it's really, really implausible.

Why are you so fixated on the Bible? No, I'm not asking for God to provide a book of answers. (I was just asking a couple of questions that raise reasonable doubts about some of the claims Christians make about Jesus). I'm not expecting God to provide anything. The idea that there could even be such a being is absurd; the idea that if there was, it would write books, even more so.

What "pain" is it you think I'm feeling that you're empathizing with? I just said it was annoying, not painful.

[jimwalton]

> Maybe just the fact that it's really, really implausible.

That religion is implausible, that the historicity of Jesus is implausible, or that the existence of God is implausible?

> Why are you so fixated on the Bible?

Through deep study, an excellent education, thousands upon thousands of conversations, and life experiences I have become convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists, that the Bible is the reliable revelation of God, that Jesus himself is God, and that Christianity is true. It's only a "fixation" because of my settled conclusions. And if it is indeed true, it is a life-altering reality that all people must confront and decide about. The stakes are large and the consequences are eternal.

> What "pain" is it you think I'm feeling that you're empathising with? I just said it was annoying, not painful.

It's just an expression: "I feel your pain." It means I empathize with your wanting more information and not being able to get it.

[Johnny O]

> That religion is implausible, that the historicity of Jesus is implausible, or that the existence of God is implausible?

All of the above, but the second two in particular. I'm not sure what "religion is implausible" would actually mean!

> I have become convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt

Is the Christian faith the only thing you ascribe this level of conviction to?

[jimwalton]

> All of the above, but the second two in particular.

I believe there are better arguments for theism than for atheism. There are no good arguments that atheism is true; there are several good arguments that theism is true. I'll assume you're an intelligent person, so I'll assume you know these things and have wrestled with these arguments.

As far as the existence of Jesus, weighing the historical evidences we have, there is no reasonable doubt that Jesus existed as a man. There is also no evidence from antiquity th atto e existence of Jesus was ever denied by those who opposed Christianity. It is also widely agreed as implausible that Christians invented him. The total evidence for his historicity is overpowering. There is considerable debate, however, about his teachings and certainly his miracles.

> Is the Christian faith the only thing you ascribe this level of conviction to?

No, no, of course not. Many aspects of science, history, and math have the same level of conviction.