Why did Jesus not start his ministry till 30?

Viewed 2868 times

    LadyBug posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 08:45:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 29 of 158
    Joined 5/18/2001

    I have often wondered this. His sole purpose in coming to earth was to make disciples and the sacrifice. He knew this.

    So why did he wait till 30 yrs of age to dedicate himself to his father? Some would say because he was already dedicated to God. But if he was setting an example for others to follow his footsteps, why wait.

    (Yes I know, from a young age he was teaching people.)

    JW's baptise young ones, why aren't they following Jesus example in this. They nit pick where it suits them, see things written in the bible that aren't there. But conveniently omit this one.

    Wouldn't have so many converts huh.

    Anyway, why didn't he start his disciple making when he was younger? He only gave 3 1/2 years to ministry before death.

    BEW
    (Just rambling again)

    BugEye posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 09:30:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 315 of 393
    Joined 4/11/2001

    I dont have anything to say to this, but I think I have a husbandly duty to be the first to respond

    BugEye

    M Faraon posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 09:41:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 30 of 823
    Joined 5/13/2001

    BugEye

    I dont have anything to say to this, but I think I have a husbandly duty to be the first to respond


    You're wrong.
    The husband's duty is to be the last to respond (to have the last word), usually by saying: Yes dear. LOL

    JRP

    esther posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 10:15:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 61 of 178
    Joined 5/13/2001

    BEW, I don't know why Jesus waited until 30 to be baptised. Your comment regarding the reason the WTS doesn't pick up on this

    Wouldn't have so many converts huh.

    on its own could lead to many interesting discussions.
    esther

    Jang posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 10:18:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 239 of 495
    Joined 8/16/2000

    Males entered Temple Service at 30 and Army Service at 20 years of age.

    I cannot locate the precedent for the Temple one just now. The male usually did not enter any marriage before age 30 either as he was not considered mature enough until then to have set up his own house.

    John didn't begin his ministry until he was also 30 years of age - 6 months before Jesus.

    Will try and fine the references for you

    JanG
    CAIC Website: http://caic.org.au/zjws.htm
    Personal Webpage: http://uq.net.au/~zzjgroen/

    M Englishman posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:14:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 481 of 9159
    Joined 2/4/2001

    "John didn't begin his ministry until he was also 30 years of age"

    Good grief, some guys get all the luck, I was going out alone in service at age 9.

    What a *isser!

    Englishman

    The JW religion is simply fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.

    M Francois posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:14:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 301 of 5172
    Joined 3/31/2001

    As per usual, there are other perspectives on all this. And again as usual, alternate perspectives on issues, especially this one, are not met with a lot of, um, popular acclaim. Here's the alternate perspective I have in mind (please indulge me):

    You say that "His sole purpose in coming to earth was to make disciples and the sacrifice. He knew this."

    Well, personally I don't think so. I think that the earth is only one of thousands of planets for which Christ is responsible (through him all things were made). And this one was in trouble. And it was his to retrieve this planet and put it and all who live on it back on track toward its original purpose - and his - living up to the will of the Father.

    One of the many things he had to do while he was here was to terminate the rebellion on this planet. Something was not going to plan here, something sponsored by Lucifer, and it could not be allowed to go on. Additionally, it had been quite some time since any prophet or teacher of truth had been here to upstep mankind's understanding of the reality of the nature of God, and mankind was by then capable of understanding a great deal more of that divine nature than ever before.

    Thus his purpose in coming here was very different from what's commonly accepted.

    Before He could embark on his business of terminating the Lucifer Rebellion, of illuminating The Way, and of introducing a concept more clear and revealing of the nature and character of God, he obviously spent a great deal of time in first growing up, and then in getting to know about life as it was lived on this planet.

    During the times of Jesus, Palestine was a major world crossroads. The Roman Empire was at high tide. Trade in the Empire was brisk. Merchants and their consignments were coming west from Asia and from the Indian sub-continent heading to Egypt and to Rome. Goods also traveled from Africa around the eastern end of the Mediterranean and then to Rome, Turkey and points beyond. And of course from the west, from Gaul, Rome, Greece, & what's now called the Balkan States came the flow of goods in the opposite direction. Palestine was not only a crossroads, but a melting pot of sorts. People from all over the world were coming through and living in the Levant. What better place for Jesus to get to know a wide cross section of mankind than Palestine, the world crossroads?

    We are pretty sure Jesus was a carpenter. And if the usual progression of things held true, Joseph was a carpenter as well and taught his son his trade. If Joseph's disappearance was due to his death, then Jesus as the oldest would have had a responsibility to care for his widowed mother and his brothers and sisters in the flesh. I can't imagine him letting this responsibility slide. So Jesus would have been in his middle to late twenties (from what we can surmise) before the youngest child would have been considered raised, and independant, and his mother's future secured.

    If Jesus was "tested in all things" then he would have been tested in raising a family, working a job, paying a mortgage, learning a skill, and on and on and on.

    So there are many, many reasons why Jesus didn't begin his ministry until his third decade.

    We have no way of knowing what Jesus did. He may have gone to Rome. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. He may have gone to India, to Egypt, to anywhere at all, getting to know the men and women of this planet. He surely went about his entire life "doing good."

    And then, when the Father's time had come, he embarked on his ministry of disclosing to an ignorant world a higher and more beautiful concept of the loving nature and charming character of his Father and ours in heaven. And do you know what? There are millions upon millions of people on this planet who, claiming to be Christian, even to this very day two thousand years later, do not fully accept Jesus' revelation of that enlightened description of the nature and character of God. Oh well, the only way for a tadpole to grow into a frog is to live every moment loyally as a tadpole and all else takes care of itself. Even so, two thousand years seems a little long.

    They insist (and Jehovah's Witnesses are the worst of the lot) in grafting the olden concepts of God onto Jesus message: Yes, God is Love, but do wrong and he's gonna getcha; God changes not, but bastards used not to be accepted in the congregation, now God accepts them - what happened? God used to claim the soul was in the blood and wanted it poured out in sacrifice. And now (except for some of Jesus messangers who didn't understand him either, and who were still teetering on the brink between Jesus' new teachings, and the old law code) God wasn't interested in the blood of sacrifices at all.

    Jesus didn't come here to enlighten people about the nature and character of Jehovah. I'll bet the word Jehovah didn't escape his lips. He didn't come here to tell us about the olden, tribal, war god Jehovah of Armies because Jehovah isn't God. Jesus came here to reveal a god of Love, the majestic being behind all creation. Jesus didn't come here to tell us all about a God to whom the smell of burning animals and their fat was a "restful odor." He came here to reveal an existential and eternal being whose perfection we are all to emulate: be you creature perfect as he is diety perfect. He didn't come here to reveal a God who would have the Hittites put to death down to the last man, woman, and child; but to reveal a gentle and compassionate God who knew and loved all his children without reference to their ignorance about him.

    Jesus came here to reveal:

    God to Man
    Man to God
    Man to himself

    And he did all this, terminated the Lucifer Rebellion, and much, much more, before he was 35 years old.

    And then he was gone.

    And men have argued about him ever since. And it hasn't been helpful that several old men, men who didn't understand Jesus when he was standing right before them, wrote what they could remember of their experiences with him decades after his death. Nor did it help that a reformed pharisee who didn't know Jesus at all in the flesh took it upon himself to organize a religion ABOUT Jesus. It's been pretty obvious for two thousand years that what we needed was instruction in the Way of the religion OF Jesus.

    Anyway, I have engaged here in a big runon sentence, so to speak. Obviously, I have spent quite some time in reflection and meditation about these things. There's just not many ways to comport the Jehovah of the OT, with the loving God revealed by Jesus. There's not many ways of reasoning about the Love of God while at the same time including such barbaric concepts as original sin, atonement, redemption, and all the rest.

    There is a Truth out there concerning these matters. We need to strip away the accumulation of two thousand years of opaque accretions surrounding the Light of the Truth brought by Jesus; to remove this "bushel basket" from that light, and to allow it to illuminate us for the very first time.

    And everyone on this board (well, you know) has made very good progress already in cleansing from their life one of the most ignorant, backwards and retrograde cults misrepresenting the releasing truths of Jesus and his life. And now, we're ready to step forward into the Light of a Higher Life.

    LadyBug posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 11:49:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 30 of 158
    Joined 5/18/2001

    Thanks all for your input so far.

    Englishman

    I agree totally I was 6 when my parents started studying, I could well have done without knocking on my peers door.

    Francoise

    I do enjoy reading others viewpoints and beliefs, especially since I'm on a quest of my own. And I did find your theory interesting.

    You say

    And it was his to retrieve this planet and put it and all who live on it back on track toward its original purpose - and his - living up to the will of the Father.

    Why then not get rid of the 2 'disobedient' ones in the beginning and start again instead of allowing the horrendous things that were carried on for millennia. Billions of people dying in the process. Seems more logical to me.

    in getting to know about life as it was lived on this planet.

    Would not Jesus have been watching this 'planet' and know what was going on here already?

    wrote what they could remember of their experiences with him decades after his death
    this I have been wondering for a while. Such a great man, such wonderful works, yet if he had such an impact on them wouldn't they have been writing a journal.

    There's just not many ways to comport the Jehovah of the OT, with the loving God revealed by Jesus.
    This has led me to believe (my personal opinion) that most of the bible is not true. As to the gospels I haven't yet determined.

    And now, we're ready to step forward into the Light of a Higher Life.
    For this I am already searching. It's a long haul though, with so many beliefs out their. But I have no doubt that it won't be too long.

    BEW
    On a quest.

    M SixofNine posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:19:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 353 of 14410
    Joined 12/17/2000

    Francoise, I like the way you write. Fiction. I worry a bit the way you present what Jesus and God did or didn't do as a reality you seem to know.

    My first reaction to your interesting thoughts, was "whole cloth". But of course, it isn't quite whole cloth, it came from the Bible. A book which you and I seem to agree is 95%....uhmm...well, made up. You Know*, whole cloth.

    I guess I am left wondering why you feel a universal truth about God is woven into 5% of a book that is totally man-made manipulations?

    *pun intended

    esther posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:45:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 63 of 178
    Joined 5/13/2001

    sixofnine, you say

    Francoise, I like the way you write. Fiction. I worry a bit the way you present what Jesus and God did or didn't do as a reality you seem to know.

    Isn't that what religion has been doing for centuries.

    esther

    F think41self posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:52:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 133 of 1289
    Joined 3/25/2001

    Bugeye's Wife,

    Good question:

    I personally do not believe in the Bible at all. It took me awhile to reach that conclusion. And your point about the 2 disobedient ones in the beginning messing it up for all mankind is the main reason I don't believe the whole thing. It just does not stand up to logical reasoning. Period.

    And I too could have done without witnessing to my peers! My God, how we used to cringe on those occasions when our neighborhood would be assigned to us for the morning. When I was very young, under the age of 10, this was the worst torture imagineable! And my mother, who was a spineless creature unable to speak up for herself, did not enjoy it either, but being the good little submissive female she was, endured it, and drug us 4 kids along as well.

    Oh well...just happy now that I'm sitting home on a fine Sunday morning talking with you fine people instead of sitting at some boring meeting! Woohooo

    think41self

    M SixofNine posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:10:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 357 of 14410
    Joined 12/17/2000

    Esther, yes.

    teejay posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 17:15:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 157 of 4667
    Joined 3/1/2001

    Francoise

    Are you serious or was this tongue in cheek?

    I started but I didn't finish reading it. I got down to the part where
    you said:

    Well, personally I don't think so. I think that the earth is only one of
    thousands of planets for which Christ is responsible (through him
    all things were made).

    I don't have a problem with that. Who knows, you may be right and
    I happen to agree, except for maybe the "Christ" part. So far so
    good…

    You then said:

    And this one was in trouble.

    Oooookay…

    And it was his to retrieve this planet and put it and all who live on it
    back on track toward its original purpose - and his - living up to the
    will of the Father.

    Okay, see? Right there, right there. THAT'S when you lost me. I
    mean, it's fine if you were serious. I was just wondering: ARE YOU
    SERIOUS?

    tj

    M Francois posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 19:22:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 303 of 5172
    Joined 3/31/2001

    Hmmm. I didn't expect to receive so many questions.

    First and foremost, I was very careful to state very clearly that what I was writing was my opinion. "Well, personally I don't think so," were my exact words. I said I had a different "perspective," and I said more than once, "I think..." thus and such. I don't know what else I can do to indicate that I'm expressing an opinion, a perspective, a personal truth, my "take" on something. Writers do that, y'know. And since writer's are in love with words, we tend to use a lot of 'em.

    BE's Wife: "Why then not get rid of the 2 'disobedient' ones in the beginning and start again instead of allowing the horrendous things that were carried on for millennia. Billions of people dying in the process. Seems more logical to me."

    Beats me. I don't pretend to know the mind of God. But since you ask, I DO have an, um, opinion about it. Perhaps God loved them and it went against his nature to just kill off problematic children. I don't think what we know about Adam and Eve is factual. And we do bring a LOT of problems on ourselves; the problems of our own choosing. We can't pass along one simple sentence from person to person to person twenty times in a parlor game and get the same sentence out at the end that went in at the beginning. And we think we can trust and entire book full of stuff to be accurate over four thousand years? C'mon.

    But I do think our understanding of creation, of who and what Adam and Eve were, why Jesus came here, where we're going, and lots of other basics of spiritual reality is fatally flawed. I have a feeling Adam and Eve were not the original pair and that there were plenty of other people here when they got here. Hell, I believe a lotta non-standard stuff that makes more sense (to me) than does the bible.

    "Would not Jesus have been watching this 'planet' and know what was going on here already?" Yes, and that's just why he came here. He knew he was needed.

    Knowing about something isn't the same thing as knowing something. Knowledge is one thing, experience is another. It's why many don't get the point about the scripture mistranslation of, "This means everlasting life, knowing God..." vs. "This means everlasting life, taking in knowledge about God..." Big, big difference. And the implication of that first one is that God can be known. And if He can be known, I aim to find out how I can know Him. And I think I've made some small progress in that area. HINT: Remember all those scriptures that say: "Be still and know"?

    "Such a great man, such wonderful works, yet if he had such an impact on them wouldn't they have been writing a journal?" You notice that Jesus left no writing behind on this planet. You remember that the only recorded instance of his writing anything while he was here was written in the sand? We would still be worshipping scraps of paper that he touched. And interpreting anything he wrote seven ways from Sunday. And killing each other over those differences. Right?

    I think it's reasonable to believe that Jesus didn't keep a journal, didn't write anything down etc. So perhaps they emulated the Master? We don't know. It's an interesting question, though.

    Congratulations, BEW. I have a feeling it won't be too long for you either. One of the things I find in the NT that I believe in is the statement, "Knock and it shall be opened. Ask and it shall be given." You're knocking and asking. How can you fail? I'm a seeker too, and I'd be willing to show you what I've found, if you'd be willing to show me what you've found. Deal?

    TeeJay: You bet I'm serious. But having said that, I feel certain you have a whole set of follow-up observations and questions?

    Esther: Well, religion surely has been selling opinion like it was the real thing all this time. See second paragraph.

    6of9: Thanks, I think. And, not to put too fine a point on it, it isn't fiction, it's commentary and opinion. And frankly, if Satan says, "two plus two equals four," then I'd be forced to agree. The truth is the truth. I think we ought to pitch the Hebrew scriptures in its entirety, and about 95% of the Greek-Aramaic scriptures. And please read any movie review, book or play review, etc. Critics ALWAYS write like they know what they're talking about, and I'm nothing if not a critic of religion and of its many textual support.

    "God is Love," I agree with. The idea that you preserve your life by giving up your life is something else I can agree with. The sermon on the mount I think is spot on. The two great commendments of Jesus are on the top of my list. There are a few things in the NT I can go for. And even some of Paul's stuff. But lots of Paul's stuff leaves me totally cold. Like 100% of his comments about women and their roles. We have lost the viewpoint and outlook of half, HALF, of our best spiritual thinkers because of Paul's misogynistic opinions. And we are the poorer for it. And I despise organized religion...same as you?

    And to everyone who has slogged through all this. Thanks for letting me express myself and to do in such volume!! As mentioned elsewhere, I'm a writer and I love to write, and to express myself. Such expression was stultified, suppressed for years in the Borg. Now I'm making up for lost time. I can be laconic, too. But I try to keep that to a minimum.

    M kes152 posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 21:51:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 112 of 431
    Joined 3/24/2001

    Greetings Francoise,

    you said:

    "Jesus came here to reveal:

    God to Man
    Man to God
    Man to himself"

    Jesus did NOT come to reveal God to man. Only those who believed in Jesus, the Father revealed Jesus to these ones. Once Jesus was revealed, IF JESUS' WANTS TO and ONLY if Jesus wants to, he will reveal the Father to those of whom he chooses to.

    Jesus did not reveal "Man to God" for there was nothing for Jesus to reveal to God. God already "knew them all." Nor did Jesus reveal "Man to himself" because his Father's spirit revealed everything about man to Jesus.

    Mark 2:8
    John 2:24, 25
    Matthew 11:27
    Luke 10:22

    Jesus came to give his soul as a ranson in behalf of many, and to be a slave to his Father, then to everyone.

    It was John the Immerser who "revealed" Jesus to Israel. And it was the Father who revealed Jesus both to Israel AND to the apostles. Jesus spoke, but the apostles "believed" that he was the One.

    Just as the Father revealed Jesus to Peter, so he did to John, James, and the others.

    John 1:31, 41
    Matthew 16:17
    Matthew 17:1, 5
    Matthew 8:17

    F outnfree posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:19:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 371 of 4356
    Joined 3/26/2001

    kes,

    what part of francoise's sentence about not believing 95% of the NT did you not understand?!?

    BEW,

    Your question is quite thought-provoking and I think that several posters are right on when they say that a Jewish male was not thought to have reached maturity and to have demonstrated responsibility until that age.

    Why the WTBTS encourages children to get baptized is beyond me. Presently the Jewish faith makes them wait until at least 13 to be considered members of the congregation.

    So, say, 13 before you can become an unbaptized publisher and actually preach yourself? And 30 before you can dedicate your life?
    And (sorta like the Mormons, only for longer, because they ARE, after all, JWs) 3-1/2 years spent in the full-time ministry? Makes more sense, no?, if one is following in Christ's footsteps?

    I thought it interesting that in the news article expatbrit posted about the Chicago conventions a statement was made by a WT spokesperson that "all adult witnesses who are baptized are considered ordained ministers." IS it only adult witnesses that are so considered? (And does that make them all clergy, or what?!! It's so d&*m confusing!!!) Or are ALL baptized witnesses, regardless of age, ordained ministers?

    Francois/e,

    I really liked the opinions you expressed. Not sure I can go along with all of it, but I, too, am seeking.... it's interesting to read others' deeply-felt conclusions thus far along the search path. I so WANT to believe in a God/dess of Unselfish Love!

    outnfree

    M kes152 posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:44:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 113 of 431
    Joined 3/24/2001

    outnfree,

    I can respect and appreciate that. However, i must speak what is true regarding the Son of God ... who he truly is.

    When you come to actually "know" someone, you can't help but speak "truth" about that one.

    Peace to you,
    Aaron

    M Francois posted Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:46:00 GMT(6/3/2001)

    Post 305 of 5172
    Joined 3/31/2001

    Aaron (Kes):

    We are all entitled to our opinions, aren't we now?

    Francois

    terraly posted Mon, 04 Jun 2001 00:06:00 GMT(6/4/2001)

    Post 70 of 102
    Joined 2/23/2001

    Very interesting Francoise, and very well written.

    Jesus did not reveal "Man to God" for there was nothing for Jesus to reveal to God. God already "knew them all." Nor did Jesus reveal "Man to himself" because his Father's spirit revealed everything about man to Jesus.

    I disagree Kes, it's a matter of subjective versus objective knowledge. See, people know logically that the earth is a small blue-green orb hurtling around the sun, but still when they're up in space looking down on our home they really know this- the knowledge becomes experienced knowledge, which is much more powerful.

    Same thing in Jesus' case- God may have known what it was like to be human on an itellectual level, even from talking with humans, but to actually be a human is a very different sort of knowledge. That's why I've always liked the idea that Jesus really was God incarnate, God actually getting subjective, first-hand knowledge of what it was like to be human.

    I'd like to think that any God I worship would have experienced what it's like to be me- not just "know" it, no matter how much more fully God can know something, there's nothing like experience.

    M Francois posted Mon, 04 Jun 2001 00:14:00 GMT(6/4/2001)

    Post 306 of 5172
    Joined 3/31/2001

    Outnfree:

    You said, "I really liked the opinions you expressed. Not sure I can go along with all of it, but I, too, am seeking.... it's interesting to read others' deeply-felt conclusions thus far along the search path. I so WANT to believe in a God/dess of Unselfish Love!"

    Thank you for your remarks about the parts you did like.

    And please know that I am not representing that my opinions are any more than just that - opinions. But I do feel that these opinions are based on an open-minded and sincere search for the maximum of truth my mortal, finite, time-bound mind can comprehend.

    So while I don't by any means think I've come close to comprehending what's available to my mind even now, I do feel that I have far surpassed a five-thousand year-old concept of God, and have cleared away the opaque accretions of enculturated overlays covering the basic truths about Him. No mean feat.

    But there's SO MUCH to learn. Compared to the near-infinity of what's left to learn, my measely accomplishment is a bare start. Guess they don't call it the Infinite Path for nothing, huh?

    I'd like to make the same deal with you that I offered to BugEye's Wife: I'll share what I've learned, discovered, with you and you reciprocate. Interested?

    Francois

      Close

      Confirm ...