Just when did "firstborn" Jesus, become a man?

I like to think about the time that Jesus was born, baptized and crucified!



The Gospels date the birth of Jesus 10 years apart. Matthew states that Jesus was born when Herod was still alive, no later than 3 or 4 BC. Luke states that Jesus was born when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, which did not take place until at least ten years after Herod's death.

Matthew places Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, when Herod was still king.

Matthew 2:1 'Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king...'

Matthew goes on to record how Joseph fled with Mary and Jesus to Egypt, where they remained until the death of Herod. He also states that Archelaus, Herod's son, was the ruler of Judaea when they returned from Egypt.

Matthew 2:19 'But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt... '

Matthew 2:22 'But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thier: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee...'

By comparing this narrative with the history of Judaea, as recorded by Josephus, it is possible to come up with an estimate for the year of Jesus birth. Josephus records that Herod died a short while after an eclipse, which can be dated to about 4 BC (Antiquities Book 17, Chapter 6:4). Thus, according to Matthew, Jesus was born sometime around the year 3 or 4 BC, when Herod died and Archelaus became ruler of Judaea in his place.

Antiquities, 17 8:1. And now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and granted the kingdom to Archelaus...When he had done those things, he died...

Luke, however, places Jesus' birth in a different time period. According to Luke 2, Jesus was born during the first census under Cyrenius, governor of Syria.

Luke 2:1-2 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

This census was also recorded by Josephus, but it took place quite some time after Herod's death. Josephus records that Archelaus reigned ten years before being banished to Vienna. Cyrenius was appointed governor of Syria at this time, to wrap up the affairs of Archelaus.

Antiquities, 17 13:2. But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judaea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar...Whereupon Caesar, when he heard it, was very angry, and...both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him.

Antiquities, 17 13:5 ...So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus.

Josephus goes on to record that Cyrenius took a census of Judaea at this time.

Antiquities, 18 1:1. Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator...came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to...take an account of their substance...Cyrenius came himself into Judaea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it...

Since Archelaus reigned for ten years after the death of Herod, this would put the time of the census at about 6 or 7 AD. Matthew, then, states that Jesus was born when Herod was still alive, no later than 3 or 4 BC. Luke states that Jesus was born when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, which did not take place until at least ten years after Herod's death.

It has been proposed that Luke was referring to an earlier census, and the Luke 2:2 should be translated '...this taxing was first made before Cyrenius became governor of Syria...'. There are several problems with this approach. Firstly, it stretches the plain meaning of Luke 2:2 a little. Secondly, as it stands, Luke 2:2 is in harmony with Josephus, who records no census before this point, and seems to imply that this was, in fact, the first taxation of Judea by the Romans. Finally, Matthew mentions no census in his birth narrative. Instead, he begins his story in Bethlehem, where Jesus was already born.

In fact, the census conducted by the Roman, Cyrenius, would necessarily have had to be the first. Up to this point, Syria was under the jurisdiction of Herod and his family. It was only after the banishment of Archelaus that Syria became a Roman province. The Roman historian Dio, who wrote about AD 200, independently confirms 6 AD as the year of Archelaus' exile, and the year in which Syria came under direct Roman rule."

I want to discuss this topic, without revising history, at least in the way we normally do. Instead for the time being, I will discuss it as being in the time period currently assigned to it.

Firstly, I propose that when the Biblical authors said that Jesus was born in "The City of David", he was not referring to Bethlehem! Instead, the author(s) really meant "The City of David", that is the city that David first occupied with his palace, which was built upon a strong point, which, if we consider that current though on this subject considers it to be basically outside the current walls of Jerusalem!

This is an area that only in the past 20 or so years has started to receive a lot of attention by archaeologists. This was in fact his first acquisition on his attack upon Jerusalem proper, and it is considered that it was from this stronghold that he ultimately made peace with the leaders of Jerusalem proper. Whether he was born here or had it named after him is unimportant at this time.

Secondly, it is a matter of great contention as to the year and season of the birth of Jesus! As mentioned above, there can exist at least 10 years of difference in the words taken from the Bible alone!

Thirdly, it is also a matter of contention, at least by me, as to just what was referred to as the life of the "Annointed One" (Jesus)! Most experts consider from the evidence that Jesus was approximately age 30 when he died, some even say exactly thirty and one half years of age!

But, it on this point that I have sometime in the past, proposed that a real lifetime, of the person known as Jesus, has two answers! That is, his actual lifetime, and his lifetime as "The Annointed One!"

Fourthly, it is also a matter of contention as to just how the currently accepted town of Nazereth has come to be known as the home of Jesus. According to some sources, this area has just become accepted by the luck of the draw, so to speak.

That is, there really exists no evidence that this place was ever called Nazereth until farely recent times! In my view, and one that is shared with others, we assume that the word is misrepresented and might more correctly be called "The community of the Nazerenes, or Nazerites!", with it's location being unknown!

Thus Jesus was of the cult of the Nazerines or Nazerites", and they lived in a religious community that was "set apart" from the rest of the community! And, if you have read the numerous words I have written about "set apart", you will have a better indication as to what this meant.

Fifth! From the above, I will draw a few conclusions, or at least my assumptions. Jesus had two lifetimes! One was his actual age, from his actual birth to his actual death, a number which is impossible to accurately determine without resorting to associating him to the life of a personage whose history is better known, or at least is thought to be better known?

So, I propose that Jesus had two lifetimes, of which, we know mostly from the Biblical accounts, only one is described. This is the lifetime of Jesus (and possibly of many other personages of the past) from his first "Anointing!, or his recognition as the "Messiah" when he was "Anointed" as such by his reported cousin John, who was obviously a priest, and possibly a "high priest!"

Then we must make some assumptions. How old was Jesus when he was anointed? We obviously have no real way of knowing, but we have some indications from the Bible that his "cousin?" John was but six months older!

But, the picture of John only clouds the real story, and his relationship and age difference with Jesus may just be a later interpretation or addition to the story. Thus, I propose, as one possibility, that the day of the "Anointing" of Jesus took place upon his ceremony of Bar Mitzvah!

That is, on reaching the age of 12 or 13 or what ever age was accepted in those days, by either his sect or by other authorities. Basically it was a time when a boy was supposed to "throw away childish things" and become a man! And, upon assuming this position, he was basically thrust away from his family, became eligible to become a warrior, or be drafted, etc., and from this point he was expected to make his own way.

At least that is the accepted view. Thus, it is even also possible that the figure known today as Jesus, might have not followed the same customs known to Jews of today?

But, since he was also a Nazerene (Nazerite) or possibly a "Essene" as others believe, he also entered into the religious life of the community as a man at this same time, and as such, his views were those of an adult and no longer forgiven as being the words of a child. And, I further conclude (or assume), that the "Baptism", given him by John, was the symbolic "anointing" of him as well as the recognition of him as the "Messiah" or "Anointed One!"

Just as many Christians today consider that they have two lives, one before accepting God / Jesus, and the other afterwards, thus came the term "Born Again", a new lifetime! By accepting that this same attitude existed during the time of Jesus, then it was only by his Baptism that he was "Born" (Again), and his new life began at this point!

Thus, if other sources and conclusions are nearly correct, and my assumption that his "new life" only began after his Baptism or Anointing, then we have to add at least ten years to the actual life of Christ, and by doing so, then he did not die at age 30 and one half, but had to be at least age 40 when he was condemned and crucified, and perhaps at least age 43 or 44! All of this is, of course, being predicated upon the assumption that his Baptism, was also his "Anointment".

Thus, if it was only afterwards, or later in life that Jesus was officially "Anointed", and that his brisque (briss) or circumcision was his real "Anointment", and the was the time he was "Anointed" by God, then his "Anointed One" role began (at least as it is practiced today by Jews) on his eighth day of life, and then he had an official lifetime of either 30 plus years or 40 plus years. But, in the eyes of the congregation or the members of his sect, etc., his official life as a "Child of God" or "Son of God", only began at age 10 or later! And, as such, he would only be reported to be about age 30 when crucified! His church age so to speak!

But, as mentioned earlier, we really have no real idea as to what the age of circumcision might have been during the time of Jesus (when and where ever it was). Today, Moslem's have differing times amongst the numerous sects that exist in that religion, where the brisque ceremony takes place. Thus a boy, might receive the brisque as a small child, or much later say at age eight or ten or twelve, etc.! And, in these Moslem ceremonies, the boy, via his circumcision, is thereby moved from childhood to adulthood! And, as such, it is exactly the same as a bar mitzvah! Thus, since I do not believe that Mohammedanism exactly follows Christianity by 600 or so years, or Judaism by even more , and instead, it might well be contemporaneous or almost so with both of them, then it is even more necessary to consider that the "anointing" ceremony was also the act of circumcision! The anointment of the penis with holy oil, or water, etc.

Possibly this is also true of other Biblical personages, whereby the Bible states that he "ruled with God", etc. "for 30 years", etc., only represented the time after his conversion or "Rebirth!", or even from the age of his circumcision! Thus if this act occurred when the subject was of the age of eight or ten or twelve, etc., or at what ever age he began to show the official aspects of manhood, like hair in the genital area, etc., then, just like girls who have a very early period, are literally forced to become women at this time, so it is likely that boys were easily recognized to have become men when they showed manly signs, etc.!

Certainly, if we carry such an attitude into the Middle Ages and later, we can see that official church lifetimes or times of rule of kings or religious leaders, can be very much changed. Then one might have to consider just what was the real reason for the "castrati" and why were "eunuchs" given so much power and protection during Roman times also?



Responses To This Message

mr huges probably correct