M
Magnus467
Guest
I’m giving a lengthy apologetic presentation on Jesus for a theology class. There are several atheists in the class and one of them wants to know why much isn’t known on Jesus’s early life. Any suggestions?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Starwynd
Guest
There was a hsow on the History Channel called Banned From The Bible in which talks about books that do mention Jesus’s early life. I’d recommend watching it if you can find it or if you have the channel or buy it from their online store.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Judging by the astonishment shown by those who knew him growing up and later hear him preach, described in Matthew 13:54-56, it is reasonable to infer that Jesus’ early life was quite ordinary and not particularly noteworthy, the ordinary life of a carpenter’s son:
and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?”
and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?”
T
thistle
Guest
I recommend NOT reading them. These are false and heretical Gnostic writings.There was a hsow on the History Channel called Banned From The Bible in which talks about books that do mention Jesus’s early life. I’d recommend watching it if you can find it or if you have the channel or buy it from their online store.
Given the unfortunate slant against Christian subjects displayed by this channel, I would doubt that any material they give.There was a hsow on the History Channel called Banned From The Bible in which talks about books that do mention Jesus’s early life. I’d recommend watching it if you can find it or if you have the channel or buy it from their online store.
P
Padraig_77
Guest
I’ve heard that it was common for ancient biographies not to mention the subject’s early life. Maybe someone else can expand on that.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Here are some apocrypal writings that tell about the infancy of Jesus, but they are not 100% reliable in my opinion. Some say that they are all fictional but I disagree, I just believe that they are combined with oral tradition and pious legend which requires the reader to be descerning.
newadvent.org/fathers/0848.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0846.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0806.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0848.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0846.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/0806.htm
E
Epistemes
Guest
Hello,
I wouldn’t reference any of the writings extraneous from what we currently use in the approved canon for the very reason that the moment you begin offering these writings as detailing, in truth, the early life of Jesus then someone will ask, “So, if these writings are true, and this is what Jesus did during his early life, then why doesn’t the Church accept these writings as inspired, which it doesn’t?” And then you’re caught in a question regarding canonicity and inspiration.
My suggestion is to rely upon wha we know based on the canonical Gospels. We know that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he and his family obeyed the Torah, that he was found at the age of twelve teaching in the Temple where he first publicly acknowledges God as his Father, that his father was a carpenter and so, therefore, he was likely a carpenter too. It was a life of obedience.
I would make the point that we don’t believe Jesus is the Christ because of any miracles or not that occurred during his childhood and formative years but precisely because of the events which are recorded in the canonical Gospels.
I wouldn’t reference any of the writings extraneous from what we currently use in the approved canon for the very reason that the moment you begin offering these writings as detailing, in truth, the early life of Jesus then someone will ask, “So, if these writings are true, and this is what Jesus did during his early life, then why doesn’t the Church accept these writings as inspired, which it doesn’t?” And then you’re caught in a question regarding canonicity and inspiration.
My suggestion is to rely upon wha we know based on the canonical Gospels. We know that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he and his family obeyed the Torah, that he was found at the age of twelve teaching in the Temple where he first publicly acknowledges God as his Father, that his father was a carpenter and so, therefore, he was likely a carpenter too. It was a life of obedience.
I would make the point that we don’t believe Jesus is the Christ because of any miracles or not that occurred during his childhood and formative years but precisely because of the events which are recorded in the canonical Gospels.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
That is a very good point if you are not prepared for those kinds of questions, but if you are prepared then you can really open the eyes to many people. I think that many people believe that the Bible is all we have as evidence of Jesus, but once people learn that there is so much more written evidence and that we have many more eye witneses who wrote accounts (which did not make the canon) then that brings a whole new level of reliablity to our Faith. The easy way to answer such questions is to say that some writers were guided by the Holy Spirit and some writers were simply eye witnesses or just writing down stories that they heard from the people like Mary or the Apostles. Just like the Early Church Fathers, those writings are such great blessings and they provide evidence that our Faith has been preserved faithfully, but they are not canonical.I wouldn’t reference any of the writings extraneous from what we currently use in the approved canon for the very reason that the moment you begin offering these writings as detailing, in truth, the early life of Jesus then someone will ask, “So, if these writings are true, and this is what Jesus did during his early life, then why doesn’t the Church accept these writings as inspired, which it doesn’t?” And then you’re caught in a question regarding canonicity and inspiration.
M
Magnus467
Guest
Thanks, I appreciate the help.
N
Nita
Guest
I had not thought of that before. But as soon as you examine the biblical personalities, you realize how true it is. Eg. OT: Seth, Noah, Abraham, Elijah, David… NT: Apostles, Paul.I’ve heard that it was common for ancient biographies not to mention the subject’s early life. Maybe someone else can expand on that.
There isn’t a single “biography” (in Scripture) that records much of anything about the subject’s early life.
E
Epistemes
Guest
True, but the common objection for non-believers is that Jesus Christ was no mere subject, especially if he was believed to be the true Son of God. “Wouldn’t *you *document *everything *God did while human on Earth?”I had not thought of that before. But as soon as you examine the biblical personalities, you realize how true it is. Eg. OT: Seth, Noah, Abraham, Elijah, David… NT: Apostles, Paul.
There isn’t a single “biography” (in Scripture) that records much of anything about the subject’s early life.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Good observation! Also Scripture is not to be a bio of people as much as it is to be a road map of how to have a covenant relationship with God, that is why it is called the Old and New Testaments/Covenants. But we are fortunate enough to have some of the extra-Biblical oral traditions written down that does tell us some things about the early lives of Jesus, Mary, etc.I had not thought of that before. But as soon as you examine the biblical personalities, you realize how true it is. Eg. OT: Seth, Noah, Abraham, Elijah, David… NT: Apostles, Paul.
There isn’t a single “biography” (in Scripture) that records much of anything about the subject’s early life.
E
Epistemes
Guest
If you really wish to go extra-Biblical, there is an account in the Koran relating how Jesus spoke to Mary when he was born and how, as a child, he formed birds out of the mud. Of course, Islam has a whole host extra-Biblical traditions relating to Jesus which seem perfectly spurious. And Buddhism.Good observation! Also Scripture is not to be a bio of people as much as it is to be a road map of how to have a covenant relationship with God, that is why it is called the Old and New Testaments/Covenants. But we are fortunate enough to have some of the extra-Biblical oral traditions written down that does tell us some things about the early lives of Jesus, Mary, etc.
This is why I’m such an advocate of “keeping it between the lines,” so to speak.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
If you really wish to go extra-Biblical, there is an account in the Koran relating how Jesus spoke to Mary when he was born and how, as a child, he formed birds out of the mud. Of course, Islam has a whole host extra-Biblical traditions relating to Jesus which seem perfectly spurious. And Buddhism.
The difference is that I am talking about Christians who were either eye witnesses or disciples of the Apostles who have carried on oral traditions, not accounts from other religions. Big difference! I am not suggesting anyone to blindly grab for anything extra-Biblical, but I am suggesting to take advange of what we do have, which is much more than what many people think. Since we have written accounts from people who were taught and baptized by the Apostles, then we would be foolish to ignore it!This is why I’m such an advocate of “keeping it between the lines,” so to speak.
N
Nita
Guest
The only one/s who understood clearly who Jesus was from infancy on were Mary and Joseph. As to “documenting” all that took place in His youth, we don’t even know if Mary and Joseph were literate - or had writing materials available to them. I have the feeling Mary relied on the Holy Spirit to guide her in what was to be revealed about Our Lord’s early life. And, if the evangelists received more information from Mary or others, then God must not have wanted it recorded in Scripture since the Holy Spirit did not inspire them to record it.True, but the common objection for non-believers is that Jesus Christ was no mere subject, especially if he was believed to be the true Son of God. “Wouldn’t *you *document *everything *God did while human on Earth?”
Nita
E
Epistemes
Guest
No, you’re right. I’m not saying that you’re not…The difference is that I am talking about Christians who were either eye witnesses or disciples of the Apostles who have carried on oral traditions, not accounts from other religions. Big difference! I am not suggesting anyone to blindly grab for anything extra-Biblical, but I am suggesting to take advange of what we do have, which is much more than what many people think. Since we have written accounts from people who were taught and baptized by the Apostles, then we would be foolish to ignore it!
…but it definitely raises a whole host of questions and concerns that non-believers will likely raise regarding canonicity that, even if you’re prepared for such, tend to divert attention away from the canonical Gospels and their message, which *should *be sufficient. I, for one, actually am somewhat convinced that the Gospel of Peter was written, if not by Peter, then by someone who definitely knew the man; however, I would never admit as much to a non-believer because I would be asked why I deemed it authoritative against what the early Church Fathers said, why it was allowed to be used in the Church until it was finally deemed heretical due to its Docetist inclinations, and if it truly was written by Peter or one of his co-horts then who are the Church Fathers to say that this isn’t true authentic Christianity. I think this could be applied to generally all the writings which appear to contain authentic elements derived from the apostles. You’re defeated long before you’ve even begun any defense.
Trust me, as a veteran of many non-believer discussion boards, I have seen the typical arguments advanced for/against extra-Biblical accounts. The History Channel presentation “Banned From the Bible” is wonderful fodder for these types because the moment you begin *suggesting *that God’s Word is somehow incomplete then you’re defeated. You’re not teaching a group of people who accept or even understand the same definition of the Bible that we Catholics operate under or a proper understanding of canonicity and inspiration – and so you have to function under such rules.
Also, on a sidenote, there is a strand of academic scholarship that advances the opinion that authentic Jewish Christians in Palestine migrated and performed missionary work throughout Arabia, where Muhammad was born. This strand of scholarship suggests that the stories about Jesus in the Koran likely find their root in Jewish Christian missionary activity. So, point being, the Koran’s stories regarding the early life of Jesus are likely to be just authentic as any Gospel of Peter or Acts of Phillip, but I wouldn’t want to try authenticating true Christianity based upon what the Koran says, no matter how true.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
Epistemes
I think that explaining that the Church has been given the authority by Christ to determine what books were canonical and what was not is the best answer to give, and it helps to lay that out on the table first and not shy away from that topic because Apostolic authority is the key to the whole arguement.
You mention the Gospels as “which should be sufficient”, of course they are, sufficent for the New Covenant. But as far as details about the lives and works of Mary, Jesus, Apostles, etc, there are so many things that are not found in Scripture but are found in other early documents. The point that you need to get across to people is the discuss what the Bible is and what it is not. Does an Old or New Covenant require details that are not necessary to the covenants such as what Jesus did as a child or where the Apostles were martyred or who Mary’s parents were? No, but the Bible does tell us how to have a relationship with God and how to get to Heaven. That is it’s purpose, and the Bible is completely sufficient for that.
Josephus wrote historical accounts that are related to Christianity, I don’t consider it inspired but I think it is very helpful to gain insight, and it would be unnecesary to limit your knowledge by ignoring his works. Same goes for somef the extra-Biblical writings.
I guess the point that I am trying to make is that as long as we understand what the purpose of the Bible is and what the apocryphal writings contribute to our understanding, and how we explain that to others, then I believe that we can really demonstrate that our Faith is a Faith that was established by JesusChrist in space, time and history, not just some pious legend that was lucky enough to capture the imaginations for generations.
I think that explaining that the Church has been given the authority by Christ to determine what books were canonical and what was not is the best answer to give, and it helps to lay that out on the table first and not shy away from that topic because Apostolic authority is the key to the whole arguement.
You mention the Gospels as “which should be sufficient”, of course they are, sufficent for the New Covenant. But as far as details about the lives and works of Mary, Jesus, Apostles, etc, there are so many things that are not found in Scripture but are found in other early documents. The point that you need to get across to people is the discuss what the Bible is and what it is not. Does an Old or New Covenant require details that are not necessary to the covenants such as what Jesus did as a child or where the Apostles were martyred or who Mary’s parents were? No, but the Bible does tell us how to have a relationship with God and how to get to Heaven. That is it’s purpose, and the Bible is completely sufficient for that.
Josephus wrote historical accounts that are related to Christianity, I don’t consider it inspired but I think it is very helpful to gain insight, and it would be unnecesary to limit your knowledge by ignoring his works. Same goes for somef the extra-Biblical writings.
I guess the point that I am trying to make is that as long as we understand what the purpose of the Bible is and what the apocryphal writings contribute to our understanding, and how we explain that to others, then I believe that we can really demonstrate that our Faith is a Faith that was established by JesusChrist in space, time and history, not just some pious legend that was lucky enough to capture the imaginations for generations.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.