I was wondering if it was because of the lesson that the rest of us needed to understand rather than Jesus himself. just an idea
with love to all

Thanks to both of you for your sincere replies!

That's interesting Juditha... "Everyone is suppose to live three score years and ten, after that it's just borrowed time." That does make some sense. It seems true as well when considering that when one's spouse dies and the other person needed them severely they usually pass within months of eachother.

Great thoughts/ideas to ponder.

PUL,
Cosmic_Ambitions

The average life expectancy back then was not much longer than the thirty to fourtyish range. You are making the mistake of projecting the present onto the past. You're also taking his life out of context and viewing him through the perspective of the present. These are common errors and ones I catch myself doing all the time.

Love,
Rob

I have to agree with Rob here.  Years ago I came across a book entitled, "The 5 Gospels".   It was compiled by Robert Funk of the Jesus Seminar (a group of about 250 biblical scholars called "Fellows").  Among the Fellows are Elaine Pagels ("The Gnostic Gospels"), John Dominic Crossans ("Who Killed Jesus..."), Karen Armstrong ("The History of God"), etc.  These are not "light weight" scholars.  The purpose of the book is to try to decipher fact from fiction about the historical Jesus.  You don't have to agree with all of their conclusions to benefit from their research on what is information vs. what is dis-information.  Please check it out, as well as some of their other books.  They'll make you think twice about what we know.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/Title/5Gospels/5gospels.html

Love,
Rick

Mediastreamer; good time to discuss this.  i haven’t looked at the sites yet but will do so.  This character that is called Jesus the Christ is the most common name in the world but the least known.  We need a firm understanding of him, firm knowledge on the man called Jesus and the Christ event or impulse that happened here on Earth where we live.

I came across this literature a few years back and it has increased my understanding of the Christ.  It is none other than David Ovason in his book the Two Children and I am sure there is further literature around on this subject. Like your links Mediastreamer that i will be looking at.

For now I’d like to share what I have read;

“With the gospels having been written after Jesus’ death, there appears to be no primary documentation that records the details of the life of Jesus or Christ convincingly.  This fact has led to many misunderstandings and excesses.  Among the most profound of these was the way certain late 19th century writers and others, confused a real historical personage, Jesu ben Pandira, with the Jesus who became Christ.  Jesu ben Pandira was stoned to death in about 71 BC, in Lydda, and was afterwards crucified on a tree.

The story of ben Pandira was known to later Jewish writers, who always denied ‘the identity of the Talmudic Jehosua (Jesus) with the Jesus of the Gospels.  This did not stop certain early Christian writers confusing the two.  The most tragic confusion was that made by the 19th century Egyptologist Gerald Massey.  This remarkable scholar accumulated a vast amount of esoteric information about the Egyptian Mysteries, particular insofar as they were intended as a preparation for the later Mysteries of Christ.  Unfortuantely, his understanding of the implications of his findings was coloured by his confusing Jesu ben Pandira with Jesus of Nazareth.

Massey seems to have been one of the many who were misled by Madame Blavatsky and her followers.  Blavatsky also confused Jesu ben Pandira with Jesus of Nazareth.

Now let us look at the Cross;

There is nothing in the Greek texts of the New Testament to show that the ‘Cross’ upon which Christ died was anything other than a single upright of wood.  If we were to look closely, and without prejudice, at the apocryphal literature that suggests Christ did not die on the Cross.  In the Acts of John, which has come down to us in a 2nd century Greek version but which is certainly earlier, there is a vision of a Cross of Light:

“And the Lord himself I beheld above the cross, not having any shape, but only a voice: and a voice not such as was familiar to us, but one sweet and kind truly of God … This cross of light is sometimes called the word by me for your sakes, sometimes mind, sometimes Jesus, sometimes Christ, sometimes door, sometimes a way, sometimes bread, sometimes wood, sometimes resurrection, sometimes Son, sometimes Father, sometimes Spirit, sometimes life, sometimes truth, sometimes faith, sometimes grace.  And by these names it is called as toward men: but that which it is in truth, as conceived of in itself and as spoken unto us, it is the marking-off of all things, and the firm uplifting of things fixed out of things unstable, and the harmony of wisdom, and indeed wisdom in harmony.  But this is not the cross of wood which thou wilt see when thou goest down hence: neither am I he that is on the cross, whom now thou seest not, but only hearest his voice”.

In the 2nd century, St Justin – who was, by virtue of his of background as a Platonic philosopher, given to interpreting the scriptures in esoteric terms – likened this ‘cross of light’ to the ‘cross upon the universe’.  He was referring to the cross mentioned by Plato in his Timaeus, in a passage wherein the philosopher shows how the cross was involved in the making of the human soul from musical ratios.

This Platonic cross is truly one of light for it is formed by the intersection of the celestial equator with the ecliptic, or pathway of the sun.  Since the celestial equator and the ecliptic are geometric constructs, and thus not susceptible to ordinary human perception, this was cosmic symbolism of the highest order, and one that could be easily misunderstood:  the cross of light was enclosed in the brain, itself contained within the human skull!”


So i further add; the Great Cross is not one of wood that had Jesus nailed to, the Cross is in the sky and marked by the four fixed signs – Aquarius, Leo, Taurus and Scorpio.  In my understanding Jesus was killed by being stabbed in his side by a solider for his blood to be split upon the Earth – he was not put upon a wood cross but I do believe that he was ‘translated’ into the sky – his body remained.


May our understanding of Jesus the Christ be enriched and fill of love.

Hi Mediastreamer

i don't normally do links cos im such a book person - that i forget there's such a thing as links!
So im chuffed you asked for a link cos i googled David Ovason and found the link to the passage i quoted although its not in the link its in that book. Also im pleased to paste in here as it shows some of the artwork from this book that i quoted from in my Two Children's post (off topics)

Here it is-

http://www.doyletics.com/arj/twochild.htm

That is very symbolic what you said - it is almost as if there are two Jesus's one in our minds and one on the outside - very profound to be true.

Yes, i agree with transcending the organised belief system - it is within us and basically i think people are fed up with organised religion (about time)  i do believe in Astrology though so i suppose you could say that is a belief system although i wouldnt say its organised lol.

It's good to trust your inner instincts - it has taken us alot to get where we are today phew hard work really 

In my understanding it is simply a matter of the Mission, Purpose, and Message, in terms of the context regarding why Jesus was the age he was and why there's no real concern over his youth or worry about anything in a potential "old age".  

The accepted canonical gospels were concerned with the primary element of God's redemption of humantity through Christ, and the fulfilment of the Old Testament revelations and prophecies through Christ.  In my understanding, this is precisely why there aren't alot of more trivial details regarding Christ's life on earth, simply because the Gospel's purpose is to stay to the core of the message and not divert from the central, basic purpose.  

The Christ as portrayed in the Gospels is validated in the visions of the saints, appearances of Mary (See Betania, Fatima, Lourdes, etc.) and many, many other mystical experiences that have an extraordinary theological consistency that is often validated with outward signs such as physical miracles.  

As far as Jesus' age, I merely believe that he was intended to be in the absolute prime of his life, in perfect health and fullness of his life, to underscore the nature of his sacrifice.  Again, you must take this in regard the very direct, and very stated purpose of his life in seeking to fulfill the Will of the Father.  Both Old and New Testament are loaded with references that back this up.

The Cross is both literal and symbolic.  Historically in Roman era crucifixions could take place with the person carryin the crossbeam part out to where they and it would be affixed to an upright post.  The existence of the cross is furthermore clarified in other ways, such as when Peter was martyred and did not feel worthy to be crucified in the manner of Christ...hence he was crucified upside down.    The cross was a very punishing way to die and you actually are compelled to prolong your own suffering...you would struggle to hold yourself up to get air into your lungs (often trying to push up with your feet on the vertical part of the cross), eventually weakening after hours and then, sagging and unable to pull yourself up, you would essentially suffocate.  This is precisely why they "break the legs" of the two thieves that are crucified with Jesus.  As without the ability to prop yourself up, you sag and suffocate quickly.

Regarding the historical Jesus...The Gospels were written after Christ died, but do not forget that it is highly probable that St. Luke personally knew Mary (and likely drew the first iconic image of her)..  Additionally St. John the Evangelist (Revelations, Gospel of John, Epistles) is held by many to be the author of those works, though some scholars have disputes about this.  I don't, as in reading them the mystical sense and theology in them is filled with a consistency and there is an connecting undercurrent to them that I find hard to place in words.  St. Paul also knew the apostles directly.  As such, I can read the accounts in a literal sense as well as a more mystical sense.

Which brings me to the more mystical sense of the Cross.  This is what Christ refers to when he says "Take up your Cross and follow me"...very similar to his call to "drink of my cup" as he invites James and John to do in Matthew (Though they did not know at that time that he was referring to their future Martyrdom in the faith, sharing, in a sense, the death for faith that Jesus himself went through).  I could write for days on this aspect of the Cross and what it means to me, but suffice it to say that it means that it will be a hard, hard road in this world for one who wants to become Christ-like.  Suffering becomes automatic for a person with deep love of others and of God, as in the former you can't help but feel empathy and sorrow over the sufferings of others if you love them as yourself, and you feel suffering in being in a physical exile from the spiritual union with God, the PUL as some reference it here.  As such, a truly loving person always has an undercurrent of suffering, hence they take up their "cross".  

I do enjoy reading Gnostic texts, aprocryphal texts, etc, but I always try to keep in mind that often these writers were working to put out additional elements, whether based in Greek Philosophy, Zoroastrianism, and other sources....creating a hodge-podge of influences in their belief system.  Many scholars seem very quick to simply accept what is written in things like the Gospel of Judas as some sort of "truth" without placing it in the full context of its influences, purposes, context, and the revelations as transpired within the Church over the past 2,000 years (see Saints, Fatima, etc).  

Also regarding the historical Jesus, the reality of his death and resurrection can be seen in the very existence of the Church today.  Had he been just another cult leader, of which there were many, many such individuals with large followings all throughout that time period, then his following would have simply fizzled and dispersed when he died...in fact, it had started to go that way, as the apostles went into a nervous hiding after he was crucified.  The mere fact that they went from hiding (and remember Peter was too afraid to even admit he knew Jesus during the period of the trial) and cowering to becoming fearless evangelists that went without fear into horrific martyrdoms (and not just the apostles, many, many disciples as well) is a telling and sobering testament to a very transforming and validating experience by each of them...and that could only be one thing, a full and confirming Resurrection.  Nothing else would logically suffice to have made them go from such fear and doubt into such unshakeable faith (which included the telltale signs of miracles to go with it).  Everything Christ did hinged on the event of the Resurrection...everyhing in Old and New Testament refrences converged on that one, singular event.

Many scholars try continuously to reinvent and embellish on Christ, and they'll keep trying, but anything they purport would be rather extraneous anyway.... I always have to smile a little when people wonder what Jesus was trying to teach us.  (And Jesus himself was exasperated with "scholars", always picking at minutae, missing the big picture while getting hung up on intellectual exercises---see his exchanges with the Pharisees and their efforts to try to "trick" him in argument).  

What did he teach?  The answer was stated very simply and succinctly in the Gospel and in the living Gospel of Christ's Life (His example)....the real truth is in the simplicity...love of God and one another...in a nutshell, Love.  You master that, you've mastered His teaching and you can get rid of an entire theological library as you wouldn't need it then.