[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Brethren and Sistern

One thing that really sickens me is when FALSE Christians are portraying their hippy-dippy flower-power Jesus. They always paint him as a young boy in his thirties!



Obviously this is pure rot. There's no way such a young snot - 30 years of age - could speak with the authority of a master and pastor. You might argue that Jesus is God - sure, but God is eternal and far more than 30 years old, so that's rather irrelevant, isn't it?

So how old was Jesus? He gives us an answer in the fourth gospel:

John 2:18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
John 2:20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
John 2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
John 2:22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

We're all aware that our body is a temple of God (1 Peter 2:5, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:21-22) - but here we have Jesus comparing His own body to a specific temple - one that it had taken 46 years to build, and which He would resurrect in 3 days.

It is written (John 2:22) that when "he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said " about the 3-days resurrection, but everybody conveniently forgot about the 46 years - including the kiddie-diddlers in the Vatican.

There's a message here to all angst-ridden pizza-faced teenage know-it-alls who pester this HOLY board. And the message is that life starts at forty, and till you reach maturity, it would behoove you to listen to your betters and stop flaunting your ignorance.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Thank you for thisinformation. I was always wondering why the new age of majority when America is returned to Biblical Law would be 46. I could understand no drinking alcohol until one is 46, but no driving until 46 seemed a bit extreme....Until now.

Well, as long as people can join the army at 12, that's the important part.

[Andrew Barrick]

Very perceptive. I never ceased to be amazed at the abundance of Biblical knowledge that Jesus grants all of you. If only I had the same.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by Andrew Barrick

Very perceptive. I never ceased to be amazed at the abundance of Biblical knowledge that Jesus grants all of you. If only I had the same.

Keep praying, keep studying the Holy KJV Bible, and read all of the threads in this Godly forum, son. Jesus speaks here!!

Also keep your hands out of your pants.

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

I've just stumbled over Irenæus' Against Heresies. Irenæus lived ca. 130-ca. 200 and as a young man he was taught by Polycarp, who in turn had known John the apostle.

Irenæus wrote a whole chapter named [. . .] Christ [. . .] was more than fifty years old when He died. It's a bit wordy, so I'll confine myself to quoting the 5. paragraph, where the meat is. Irenæus argues - as I've just done myself - that in order to be wise, you must necessarily be past your thirties - and that Jesus was in his forties and fifties when He taught His disciples:

" They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus,] they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,” when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher,
"

So Irenæus agrees with me, but there's much more to it. According to Irenæus, several of the apostles have confirmed that Jesus was in his fifties when he taught:

" (5. cont.) [. . .] even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. [. . .]
"

So Irenæus backs his opinion on the testimony of several elders - not just Polycarp - who have spoken with several apostles - not just John.

There we have it brethren and sistern - right from the horse's mouth: The rumor of Jesus being an adolescent zit-face is as false as Ratzinger's teeth. No mere tradition could be more creditably authorized than this.

[Larry Lee]

Here's a bit more evidence for you to chew on, brother.

"From thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation" (Numbers 4:3).

Papists, pedophiles and Methodists have always assumed that Jesus commenced his ministry at age 30, in accord with the Jooish rules governing admission to the priesthood, as spelled out in Numbers. Their assumption being that Jesus couldn't wait to fulfill his divine purpose. But that is only an assumption -- and clearly at variance with Jesus' own words in John 2.

So, let's believe Jesus when he tells us he entered the priesthood -- i.e., began his ministry -- at age 46. That ministry lasted 3.5 years, which means that Jesus was age 49 or 50 at the time of his grisly crucifixion, which agrees with Irenæus' account.

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Originally Posted by Larry Lee

So, let's believe Jesus when he tells us he entered the priesthood -- i.e., began his ministry -- at age 46. That ministry lasted 3.5 years, which means that Jesus was age 49 or 50 at the time of his grisly crucifixion, which agrees with Irenæus' account.

Not only did Jesus say he was 46, but the Jews also admitted that He was a man in His 40'ies - i.e. close to 50:

John 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

I'll let Irenæus expound on this verse (taken from the same link):

Against Heresies 2,22,6: But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” […]

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Thank you, Pastor Danish. I must have been sick the day we covered Irenaeus in Professor Gooden's History of the Baptist Church at Landover Christian University. You don't see this kind of simple and direct writing these days:

I have shown that the number thirty fails them in every respect; too few Æons, as they represent them, being at one time found within the Pleroma, and then again too many [to correspond with that number]. There are not, therefore, thirty Æons, nor did the Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old, for this reason, that He might show forth the thirty silent Æons of their system, otherwise they must first of all separate and eject [the Saviour] Himself from the Pleroma of all. Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they endeavour to establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, “To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution,” being truly blind, inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words.

That truly clarifies this important point of Church doctrine.

[Carpe Diem Jim]

I have two questions regarding this post and an reply that was posted. Please forgive my ignorance if I am wrong in asking these questions.

I always bvelieved that Jesus began his ministry at 30 based upon Luke 3:23. The literal translation from the Greek seems to support this. I also believed that the many instances of people's "amazement" and the teaching and authority of Jesus, wa not only due to His awesome teaching but the fact that he was from Nazereth (can anything good come from here?) and that he was "young" in constrast of the Rabbis and religious leaders of that day. The last fact why I beleived He was 30 is that the assumption that a man could not have the intellect, wisdom, or ability to teach would seem to go by the wayside when one examines Luke 2:41-51. At the age of 12 He was teaching i the temple. NO NORMAL MAN could do this, but we knw that Christ was 100% man and 100% God at the same time. So surely the man who could heal the sick, cause th blind to see and raise the dead could teach with authority about His Father and the gospel AT ANY AGE.

My second question concerns a reply from a Pastor. I love and have memorized from the KJV my entire life. I am wondering how that the KJV translation of the scripture can be called "holy." The Word of God itself is Holy, but does stating that the KJV is holy mean that those who were involved in the traslation process were equally inspired by the Holy Spirit as the orignal human authors? Does this also mean that, for example, the ESV version (which upon my examination in all three langues is a VERY accurate translation of the original manuscripts) is not "Holy."

I am confused abot these two matters and would like some help. Thank you!

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by Carpe Diem Jim

I have two questions regarding this post and an reply that was posted. Please forgive my ignorance if I am wrong in asking these questions.

I always bvelieved that Jesus began his ministry at 30 based upon Luke 3:23. The literal translation from the Greek seems to support this. I also believed that the many instances of people's "amazement" and the teaching and authority of Jesus, wa not only due to His awesome teaching but the fact that he was from Nazereth (can anything good come from here?) and that he was "young" in constrast of the Rabbis and religious leaders of that day. The last fact why I beleived He was 30 is that the assumption that a man could not have the intellect, wisdom, or ability to teach would seem to go by the wayside when one examines Luke 2:41-51. At the age of 12 He was teaching i the temple. NO NORMAL MAN could do this, but we knw that Christ was 100% man and 100% God at the same time. So surely the man who could heal the sick, cause th blind to see and raise the dead could teach with authority about His Father and the gospel AT ANY AGE.

My second question concerns a reply from a Pastor. I love and have memorized from the KJV my entire life. I am wondering how that the KJV translation of the scripture can be called "holy." The Word of God itself is Holy, but does stating that the KJV is holy mean that those who were involved in the traslation process were equally inspired by the Holy Spirit as the orignal human authors? Does this also mean that, for example, the ESV version (which upon my examination in all three langues is a VERY accurate translation of the original manuscripts) is not "Holy."

I am confused abot these two matters and would like some help. Thank you!

I'd like to answer your second question first. Please refer to my sermons HERE and HERE.

[Mrs. Rogers]

Originally Posted by Prune Danish

It is written (John 2:22) that when "he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said" about the 3-days resurrection, but everybody conveniently forgot about the 46 years - including the kiddie-diddlers in the Vatican.

Unsurprising though, seeing as 46 is approximately 40 years beyond the age of consent for altar boys; it would seem the Vatican's sexual deviance has polluted the truth regarding Jesus's true age.

My Christ is not an angsty, whimpering whippersnapper!

[unclejeb]

I believe the mighty Baby Jesus is ageless!
He lives on. In all our hearts!
Praise!

YIC

Brother Jeb

[Rev. Edward Clement]

Originally Posted by Mrs. Rogers

Unsurprising though, seeing as 46 is approximately 40 years beyond the age of consent for altar boys; it would seem the Vatican's sexual deviance has polluted the truth regarding Jesus's true age.

My Christ is not an angsty, whimpering whippersnapper!

Amen! Them Catlickers pervert everything they touch!

[xcalibur1]

I believe Jesus lived to age 33.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by xcalibur1

I believe Jesus lived to age 33.

Where does it say so in the Holy Bible?

[Holyfield]

Historically Jesus could not have been as old as 46 at the time of His crucifixion.

The taxing that Luke 2:1-2 mentions most probably took place in 7 BC.

Pilate was prefect of Judaea between 26 AD and 37 AD.

Hence Jesus must have been between the age of 33 and 44 when He was crucified.

[Pim Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Holyfield

Historically Jesus could not have been as old as 46 at the time of His crucifixion.

The taxing that Luke 2:1-2 mentions most probably took place in 7 BC.

Pilate was prefect of Judaea between 26 AD and 37 AD.

Hence Jesus must have been between the age of 33 and 44 when He was crucified.

Holyfield, we know that Jesus was born during the reigns of Herod the Great (37-4 BC) and Caesar Augustus (27 BC-14 AD). The only pieces of the puzzle that may not seem to fit are the timing of the census and Cyrenius' governorship. Josephus suggests that the census took place as late as 6 or 7 AD. But as Christians, if there appears to be a discrepancy between Scripture and secular history and archaeology, we look for answers that confirm the Word of God. There are many theories out there. I did some googling. Some say that Cyrenius served two terms as governor of Syria and that his first term was earlier than Josephus stated. Or that there was more than one census during Caesar Augustus' reign. Or that many years elapsed between the issuing of the decree and Cyrenius' ascension to office and the completion of the census. These sites generally support a relatively late date for the birth of Jesus (by ignoring John's account!), but it goes to show that there are many plausible alternatives. I know I would rather trust the Bible over some old book written by Josephus decades after the events actually occurred. The internal evidence of the Bible suggests Jesus was 46 when He cleansed the Temple. We don't need to twist the Bible to fit history. We need to find possible historical scenarios that fit the Bible.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by Pim Pendergast

We don't need to twist the Bible to fit history. We need to find possible historical scenarios that fit the Bible.

Amen, Brother Pendergast!

I make very certain my children know without a doubt the Holy Word of God, found in the King James Version Holy Bible, is Never Wrong! It does NOT need to be re-interpreted to fit modern day so-called scientific discovery. If some discovery conflicts with the Holy Bible, the discovery is mistaken, NOT the Bible!

A few children take longer to learn this important fact, but each Etheldreda Child does know it now, even if those lessons were painful at the time. I always remind them that while they're on my watch, they will NOT be subjected to the Lies of Satan.

[Basilissa]

Thank you Pastor Rune Enoe! Your evidence is straight forward and convincing!

Originally Posted by xcalibur1

I believe Jesus lived to age 33.

Random question: does anybody know how/when did this belief start?

[BelieverInGod]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Thank you Pastor Rune Enoe! Your evidence is straight forward and convincing!



Random question: does anybody know how/when did this belief start?

Well first of all is the Catholic assumption that the current Calendar is based on Jesus birth. They know better than that. It was started by Ceaser and then edited a few times. There is no proof that Jesus was born December 25, 1 BC, but don't tell the fuzzy bunnies that.

According to Luke 3:23 Jesus was baptized when he was "about thirty years of age". Somehow people forget that "about" part, and demand that he was baptized on his 30th birthday or something like that.

It also seems that people take the quote that Pastor Enoe posted above to mean that Jesus visited the temple in the 46 year of its existence even though the next verse clearly states that Jesus was speaking about the Temple of his Body.


As you can see, this is the problem with fuzzy bunny Christians. You take a scripture here and a scripture there, glue the parts you like together, stand on one leg, and squint real hard and there, the Bible says exactly what you want it to say.

Don't feel bad though. I'm glad you brought this up. I was under the 33-year-od delusion. I'm embarrassed to admit that I had completely missed this post, or if it was ever mentioned in a sermon.