How Old Would Jesus Be Today?
Although it has long been disputed, Jesus was likely born somewhere around the year 4 BCE. Some academics place his birth in the year 6 BCE, while others place it in the year 7 BCE or even later. How do you feel?
Many people believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the Savior of mankind. After being crucified by Roman soldiers, he passed away at age 33. An ongoing religious movement was launched by his death.
So, how old would Jesus be today? This is an often asked question, and it has long puzzled me. The Gregorian calendar used by Christians dates people’s birth according to the calculated date so that Jesus would have been around 2,000 years old. But there are problems with these dates. Here are some of the reasons why:
Problems with Luke
The Gospel of Luke contradicts Matthew’s vital aspects, including the account of Jesus’ birth. While Matthew focuses on the Jewish people, Luke focuses on the Gentiles and women. While women were generally considered second-class citizens in the first century, the first birth announcement in Luke’s Gospel was made to shepherds, members of the lowest social class. Luke’s focus on these two groups emphasizes that Jesus’ ministry was for everyone, not just Jews.
The Gospel of Luke, which includes the account of Jesus’ early life, is more careful and reserved than the other gospels, which often incorporate apocryphal stories. Instead of describing the events vaguely, Luke confirms these details with eyewitnesses. In addition, the Gospel of Luke is written in the language and context of the Jewish people. As such, some scholars question whether or not Luke’s account is reliable.
Some scholars have questioned whether or not Luke’s account reflects his political concerns. While Luke emphasizes the importance of Jesus’ teachings, he also makes clear that he was not a radical rebel. His actions in the Gospel of Luke were more consistent with his political beliefs and concerns. Furthermore, Luke’s attitude toward the Jewish tradition shows that he was not a radical rebel. Instead, he is an ethical teacher and social reformer, and a good citizen of the Roman empire.
In Matthew 19:22, the rich young ruler is called a “ruler.” The word for “ruler” means leader or official. This young ruler likely was a Jewish leader in the temple or a member of the Sanhedrin, which dealt with religious issues in Jesus’ day. In addition, Luke says, “all who heard Him were amazed.”
Problems with Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew is one of the four canonical gospels of the Bible. The gospels of Luke, John, and Mark, draw on Jewish tradition to paint a picture of Jesus. This is particularly true in Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus on a mountain, teaching and practicing the traditions of Moses. It also depicts Jesus’ death on the cross as a martyr. This is not only problematic for Christians but Jews as well.
Although both Mark and Matthew include sayings from Jesus, the order of these are different in Matthew. Mark inserts sayings at appropriate intervals, while Matthew inserts these sayings into the sequential events. Mark also uses sayings from Q, and Matthew incorporates these sayings into the Gospel. Several problems with Matthew include the following:
The Gospel of Matthew is apocalyptic. It draws on motifs from the Old Testament to tie Jesus’ death to the resurrection of the faithful. Moreover, Matthew also incorporates tradition in his text. Thus, many scholars and conservative commentators recognize the problems with Matthew’s account. However, the birth narrative of Jesus may not be historical in any way, and it is undoubtedly a “fantasy” that does not have historical value.
Several issues arise from the fact that the family of Jesus was Galilean. First, Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus may have been a fabrication, but his background as a Gentile is incongruous. Second, Matthew’s family might have lived in Bethlehem, but family may have been there. However, the family is likely to have come from Bethlehem, and Matthew indicates that God had promised to do so.
Problems with Mark
One of the most notable textual questions in the New Testament is the ending of Mark’s Gospel. There is doubt about how the Gospel ended when it was initially written, and we now know that it was longer than the ending we have in our version. Moreover, a longer ending to Mark’s Gospel was lost before it was copied. The end of the Gospel was verse 8, which means that there is a possibility of two different endings.
Gerome, a later commentator, mentions that Mark’s ending is longer than the ending in the Latin manuscript. This is an advance over Eusebius, whose conclusion was not very helpful to the Gospel’s author. Victor of Antioch, a popular commentator on Mark’s Gospel in the Middle Ages, argues that the more extended ending of Mark’s Gospel may be found in the Latin manuscript.
Problems with Luke’s mention of Jesus’ birth
Matthew and Luke both present Jesus’ birth as occurring before Herod. Then again, Luke presents Jesus as a child during the census of Caesar in 6 AD, and Matthew never mentions the shepherds of the nativity. In either case, the two accounts don’t necessarily agree, and scholars don’t know what to make of them. The fact remains, though, that Matthew is the more reliable Gospel.
Some scholars argue that the two accounts of the birth are not consistent. Matthew says that Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus, but Luke’s mention places their journey after that the appearance of Jesus in the temple. This suggests that they didn’t live in Nazareth for the first few months after his birth. However, some historians argue that the two accounts differ by several days.
One problem with Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth is that it is difficult to determine the exact date of his birth. Because Luke places the birth of Jesus in the first century AD, it coincides with a census of the Romans in Judea. The census was the first act of Caesar’s control over Judea. Therefore, Luke may have wanted to draw a contrast between Jesus’ Lordship and Caesar’s rule.
The gospels are the only credible sources for the date of Jesus’ birth. Unfortunately, Luke and Matthew incorrectly cite Quirinius’ census, which may not coincide with the birth. Another problematic detail in Luke’s mention of Jesus’ birth is the story about the dead being thrown out of their graves by an earthquake. This is another myth that modern westerners would reject without question. But, again, the gospels are the only written accounts of the birth of Jesus.
Problems with Matthew’s mention of Jesus’ birth
Matthew’s nativity account is inconsistent in its characterization of Jesus’ birth. While Luke and John describe the birth of Jesus as an event that takes place in Egypt, Matthew does not explicitly mention his birth. The word for birth in Matthew’s story is genesis, which we translate as genealogy. The problem with this description is that it does not make sense if Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary.
In addition, Matthew’s fulfillment language does not necessarily assume messianic meaning. Instead, it refers to instances in Israel’s history that he fills in and brings fulfillment. For instance, the book of Isaiah describes military and political threats to Israel, but God’s promise of deliverance is given to a future generation. That contradicts Matthew’s intention to portray Jesus as the Messiah.
The genealogy list in Matthew emphasizes the number fourteen and thus tries to make it fit into the formula. Unfortunately, in doing so, Matthew skips three generations after Joram. This is confusing, as the name Joram is a common name for Azariah, and it is also a common practice in Hebrew to assign numerical values to names. It also suggests that Matthew was focusing on Jesus’ origins rather than the birth of the Messiah.
Moreover, Matthew’s genealogy contains a mix of people. It includes people of questionable character and even non-Jews. This is an effort by Matthew to show that Christ was born for sinners and lost people. If we accept this characterization, the birth narrative is an excellent way to portray the birth of Christ. There are several ways to interpret Matthew’s genealogy, and the answer will vary depending on your personal views.
How Old Would Jesus Be Today?
Although it has long been disputed, Jesus was likely born somewhere around the year 4 BCE. Some academics place his birth in the year 6 BCE, while others place it in the year 7 BCE or even later. How do you feel?
Many people believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the Savior of mankind. After being crucified by Roman soldiers, he passed away at age 33. An ongoing religious movement was launched by his death.
So, how old would Jesus be today? This is an often asked question, and it has long puzzled me. The Gregorian calendar used by Christians dates people’s birth according to the calculated date so that Jesus would have been around 2,000 years old. But there are problems with these dates. Here are some of the reasons why:
Problems with Luke
The Gospel of Luke contradicts Matthew’s vital aspects, including the account of Jesus’ birth. While Matthew focuses on the Jewish people, Luke focuses on the Gentiles and women. While women were generally considered second-class citizens in the first century, the first birth announcement in Luke’s Gospel was made to shepherds, members of the lowest social class. Luke’s focus on these two groups emphasizes that Jesus’ ministry was for everyone, not just Jews.
The Gospel of Luke, which includes the account of Jesus’ early life, is more careful and reserved than the other gospels, which often incorporate apocryphal stories. Instead of describing the events vaguely, Luke confirms these details with eyewitnesses. In addition, the Gospel of Luke is written in the language and context of the Jewish people. As such, some scholars question whether or not Luke’s account is reliable.
Some scholars have questioned whether or not Luke’s account reflects his political concerns. While Luke emphasizes the importance of Jesus’ teachings, he also makes clear that he was not a radical rebel. His actions in the Gospel of Luke were more consistent with his political beliefs and concerns. Furthermore, Luke’s attitude toward the Jewish tradition shows that he was not a radical rebel. Instead, he is an ethical teacher and social reformer, and a good citizen of the Roman empire.
In Matthew 19:22, the rich young ruler is called a “ruler.” The word for “ruler” means leader or official. This young ruler likely was a Jewish leader in the temple or a member of the Sanhedrin, which dealt with religious issues in Jesus’ day. In addition, Luke says, “all who heard Him were amazed.”
Problems with Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew is one of the four canonical gospels of the Bible. The gospels of Luke, John, and Mark, draw on Jewish tradition to paint a picture of Jesus. This is particularly true in Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus on a mountain, teaching and practicing the traditions of Moses. It also depicts Jesus’ death on the cross as a martyr. This is not only problematic for Christians but Jews as well.
Although both Mark and Matthew include sayings from Jesus, the order of these are different in Matthew. Mark inserts sayings at appropriate intervals, while Matthew inserts these sayings into the sequential events. Mark also uses sayings from Q, and Matthew incorporates these sayings into the Gospel. Several problems with Matthew include the following:
The Gospel of Matthew is apocalyptic. It draws on motifs from the Old Testament to tie Jesus’ death to the resurrection of the faithful. Moreover, Matthew also incorporates tradition in his text. Thus, many scholars and conservative commentators recognize the problems with Matthew’s account. However, the birth narrative of Jesus may not be historical in any way, and it is undoubtedly a “fantasy” that does not have historical value.
Several issues arise from the fact that the family of Jesus was Galilean. First, Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus may have been a fabrication, but his background as a Gentile is incongruous. Second, Matthew’s family might have lived in Bethlehem, but family may have been there. However, the family is likely to have come from Bethlehem, and Matthew indicates that God had promised to do so.
Problems with Mark
One of the most notable textual questions in the New Testament is the ending of Mark’s Gospel. There is doubt about how the Gospel ended when it was initially written, and we now know that it was longer than the ending we have in our version. Moreover, a longer ending to Mark’s Gospel was lost before it was copied. The end of the Gospel was verse 8, which means that there is a possibility of two different endings.
Gerome, a later commentator, mentions that Mark’s ending is longer than the ending in the Latin manuscript. This is an advance over Eusebius, whose conclusion was not very helpful to the Gospel’s author. Victor of Antioch, a popular commentator on Mark’s Gospel in the Middle Ages, argues that the more extended ending of Mark’s Gospel may be found in the Latin manuscript.
Problems with Luke’s mention of Jesus’ birth
Matthew and Luke both present Jesus’ birth as occurring before Herod. Then again, Luke presents Jesus as a child during the census of Caesar in 6 AD, and Matthew never mentions the shepherds of the nativity. In either case, the two accounts don’t necessarily agree, and scholars don’t know what to make of them. The fact remains, though, that Matthew is the more reliable Gospel.
Some scholars argue that the two accounts of the birth are not consistent. Matthew says that Joseph and Mary had lived in Nazareth before the birth of Jesus, but Luke’s mention places their journey after that the appearance of Jesus in the temple. This suggests that they didn’t live in Nazareth for the first few months after his birth. However, some historians argue that the two accounts differ by several days.
One problem with Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth is that it is difficult to determine the exact date of his birth. Because Luke places the birth of Jesus in the first century AD, it coincides with a census of the Romans in Judea. The census was the first act of Caesar’s control over Judea. Therefore, Luke may have wanted to draw a contrast between Jesus’ Lordship and Caesar’s rule.
The gospels are the only credible sources for the date of Jesus’ birth. Unfortunately, Luke and Matthew incorrectly cite Quirinius’ census, which may not coincide with the birth. Another problematic detail in Luke’s mention of Jesus’ birth is the story about the dead being thrown out of their graves by an earthquake. This is another myth that modern westerners would reject without question. But, again, the gospels are the only written accounts of the birth of Jesus.
Problems with Matthew’s mention of Jesus’ birth
Matthew’s nativity account is inconsistent in its characterization of Jesus’ birth. While Luke and John describe the birth of Jesus as an event that takes place in Egypt, Matthew does not explicitly mention his birth. The word for birth in Matthew’s story is genesis, which we translate as genealogy. The problem with this description is that it does not make sense if Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary.
In addition, Matthew’s fulfillment language does not necessarily assume messianic meaning. Instead, it refers to instances in Israel’s history that he fills in and brings fulfillment. For instance, the book of Isaiah describes military and political threats to Israel, but God’s promise of deliverance is given to a future generation. That contradicts Matthew’s intention to portray Jesus as the Messiah.
The genealogy list in Matthew emphasizes the number fourteen and thus tries to make it fit into the formula. Unfortunately, in doing so, Matthew skips three generations after Joram. This is confusing, as the name Joram is a common name for Azariah, and it is also a common practice in Hebrew to assign numerical values to names. It also suggests that Matthew was focusing on Jesus’ origins rather than the birth of the Messiah.
Moreover, Matthew’s genealogy contains a mix of people. It includes people of questionable character and even non-Jews. This is an effort by Matthew to show that Christ was born for sinners and lost people. If we accept this characterization, the birth narrative is an excellent way to portray the birth of Christ. There are several ways to interpret Matthew’s genealogy, and the answer will vary depending on your personal views.
