Why is there a huge gap of Jesus's life not mentioned in the Bible?
928351
There really isn't a huge gap. The gap in His life as it is written was spent growing, learning the Torah Law and when he was 12 he was already teaching the Rabbi's the Torah Law. Even though he was God in the flesh he was still flesh and had to learn and understand spiritually as a Rabbi would. He was also learing about carpentry just like his (step) father Joseph. So there really is no gap just a quiet time of preparing for his ministry.
1076804
Because a LOT of the world population DOES NOT believe or care about a book written by men centuries afterJesus christ's life.\nGet real, the bible is JUST a book, no more, no less!
316991
The calendar goes from 1 BC to AD 1 (there is no zero year).  The Birth of Jesus was probably around 6 BC - here is a long winded explaination of why I think this:\n\nThe Bible puts the birth of Jesus:\n\n(1) Before the death of King Herod [Luke 1.5]; ) Josephus records that Herod died in April of 4 BC.[ However Chuck Missler quotes anothersource which gives the death of King Herod as January 14, 1 B.C. (Magillath Ta'anith, an ancient Jewish scroll contemporary with Jesus.) ] The magi came to Herod and told him when they had seen the star of Christ in the East. Herod wanting to protect his royal line had all males in Bethlehem under two-year old killed. (Matthew 2.1) a The Joseph family fled in time and took refuge in Egypt. They returned after the death of Herod from Egypt. Assuming the death of Herod as 4 BC the birth of Christ could be placed between 6 and 5 BC. \n\n(2) Since the reason for Joseph and Mary to make the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem was the Roman Census,(Luke 2.3-7) if we could identify the time when this was done in Palestine we could pin point the birth of Jeus. Luke 2.1-2 identifies a census taken throughout the Roman Empire during the reign of Caesar Augustus, by Cyrenius (also Quirinius) when he was governor of Syria. .However there is no historical record of this particular census in the annuls of Rome. Since the Roman Empire was very vast census was spread over several years and this particular census must have been any of the earlier orders. The first century historian Josephus records that Cyrenius did conduct a census in BC 6/7. During the Roman census of Judea in 6 BC [Luke 2.2]; Quirinius was the governor of Judea which was during the period 6-9 BC. We also know that he performed a taxation census in 6 BC.\n\n(3) Luke 3.23 states that 'At the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius as emperor of Rome Jesus was about thirty years' old . This would place the birth of Jesus at about 2 BC . Tiberius became emperor in 14 AD. The statement "about thirty" do not allow us much accuracy. We cannot actually pin point the year. Jesus could well have been 33 or 34. The only condition for holding any priestly office was that one should be over thirty. This is what Luke was referring to.\n\nChuck Missler (http://www.joshuanet.org/articles/born.htm) on the other hand places the year of birth as 2 BC on following grounds:\n\n(5) Tertullian, (born about 160 A.D.) stated that Augustus began to rule 41 years before the birth of Jesus and died 15 years after that event. Augustus' died on August 19, 14 A.D., placing Jesus' birth before 2. B.C. Tertullian also notes that Jesus was born 28 years after the death of Cleopatra in 30 B.C., which gives a date of 2 B.C. \n\n(6)Iraneus, born about a century after Jesus, also notes that the Lord was born in the 41st year of the reign of Augustus. Since Augustus began his reign in the autumn of 43 B.C., this also appears to substantiate the birth in 2 B.C. \n\n(7)Eusebius (264-340 A.D.), the "Father of Church History," ascribes it to the 42nd year of the reign of Augustus and the 28th from the subjection of Egypt on the death of Anthony and Cleopatra. The 42nd year of Augustus ran from the autumn of 2 B.C. to the autumn of 1 B.C. The subjugation of Egypt into the Roman Empire occurred in the autumn of 30 B.C. The 28th year extended from the autumn of 3 B.C. to the autumn of 2 B.C. the only date that would meet both of these constraints would be the autumn of 2 B.C.
85015
Jesus was neither black nor white. He came from the Middle East and was Jewish, so chances are he had an olive colored skin complexion.\n\nHowever, if you read the accounts in the Gospels carefully, there is no mention at all of any of his physical characteristics... interesting, huh?
774238
Can't speak for most Jews, but I question why he never married.  Israelites became adults and married at a very early age (teens).  In fact, men were not considered to be adult until marriage.  If Jesus had not been married, he would have had no followers whatsoever.  I've been told that the same thing is true to this day in the Muslim world.  \n\nI think of Jesus as one of the many rabbis teaching different versions of Judaism of the day.  His family was never mentioned because it was understood that he would naturally have a family.  Not having a family would have been a major problem!\n.
1067288
Jesus was not the last prophet, he was not a prophet at all. He is the Son of God. Why do you assume th is passage is referring to Jesus? There were many prophets that came after Moses. And as for one that was of the bloodline, John the Baptist fit the description.
416705
ACCORDING to reliable history, a man named Jesus was born over 2,000 years ago in Bethlehem, a small town in the land of Judea. Herod the Great was king in Jerusalem then, and Caesar Augustus was emperor in Rome. (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:1-7) Roman historians of the first two centuries generally avoided mentioning Jesus, since Roman rulers at that time were trying to suppress Christianity.\n\nOn the other hand, The Historians’ History of the World observes: “The historical result of [Jesus’] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognised by the chief civilisations of the world, dates from [Jesus’] birth.”\n\nTime magazine reported that more books have been written about Jesus than any other person in history. Many of these books focus on the question of Jesus’ identity, that is, who he really is. There has perhaps been more controversy about this matter than about any other subject in human history.\n\nEarly Questions About Identity\nWhen Mary was told that she would have a child and that she was to name him Jesus, she asked: “How is this to be, since I am having no intercourse with a man?” God’s angel Gabriel replied: “Power of the Most High will overshadow you. For that reason also what is born will be called holy, God’s Son.”—Luke 1:30-35.\n\nLater, Jesus performed miracles that caused his apostles to marvel. When a mighty windstorm threatened to sink their boat on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus calmed the waters with the rebuke “Hush! Be quiet!” In astonishment, his apostles exclaimed: “Who really is this?”—Mark 4:35-41; Matthew 8:23-27.\n\nQuestions about Jesus’ real identity became common among people of his day, so Jesus asked his apostles who people were saying he was. “Some say John the Baptist,” they replied, “others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets”—all of whom were then dead. Afterward Jesus asked: “‘You, though, who do you say I am?’ In answer Simon Peter said: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’” Even the demons—wicked angels—said of Jesus: “You are the Son of God.”—Matthew 16:13-16; Luke 4:41.\n\nWho Jesus Said He Was\nAlthough Jesus rarely spoke of himself as God’s Son, he did acknowledge that he was. (Mark 14:61, 62; John 3:18; 5:25, 26; 11:4) Almost invariably, however, he said that he was “the Son of man.” By identifying himself this way, he highlighted his human birth—the fact that he was truly a man. Thus he also revealed himself to be that “son of man” whom Daniel had seen in vision appearing before Almighty God—“the Ancient of Days.”—Matthew 20:28; Daniel 7:13.\n\nRather than proclaim himself to be God’s Son, Jesus allowed others to reach that conclusion. And even people besides his apostles did so, including John the Baptist and Jesus’ friend Martha. (John 1:29-34; 11:27) These believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. They learned that he had lived in heaven as a mighty spirit person and that his life had been miraculously transferred by God to the womb of the virgin Mary.—Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:20-23.\n\nSimilar to the First Man, Adam\nIn many respects, Jesus was similar to the first man, Adam. For example, both were perfect men who did not have a human father. (Genesis 2:7, 15) So the Bible calls Jesus “the last Adam”—a perfect man who could serve as “a corresponding ransom.” Jesus’ life corresponded to that of “the first man Adam,” whom God created as a perfect human.—1 Corinthians 15:45; 1 Timothy 2:5, 6.\n\nNo One Better Known\nThe account of Jesus’ life was recorded by four of his contemporaries—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—two of whom were intimate associates. Their books, named after them, are commonly called the Gospels, parts of which can be read in over two thousand languages. These small books are usually incorporated with others that make up the Bi
346698
Most of the "Gospels" that were not included in the Bible have been dated to about the second century. The books of the New Testament were all written either by eyewitnesses to the events or people who spoke with those eyewitnesses. Many of the books refer to other books of the New Testament as scripture. It certainly wasn't one person who "got to pick what would go into the Bible."\n\nAdded:\nThe language and content of the Gospel of Thomas is consistend with the second century, not the first. It was written after all the eyewitnesses were dead. It's pretty easy to write a book about events that happened two hundred years ago, since no eyewitnesses are around to refute it. Also, some of the things in the Gospel of Thomas don't line up with the rest of the Bible. The gospels (and other New Testament books) that are included in the Bible were written at a time when eyewitnesses to the events were still around to refute it. Luke, for instance, was most likely written within 30 years of Jesus' death. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, actually lists names of eyewitnesses and tells the church in Corinth that most of the eyewitnesses were still alive when he was writing.
646600
There are a lot of voices vying for our attention, so why should anyone consider Jesus above, say, Muhammad or Confucius, Buddha, or Charles Taze Russell, or Joseph Smith? After all, don't all roads lead to Heaven? Aren't all religions basically the same? The truth is all religions do not lead to Heaven just as all roads do not lead to Indiana.\n\n \n\nJesus alone speaks with the authority of God because Jesus alone conquered death. Muhammad, Confucius, and the others molder in their graves to this very day, but Jesus, by His own power, walked away from the tomb three days after dying on a cruel Roman cross. Anyone with power over death deserves our attention. Anyone with power over death deserves to be heard.\n\n \n\nThe evidence supporting the resurrection of Jesus is overwhelming. First, there were over five hundred eye-witnesses of the risen Christ! That is a lot of eye-witnesses. Five hundred voices cannot be ignored. There is also the matter of the empty tomb; the enemies of Jesus could have easily stopped all talk of the resurrection by producing His dead, decaying body, but there was no dead body for them to produce! The tomb was empty! Could the disciples have stolen His body? Hardly. To prevent such a contingency, the tomb of Jesus had been heavily guarded by armed soldiers. Considering His closest followers had fled in fear at His arrest and crucifixion, it is most unlikely this ragtag band of frightened fishermen would have gone head to head against trained, professional soldiers. The simple fact is that the resurrection of Jesus cannot be explained away!
436048
There were a bunch of books left out of the Bible. Mostly this was done to maintain consistancy. You can read some of them at my link. I have read most of the ones on this page and there is little "new" information.
438800
oh definately, you are so right! I feel I can add to this...I also believe that, if Jesus had nothing to say on the subject, and if his disciples too, had nothing to say on the subject...if nothing can be found in the collected mythology of the nomadic tribes that form Jesus's ancestry, and noone can be found to say anything that sounds like Jesus or his disciples or his nomadic ancestors could have said it, and if we cannot imagine ourselves what he might have done.........we should look to the Easter bunny for inspiration.
849155
Two of the most meticulous record keepers of Ancient Times were the Romans and the Jews, and as you rightly point out, the events recorded in the Bible somehow seemed to escape their notice.  Pontius Pilate's court records still exist, and there is no mention of the trial of Jesus or of the supposed custom of allowing the crowd to free a prisoner.  It is a tradition among the Egyptian Coptic's that their Church was founded by the Apostle Mark, in 42 ad, certainly the first major Christian Chatecal School was in Alexandria, but not until 190, so there could have been several generations worth of revisions.  Hadn't heard that one about about the Sun metaphor, Jesus didn't even get a nimbus in religious art until the 5th century, and then it was part of political deal the Emperor was cutting, The three main religions in Rome at the time were Christianity, the scribes and record keepers, Mithra ism, the army, and Sol Invites (the Unconquerable Sun), the wealthy landowners.  He couldn't afford to make any of them mad, so he declared Mithra and Jesus were two names for the same being, and that YHWH was another name for Sol Invictus.  That is why the rays of the Sun became a Christian symbol of holiness.  The Bible, in it's current form, only dates back to the Vulgate, which was completed in 405.  Personally, I think we should go back to traditional values, this new fangled Christianity stuff just ain't working out.
186936
The most detailed accounts of Jesus' birth are contained in the Gospel of Matthew (probably written between 65 and 85 AD/CE) and the Gospel of Luke (probably written between 65 and 100 AD/CE).[4] There is considerable debate about the details of Jesus' birth even among Christian scholars, and few scholars claim to know either the year or the date of his birth or of his death.\n\nBased on the accounts in the Gospels of the shepherds' activities, the time of year depicted for Jesus' birth could be spring or summer. However, as early as 354, Roman Christians celebrated it following the December solstice in an attempt to replace the Roman festival of Saturnalia (or more specifically, Sol Invictus). Before then, Jesus' birth was generally celebrated on January 6 as part of the feast of Theophany, also known as Epiphany, which commemorated not only Jesus' birth but also his baptism by John in the Jordan River and possibly additional events in Jesus' life. The traditional date of Jesus's birth is celebrated as Christmas.\n\nIn the 248th year of the Diocletian Era (based on Diocletian's ascension to the Roman throne), Dionysius Exiguus attempted to pinpoint the number of years since Jesus' birth, arriving at a figure of 753 years after the founding of Rome. Dionysius then set Jesus' birth as being December 25 1 ACN (for "Ante Christum Natum", or "before the birth of Christ"), and assigned AD 1 to the following year—thereby establishing the system of numbering years from the birth of Jesus: Anno Domini (which translates as "in the year of our Lord"). This system made the then current year 532, and almost two centuries later it won acceptance and became the established calendar in Western civilization due to its championing by the Venerable Bede.\n\nHowever, based on a lunar eclipse that Josephus reports shortly before the death of Herod the Great (who plays a major role in Matthew's account), as well as a more accurate understanding of the succession of Roman Emperors, Jesus' birth would have been some time before the year 4 BC/BCE. Having fewer sources and being further removed in time from the authors of the New Testament, establishing a reliable birth date now is particularly difficult.
238284
if Jesus had not given up his life there would be no everlasting life. we would have been destroyed a long time ago. with no resurrection and no chance to to live in Gods kingdom.
602586
Interesting point:  The only things that the Bible points out about Jesus that are important to us are the very same things that Muslims don't believe or accept.\n\n1.  Jesus is the Son of God\n\n2.  Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected on the third day.\n\n  These 2 facts bring hope to all men and women and this is why the writings of the disciples became known as Gospels (which means good news).  Everything else the Bible mentions about Jesus is mainly for our knowledge and stems from these 2 facts.  \n\n  The Bible was written by tons of writers which is why it is called the Bible (it means little books).  The neat thing about the Bible is that it was put together book by book and the authors did not even know eachother but it seems like it can be read as one book because of its continuity.  Some of the authors were separated by more than a thousand years!  So, because of this it is clearly seen that the true author of the Bible is one, not many (i.e. God).  No other book compares to the Bible, none.\n\nNo man or prophet or angel is comparable to Jesus.  People usually ask, "Was Jesus God or Man?"  And the usual answer is, "both."  I like to answer that question by saying Jesus was and is God.  How many men do you know or have you heard of that have done the things Jesus has done such as, make MANY blind people see, walk on water, raise people from the dead, raised from the dead, heal MANY people from ALL manner of disease, feed thousands of people with a barely any food, and cause the weather to obey him immediately (just to name a few)?--which after he had done this, his followers said, "What manner of man is this that even the winds and seas obey him"? \n\n  I think the biggest confusion comes when people try to understand what or who God is, which is why some don't believe in the Son of God.  In God there is the Father and the Son.  According to the Bible, denying the Son of God is the biggest sign of the devil, satan, antichrist, etc.  It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who does not currently acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God is going to hell.  But, wherever there is the denial of Jesus as the Son of God, that is a sign that the works of the antichrist/evil are present.  \n \n Some people are not able to believe Jesus is the Son of God because of the way they were brought up.  Unfortunately for them they are enslaved in their minds which is the worst type of enslavement.  But the good news is, where sin abounds, Grace more abounds.  There is more than enough Grace to save even the most lost, but not for those who INTENTIONALLY help people become lost.  If all people of every culture and religion knew the complete loving truth about Jesus, they would LOVE to consider him the Son of God.  There is so much more to understand about Him....
884459
You are 110% right.\n\nThe stories of his birth became important hundreds of years after his death - after everyone around him was already dead as well. But, the writers of hte NT knew one thing - if they were to make Jesus into the Messiah, then he would HAVE TO meet every requirement as laid out in the OT - so they invented the virgin birth (attributing it to the month of December, when he was most likely born around March - June). Many of the initial gospels that were later taken out of the Bible had stories of a child Jesus using his magic to fool friends and turns bullies into cows, etc. This was removed because it didnt fit with the story they wanted to promote...
1052747
I think your newspaper made that up 2000 years after Jesus was alive.  There are people who wrote about Jesus's life who lived with him and followed him around everywhere.  They are eyewitness reporters.  You can find their reports about Jesus in the bible, in the New Testament.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote gospels about him - a gospel is a short story about Jesus that tells the message of why he was born and why he lived.  Luke was a historian who researched and interviewed people everywhere about all of their experiences with Jesus.\n\nNone of these people mention Jesus being married or having a child.  It is lunacy to think that they could have missed somehting that huge about Jesus's life.