Jesus died as a 21 year old(moved from Traditional Theology)

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
As a general comment to all viewing this post: does anyone actually believe that if Jesus did not die on the cross that he would have aged like we do becoming gray and feeble losing his hair and eventually dying? I don't think so.
Certainly. Otherwise, we'd have to deny that he was fully human. Other people and groups have suggested the same thing down through the ages, but the church has always rejected that POV, and I would have to do so for the same reason. I'm not outraged to read of someone who subscribes to the idea you've put forth here, but you asked what we think of it, and this is my answer.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,691.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I have been thinking about this for some time and would love everyone's feedback. All the pictures of Jesus I have seen painted always portray him as a 33 year old, and I believe this is incorrect.


Luk_3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Jesus was 30 years old when his ministry began, which lasted 3 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpunkyDoodle
Upvote 0

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
It is impossible for God to die. He is life. He has no beginning nor can he have an end. The death was in the man, who was the exact replication in the flesh of God. This is why Jesus, the man, cried out on the cross, My God, My God why have you forsaken me? God can not become sin. He can not die. It was the man only that became sin and died.

Does that mean God was untouched? No. When the Jesus was resurrected the Spirit of God returned into him and through the man, God was both touched and knows death through that man's experience.

And we disagree on this.

Our Tradition would argue that it is impossible to separate Jesus into divine and human, one without the other.

The very fact that you intuitively rebel against the idea of God dying has to do with the reason death was defeated. God IS life, yes, which is why death could not contain Him and so was destroyed/defeated, which is the source of our eventual victory over death, and the source of our eternal life.

But God and man were never separated in the person of Christ. This would be impossible.

Perhaps we further disagree on what is death? Christ was not unconscious, God was never removed from the cosmos or existence. He descended into Hades - the place of the dead. But He was conscious and active.

This is part of the teaching of our Tradition.
 
Upvote 0

AlexDTX

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
4,191
2,818
✟328,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Certainly. Otherwise, we'd have to deny that he was fully human. Other people and groups have suggested the same thing down through the ages, but the church has always rejected that POV, and I would have to do so for the same reason. I'm not outraged to read of someone who subscribes to the idea you've put forth here, but you asked what we think of it, and this is my answer.
I think this traditional point of view comes from a limited understanding of the extent of sin in creation. Sin affects everything. I am not a dualist in believing that all matter is sinful and the spirit world sinless. All creation is tainted by sin. Spirit world and material world. This is why a new heaven and earth need to be ushered in.

I think there is a general misunderstanding on the death of Jesus, too. It was impossible for Jesus to die unless sin came on him. This is why he said no man takes his life, but that he laid it down voluntarily. I opened this up for discussion, and I am grateful for your answer and all the others. But I am astonished that so many would think that if Jesus did not go on the cross he would have become a grey haired old man like the rest of us. That is a natural and shallow point of view in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0

AlexDTX

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
4,191
2,818
✟328,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Luk_3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Jesus was 30 years old when his ministry began, which lasted 3 years.
Yes, I know his physical age. I am referring to his physical appearance.
 
Upvote 0

AlexDTX

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 13, 2015
4,191
2,818
✟328,934.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And we disagree on this.

Our Tradition would argue that it is impossible to separate Jesus into divine and human, one without the other.

The very fact that you intuitively rebel against the idea of God dying has to do with the reason death was defeated. God IS life, yes, which is why death could not contain Him and so was destroyed/defeated, which is the source of our eventual victory over death, and the source of our eternal life.

But God and man were never separated in the person of Christ. This would be impossible.

Perhaps we further disagree on what is death? Christ was not unconscious, God was never removed from the cosmos or existence. He descended into Hades - the place of the dead. But He was conscious and active.

This is part of the teaching of our Tradition.
Yes, we disagree. Nor do I care to try to convince you otherwise, since these are academic points, not practical points for our discipleship. However, I think your traditional understanding diminishes the majesty and power of our God. It also diminishes the magnitude of the sacrifice the man Christ Jesus made for humanity. And it misunderstands the basis of our justification through Christ.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yes, we disagree. Nor do I care to try to convince you otherwise, since these are academic points, not practical points for our discipleship. However, I think your traditional understanding diminishes the majesty and power of our God. It also diminishes the magnitude of the sacrifice the man Christ Jesus made for humanity. And it misunderstands the basis of our justification through Christ.

I would actually consider your weakness of your view be to be the weak points you associate with the traditional view. Perhaps agreeing to disagree is the best path.

I do recommend read On The Incarnation by St Athanasius. It gives an interesting perspective that you might appreciate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Yohannan
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I think this traditional point of view comes from a limited understanding of the extent of sin in creation.
I'm really not persuaded by arguments that have at their base showing how Scripture "got it wrong." You are committed to your own theory about the nature and effects of sin, but it's just your own theory, and it is theoretically possible only if we suppose that Scripture isn't to be trusted--something like the people who insist that Genesis couldn't be correct because physics or Darwin or something else has disproved Scripture.

It is the case that Scripture often perplexes us and we need to harmonize it with our ordinary understanding, or else harmonize certain passages in Scripture with others. But in this case, you're simply setting Scripture aside and, in addition, are forced in some instances to come up with really "out of left field" speculation in order to deny what Scripture is saying.

So, I'll call it interesting but wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have been thinking about this for some time and would love everyone's feedback. All the pictures of Jesus I have seen painted always portray him as a 33 year old, and I believe this is incorrect.

Science tells me that it takes 7 years for every cell in the body to be replaced. In the first 3 cycles of 7 years we see the transformation of a infant to child; child to teen, and teen to adult. After 21 the growth process ends and the 7 year cycles are to replace the cells.

I realized when I first understood this that this is the reason we age. Because of sin in us our bodies do not replicate the cells exactly right and are a little off. Similar to a copy machine making copies of copies you get a deterioration in picture quality that eventually no longer looks like the first picture. Likewise with us; with each passing cycle of 7 years we age and look older until the cycle is so far off we die of natural causes.

Even with children growing to adulthood the effect of sin on their bodies is evident with blemishes, pimples, moles, etc. They just are not as noticeable due to the extreme changes occurring with their maturation.

But not so with Jesus. He was sinless from birth. Therefore he never had pimples or any other blemish, nor any sickness. When he reached twenty one, the next 7 year cycle would have perfectly replaced their cells, so at 28 he still looked 21. Likewise when he died at 33, five years into his next 7 year cycle, he would have still looked 21.

If God still uses this system when we get our glorified bodies, then we will all look 21 for ever.

BTW, as a side note, if men can say they are women trapped in a man's body, I think I am a 21 year old trapped in a 63 year old body, and I should get special rights ;).

So...you're not really saying that Jesus died AT 21 years of age, but that He was biologically a perpetual 21 year old, even up until the point He was crucified. Do I understand you correctly?

2PhiloVoid
 
Upvote 0

ImaginaryDay

We Live Here
Mar 24, 2012
4,200
791
Fawlty Towers
✟30,199.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Separated
Politics
CA-Conservatives
However, I think your traditional understanding diminishes the majesty and power of our God. It also diminishes the magnitude of the sacrifice the man Christ Jesus made for humanity. And it misunderstands the basis of our justification through Christ.

From the 'Statement of Purpose':

If you need to prove traditional theology as unbiblical or incomplete, we respect your right to do this in the General Theology forum and not in this topical forum. This is a place to explore with in the defined topic not debate against it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yes, we disagree. Nor do I care to try to convince you otherwise, since these are academic points, not practical points for our discipleship. However, I think your traditional understanding diminishes the majesty and power of our God. It also diminishes the magnitude of the sacrifice the man Christ Jesus made for humanity. And it misunderstands the basis of our justification through Christ.

We will even need to disagree on your assessment, because (having come from the "other side" and being familiar with it), I find the Orthodox/Traditional understanding to magnify the majesty and power of God rather than diminish it. It takes quite a bit of time and effort to truly understand though.

As far as the basis of our justification, there are a number of theories of atonement, and I believe that what Christ accomplished on the Cross was actually too great to fit neatly into any one of them. But just as the early Church did, I find Christus Victor (Christ's victory over death) to be prime among them, but there are aspects of all of them that Christ also accomplished. I reject only the Penal Substitution model (specifically the need God supposedly has to painfully punish), which was not an understanding held by the early Christians.

But yes, it may be simplest to agree to disagree. It would be irresponsible of me to be swayed, at any rate, by the opinions of one person contrary to both Scripture and Tradition. Forgive me if this seems harsh - I do not mean for it to be, but it is the Truth as I see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,691.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, I know his physical age. I am referring to his physical appearance.


Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

If he looked much younger than his age this wouldn't be able to apply to him thus he was a normal looking man in his early 30's.
 
Upvote 0

buzuxi02

Veteran
May 14, 2006
8,608
2,513
New York
✟212,454.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
As a general comment to all viewing this post: does anyone actually believe that if Jesus did not die on the cross that he would have aged like we do becoming gray and feeble losing his hair and eventually dying? I don't think so.
I believe you are saying that at age 21 Jesus ceased to age? That at age 33 he still had the body type and functionality of a 21 year old, etc.

The thing is in ancient times (and even mentioned in the talmud) different age milestones also carried with it important ranks. a rabbi, a sage, an elder etc. The scriptures imply that people were able to decipher his 30 and over age. They recognized him as the son of Mary who had many brethren, they said he is not yet 50 in the gospel of John which would assume he was atleast approaching 40 etc.
Thus Christ passed through these levels. A strict historical approach would put Jesus age at about 38 years of age at death. That he may have been born up to 2 years before Herod's death in 4 BC and was crucified in about 32 or 33AD.

Also in the book of Revelation Christ is portrayed as the Ancient of Days white white hair etc. So while Christ would have remained forever on Earth ( we agree on this) when this aging process would have ceased would be speculative.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ~Anastasia~
Upvote 0

rockytopva

Love to pray! :)
Supporter
Mar 6, 2011
20,039
7,665
.
Visit site
✟1,056,468.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. - John 8

I do not think that they would speak these words to anyone under 25.
 
Upvote 0

Constantine the Sinner

Well-Known Member
Aug 11, 2016
2,059
676
United States
✟31,259.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Celibate
Aphtharotodocetism is the heresy you are espousing, and it is patently wrong. Jesus had a corruptible body until he was raised. If he had the raised body all along, you wouldn't be able to harm him physically, let alone crucify him to death. Just not sinning is not enough to have an incorruptible body, your body has to be transformed by the Resurrection. You aren't born with Adam's original body, if you were, then you could not be harmed or maimed or fall ill in the womb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All4Christ
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I don't mean this to be rude, but would it matter if Christ had the appearance of a 21-year-old or a 33-year-old when He was crucified?

There is the matter that a very young man would not be as respected by others. Timothy apparently had problems due to his youth. And we know do at least that He was bearded.

There is also the fact that He received His human flesh from the Virgin Mary. Catholics, with their doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, would be somewhat similar in their thinking, since the Virgin Mary was supposed to be completely preserved from any stain from "Original Sin". But as Orthodox, it is crucial for us that the Virgin Mary was of the same human flesh as the rest of us, and that it was truly human flesh the same as the rest of us have that Christ assumed. So while it is true that He never sinned, he would still suffer tiredness, pain, temptation, and essentially everything else that is part of the human condition - perhaps pimples too.

But the pimples are something I think it simply would not occur to us to even speculate on. I don't think we know, and I don't think in terms of our theology that it would matter. But what DOES matter to us is that Christ truly took on human flesh.

Must say, I've never heard that thought before. :)
Is the Immaculate conception necessarily so? Certainly there is no need for the Creator to have taken genetic material from Mary, although the "earth" from which he was created may have been her Ovum.
The placental boundary does not allow the comingling of blood between Mother and Child so there is no mingling of potential sin nature here either.
The Child within His Mothers womb is a totally dependant but individual person from conception.
 
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
As a general comment to all viewing this post: does anyone actually believe that if Jesus did not die on the cross that he would have aged like we do becoming gray and feeble losing his hair and eventually dying? I don't think so.
The hoary head is a crown of glory if it be attained in the way of righteousnes (Proverbs 6)
John writing of Jesus:
The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire (Revelation 1)
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Is the Immaculate conception necessarily so? Certainly there is no need for the Creator to have taken genetic material from Mary, although the "earth" from which he was created may have been her Ovum.


"'But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons'' (Galatians 4:4, 5)

Jesus' was made of a woman, under the law, to redeem those who were under the law that we may receive the adoption as children of the Most High. It doesn't say He was inserted into her womb and born. Rather, through the mystery of the Incarnation, He took on her flesh while remaining fully God.

The placental boundary does not allow the comingling of blood between Mother and Child so there is no mingling of potential sin nature here either.
The Child within His Mothers womb is a totally dependant but individual person from conception.

Honestly, we (Orthodox) do not consider bus to be a necessary distinction. Jesus did not inherit a sinful nature (in the western concept of Original Sin). However, none of us inherit a sinful nature, though we are corrupted by the world around us. In other words, humanity is damaged by sin (an inclination to sin), but we don't have complete depravity. We aren't born "guilty" of sin. Sin isn't passed down to us genetically.

In this context, all of humanity (and Jesus is fully human) suffers the consequence of Ancestral Sin. Since we don't adhere to "Original Sin", the immaculate conception is unnecessary. To redeem us as humans, Christ needed to become fully human - two natures in one man. He couldn't become a "pseudo-man" but assumed the entirety of humanity.
 
Upvote 0

ScottA

Author: Walking Like Einstein
Supporter
Feb 24, 2011
4,305
657
✟33,847.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have been thinking about this for some time and would love everyone's feedback. All the pictures of Jesus I have seen painted always portray him as a 33 year old, and I believe this is incorrect.

Science tells me that it takes 7 years for every cell in the body to be replaced. In the first 3 cycles of 7 years we see the transformation of a infant to child; child to teen, and teen to adult. After 21 the growth process ends and the 7 year cycles are to replace the cells.

I realized when I first understood this that this is the reason we age. Because of sin in us our bodies do not replicate the cells exactly right and are a little off. Similar to a copy machine making copies of copies you get a deterioration in picture quality that eventually no longer looks like the first picture. Likewise with us; with each passing cycle of 7 years we age and look older until the cycle is so far off we die of natural causes.

Even with children growing to adulthood the effect of sin on their bodies is evident with blemishes, pimples, moles, etc. They just are not as noticeable due to the extreme changes occurring with their maturation.

But not so with Jesus. He was sinless from birth. Therefore he never had pimples or any other blemish, nor any sickness. When he reached twenty one, the next 7 year cycle would have perfectly replaced their cells, so at 28 he still looked 21. Likewise when he died at 33, five years into his next 7 year cycle, he would have still looked 21.

If God still uses this system when we get our glorified bodies, then we will all look 21 for ever.

BTW, as a side note, if men can say they are women trapped in a man's body, I think I am a 21 year old trapped in a 63 year old body, and I should get special rights ;).
This stuff amazes me...how people can be so into a subject as to speak of the nuances so eloquently. I am not a follower of sports, and I see the same thing happen there: people who are so into it that they know the details of every player better than the players themselves, or so it would seem.

But lifting up the hood of the manifest creations of God, and going way down deep into human physiology...is to see through the mirror dimly, and nothing more. In fact...the point of seeing through the mirror at all - is not to see ourselves - but to see God. Not to see the nuances of humanity, but to see the nature and character of God reflected in our being created in His image.

So...I marvel in your insight...but not in your direction.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
But not so with Jesus. He was sinless from birth. Therefore he never had pimples or any other blemish, nor any sickness. When he reached twenty one, the next 7 year cycle would have perfectly replaced their cells, so at 28 he still looked 21. Likewise when he died at 33, five years into his next 7 year cycle, he would have still looked 21.

Fascinating. The only problem that I see with this theory is that Jesus died.
 
Upvote 0