Why Was Jesus Denied The Act OF Physical Procreation, as he was human.

okay lets cut to the chase. Jesus's bloodline if indeed he did exist at some point, would be holy, and not only holy but also the Romans would have killed his children too. Had he taught them his religion which he probably did.

So since his bloodlines are holy, if he had kids then they were probably hidden from plain sight. And will return again later.

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
okay lets cut to the chase. Jesus's bloodline if indeed he did exist at some point, would be holy, and not only holy but also the Romans would have killed his children too. Had he taught them his religion which he probably did.

So since his bloodlines are holy, if he had kids then they were probably hidden from plain sight. And will return again later.

They are here, even if Jesus was as much a phantom as the wispering angle Gabriel, the bloodline exists today as a real impervious defensible declaration "THIS BLOOD LINE IS ABNORMAL AND EXISTS". This is the Holy Grail, not a chalis or vessel, a bloodline and guess what FreedomEntered, exists today very well hidden in plain sight (took us a while to realise it). Those children are alive and for some odd reason are repelled by organized religion; not the spirituality of the message as that is the afterlife eternal component. Jesus himself at this point in time is a carnate living being. He is an Atheist having no rememberance of his prior life (no surprise really?). The debacle of AD 33 is one that cannot go without a footnote. Look at what the formation of Christianity resulted in. Faith born secularized western thought, (new testiment) that divides neighbors from one another, forgetting a Babtist living next door to a Methodist; they disregard the Jesus factor. ITS INSANITY, and we are not even talking about cross culturally Moslems vs Buddists.

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

uhh.. could you please be a little more specific?

Pagan BS DENIED!

Thank you for engaging expected psychopathic controlling behavior one has come to expect of Christian haters.

www.tektonics.org...

Hesus and Jesus, simple minds find simple connections where no connection exists..

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
I am thinking fruit is a double metaphor for potencial offspring and of "knowledge", the blood reference was to DNA strands in which reside the code that describes actual God/Life Force (someone needs to put some algebric calculations to this).

Originally posted by Vethumanbeing
"The blood sacrifice 'old style' that was done with you sealed the deal. Of any blood letting against innocents made including all of the animal forms and of Jesus itself vaporise as they were of impure intent. This was the bond of courage for you to carry through--a reiteration of I BLED FOR YOU. We had to do is; the problem of the 'original' sacrifice had to be overlayed, erase Moses overlays to every and all intents, set in motion and instead of the lamb of Christ has to be Origin Itself reinserted to destroy the old paradyms.

As you may well know, wine is made from grape fruits. Jesus uses the word fruit, when talking about Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. And I believe the same is true/applies, when He’s talking about wine.

In the last supper scene, Jesus is holding a cup of wine, and stating that “this is my blood” etc…

Matthew 26:27-29
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

In the Old Testament wine is a symbol for wisdom, especially in many verses found in Proverbs. There are also verses in the OT which state that the spirit, of an animal, is contained within its blood.

Blood is both symbolic of Wine and Spirit, and wine represents Wisdom. The Holy Spirit is the bringer of Wisdom, which is how those 2 things are connected. In 1 Corinthians, verse 12:8, Wisdom is the first gift of the Holy Spirit, mentioned in that chapter.

And there’s this below from The Gnostic “Gospel of Philip”

Because of this he said "He who shall not eat my flesh and drink my blood has not life in him" (Jn 6:53). What is it? His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit.,

And this from the same, Gospel of Philip

The cup of prayer contains wine and water, since it is appointed as the type of the blood for which thanks is given. And it is full of the Holy Spirit, and it belongs to the wholly perfect man. When we drink this, we shall receive for ourselves the perfect man. The living water is a body. It is necessary that we put on the living man. Therefore, when he is about to go down into the water, he unclothes himself, in order that he may put on the living man.

From “The Gnostic Catechism”

182. How can the spiritual (PNEUMATIC) body and blood of Christ take on the appearance of the bread and wine?

Through the sacred phenomenon of Transubstantiation or Transelementation , which is brought about by the Holy Spirit.

What this amounts too, is that in Matthew 26:27-29, Jesus is really saying that it is the “Holy Spirit”, which is poured out for our sins. Christianity has turned that Matthew 26 verse, into a literal interpretation, and made Jesus into a sacrifice for all sins, by his blood/death, on the cross etc…

Another important piece of the jigsaw piece, is that the Essenes were against all manner of sacrifices to do with animals and so called atonement. They had constant disagreements with both the Sadducees and Pharisees, about what they considered to be Gods commandments, and what they believed were traditions made by men. They believed that sacrifices of animals (along with many other Laws, which the Pharisees were practicing) didn’t come from Gods Laws, but instead came from men’s traditions. These very same issues are echoed, in many of Jesus interactions with the Pharisees.

Like for example, in this verse below…

Matthew 12:7

7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent.

In the verse above, Jesus is actually quoting Hosea 6 verse 6, a verse that clearly states that God does not require sacrifices of animals. And there are many other similar Old Testament verses, which state that sacrifices were not necessary… Of course Jesus would say those things, because he was most likely an Essene and against sacrifices etc..

So summing up, because Paul and other early Christian/Jewish writers believed that sacrifices were part of Gods Laws, and because they didn’t understand the symbolism behind Jesus use of the word “blood”… Jesus became made into, a sacrifice, for all sins IMO.


- JC

reply to post by vethumanbeing


Getting back on topic, in Regards to a potential bloodline; the following line off text, is very intriguing indeed…

From the Apocryphal “Gospel of Bartholomew”

The Saviour then appeared to them on the chariot of the Father and said to Mary: Mari Khar Mariath (Mary the mother of the Son of God). Mary answered: Rabbouni Kathiathari Mioth (The Son of God the Almighty, my Lord, and my Son.). A long address to Mary from Jesus follows, in the course of which he bids her tell his brethren, 'I ascend unto my Father and your Father', &c. Mary says: If indeed I am not permitted to touch thee, at least bless my body in which thou didst deign to dwell.

What’s interesting about this, is that the verse appears to be making out that, it is Jesus mother Mary, who is responding to Jesus saying 'I ascend unto my Father and your Father...etc”, because her reply is clearly a response to Jesus making that statement. The 2 sentences are clearly connected.

But we know from the Gospel of John, chapter 20, verse 13-18, that it is Mary Magdalene who is having the same elements of that conversation with Jesus, and not his mother Mary.

If it is Mary Magdalene in the above verse, who is speaking in the Gospel of Bartholomew, then what does she mean by “at least bless my body in which thou didst deign to dwell” ???

It goes without saying that if that was Jesus Mother Mary speaking; then, it is obviously connected, to the fact that she bore Jesus as a child. If on the other hand there has been a mix-up/discrepancy, with who is speaking in those verses, (which is clearly looking likely, at least in one respect) then what could Mary Magdalene mean by that last statement…

The other obvious question is, why would Jesus mother need her body blessed, at that time…?


Many things, don’t add up here…


- JC

Originally posted by korathin

Originally posted by tinhattribunal
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

uhh.. could you please be a little more specific?

Pagan BS DENIED!
Thank you for engaging expected psychopathic controlling behavior one has come to expect of Christian haters.
www.tektonics.org...
Hesus and Jesus, simple minds find simple connections where no connection exists..

Korathin/tinhattribunal are you conjoined twins argueing over breakfast preparations, if so I am all in, Cream of Wheat vs Oatmeal, and throw in some salted information (I dont have to eat it).

reply to post by Joecroft


The metaphor of grapes wine and blood DNA is not missed. It was wine/blood, a carnal blessing. The vines as the older they are hold the wisdom. I can see the misinterpretation of God code as DNA lifeforce unmistakeable. Wisdom the same thing Holy Spirit is LIVE ESSENCE. You summed it up with Paul and the others, Not understanding Jesus's symbolic use of the word blood led them to mistake this as self sacrifice. Where does the past sinner future or present come into play. There is also a huge problem of the use of the word "brother", In Greek, in Hebreic, in Aramaic has different conotations. One word can change in misinterpretation EVERYTHING.

According to the Urantia Papers, in their Part 4 The Life and Teachings of Jesus, this is the response to your query:
Immanuel the celestial elder brother of Jesus/Michael of Nebadon (our local universe) was telling Jesus of Nazareth before His bestowal upon Urantia (the name of our world) (page 1330, paper 120, section 3, paragraph 8):

(...)
(1330.3) 120:3.8 “7. While you will live the normal and average social life of the planet, being a normal individual of the male sex, you will probably not enter the marriage relation, which relation would be wholly honorable and consistent with your bestowal; but I must remind you that one of the incarnation mandates of Sonarington forbids the leaving of human offspring behind on any planet by a bestowal Son of Paradise origin.
(...)

What are the Paradise Sons?:
Pg 223, paper 20, section 0, paragraphs 1-5:

Paper 20 The Paradise Sons of God

(223.1) 20:0.1 AS THEY function in the superuniverse of Orvonton, the Sons of God are classified under three general heads:

(223.2) 20:0.2 1. The Descending Sons of God.

(223.3) 20:0.3 2. The Ascending Sons of God.

(223.4) 20:0.4 3. The Trinitized Sons of God.

(223.5) 20:0.5 Descending orders of sonship include personalities who are of direct and divine creation. Ascending sons, such as mortal creatures, achieve this status by experiential participation in the creative technique known as evolution. Trinitized Sons are a group of composite origin which includes all beings embraced by the Paradise Trinity even though not of direct Trinity origin.

Originally posted by eli9x
According to the Urantia Papers, in their Part 4 The Life and Teachings of Jesus, this is the response to your query:
Immanuel the celestial elder brother of Jesus/Michael of Nebadon (our local universe) was telling Jesus of Nazareth before His bestowal upon Urantia (the name of our world) (page 1330, paper 120, section 3, paragraph 8):

(...)
(1330.3) 120:3.8 “7. While you will live the normal and average social life of the planet, being a normal individual of the male sex, you will probably not enter the marriage relation, which relation would be wholly honorable and consistent with your bestowal; but I must remind you that one of the incarnation mandates of Sonarington forbids the leaving of human offspring behind on any planet by a bestowal Son of Paradise origin.

Thankyou eli9x, if some are not familiar with this text can I help and make it an easier digestion of a different thought, different bible. "Training the Messengers pg 1545 " First work of the twelve'.

"Preach the forgiveness of sin though Faith in "God without penance or sacrifice, and that the Father in heaven loves all his children with the same eternal love. Jesus enjoined his apostles to refrain from discussing:
1. the work and imprisonment of John the Baptist
2. The voice at the baptism. Said Jesus: "Only those who heard the voice refer to it. Speak only which you have heard from me; speak not hearsay".
3. The turning of water into wine at Cana. Jesus seriously charged them saying, "Tell no man about the water and wine".

This is a completely different take what happened and was supposed to be recalled. A great blunder was to organize Christian teaching so completely was about personalizing the personage of Jesus. This over-emphasis of the personality in the theology of Christianity has worked to obscure his teaching, all of this has made it increasingly difficult for Jewish, Mohammedans, Hindus and other "eastern religionists to accept the teachings of Jesus. His personification eclipsed the message, supplimenting it was his saving grace "the fatherhood of God and the potencial Brotherhood of man was nulified".

Yes.
Urantia, pg 1545, paper 138, section 8... (emphasis in the original text):

www.urantia.org... aper-138-training-kingdoms-messengers
8. First Work of the Twelve
(1545.2) 138:8.1 After disposing of the fish catches of two weeks, Judas Iscariot, the one chosen to act as treasurer of the twelve, divided the apostolic funds into six equal portions, funds for the care of dependent families having been already provided. And then near the middle of August, in the year A.D. 26, they went forth two and two to the fields of work assigned by Andrew. The first two weeks Jesus went out with Andrew and Peter, the second two weeks with James and John, and so on with the other couples in the order of their choosing. In this way he was able to go out at least once with each couple before he called them together for the beginning of their public ministry.
(1545.3) 138:8.2 Jesus taught them to preach the forgiveness of sin through faith in God without penance or sacrifice, and that the Father in heaven loves all his children with the same eternal love. He enjoined his
apostles to refrain from discussing:
(1545.4) 138:8.3 1. The work and imprisonment of John the Baptist.
(1545.5) 138:8.4 2. The voice at the baptism. Said Jesus: “Only those who heard the voice may
refer to it. Speak only that which you have heard from me; speak not hearsay.”
(1545.6) 138:8.5 3. The turning of the water into wine at Cana. Jesus seriously charged them,
saying, “Tell no man about the water and the wine.”
(1545.7) 138:8.6 They had wonderful times throughout these five or six months during which they worked as fishermen every alternate two weeks, thereby earning enough money to support themselves in the field for each succeeding two weeks of missionary work for the kingdom.
(1545.8) 138:8.7 The common people marveled at the teaching and ministry of Jesus and his apostles. The rabbis had long taught the Jews that the ignorant could not be pious or righteous. But Jesus’ apostles were both pious and righteous; yet they were cheerfully ignorant of much of the learning of the rabbis and the wisdom of the world.
(...)

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

Nobody would die for something they didn't believe in.

Besides, having no actual evidence to suggest that He didn't do those things, I fail to see how you can come to the magical conclusion that they just made up the miracles of Jesus.

Jim Morrison said it:

Riders on the storm
The world you depend upon
Into the house we are born
Into the house, like a dog without a bone

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Why Was Jesus Denied The Act OF Physical Procreation, as he was human.

Where does it actually say that He was denied that in the bible??

He was not, yet did not do his duty to God and Family Procreation; incredibly important to maintain profligate the Davidian Line of genetics. The Mothers line was true, its the Fathers always in question. Joseph did not father Jesus. Who did? Any Rabbi unmarried and childless at the age of 33 would be stoned as a potencial heretic.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Why Was Jesus Denied The Act OF Physical Procreation, as he was human.

Where does it actually say that He was denied that in the bible??

He was not, yet did not do his duty to God and Family Procreation; incredibly important to maintain profligate the Davidian Line of genetics. The Mothers line was true, its the Fathers always in question. Joseph did not father Jesus. Who did? Any Rabbi unmarried and childless at the age of 33 would be stoned as a potencial heretic.

edit on 8-5-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

We are revealed in the 5th epochal divine revelation the Urantia Papers this:

1. Joseph and Mary
(1344.4) 122:1.1 Joseph, the human father of Jesus (Joshua ben Joseph), was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, albeit he carried many non-Jewish racial strains which had been added to his ancestral tree from time to time by the female lines of his progenitors. The ancestry of the father of Jesus went back to the days of Abraham and through this venerable patriarch to the earlier lines of inheritance leading to the Sumerians and Nodites and, through the southern tribes of the ancient blue man, to Andon and Fonta. David and Solomon were not in the direct line of Joseph’s ancestry, neither did Joseph’s lineage go directly back to Adam. Joseph’s immediate ancestors were mechanics — builders, carpenters, masons, and smiths. Joseph himself was a carpenter and later a contractor. His family belonged to a long and illustrious line of the nobility of the common people, accentuated ever and anon by the appearance of unusual individuals who had distinguished themselves in connection with the evolution of religion on Urantia.
(1345.1) 122:1.2 Mary, the earth mother of Jesus, was a descendant of a long line of unique ancestors embracing many of the most remarkable women in the racial history of Urantia. Although Mary was an average woman of her day and generation, possessing a fairly normal temperament, she reckoned among her ancestors such well-known women as Annon, Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba, Ansie, Cloa, Eve, Enta, and Ratta. No Jewish woman of that day had a more illustrious lineage of common progenitors or one extending back to more auspicious beginnings. Mary’s ancestry, like Joseph’s, was characterized by the predominance of strong but average individuals, relieved now and then by numerous outstanding personalities in the march of civilization and the progressive evolution of religion. Racially considered, it is hardly proper to regard Mary as a Jewess. In culture and belief she was a Jew, but in hereditary endowment she was more a composite of Syrian, Hittite, Phoenician, Greek, and Egyptian stocks, her racial inheritance being more general than that of Joseph.
(...)

4. Joseph’s Dream
(1347.3) 122:4.1 Joseph did not become reconciled to the idea that Mary was to become the mother of an extraordinary child until after he had experienced a very impressive dream. In this dream a brilliant celestial messenger appeared to him and, among other things, said: “Joseph, I appear by command of Him who now reigns on high, and I am directed to instruct you concerning the son whom Mary shall bear, and who shall become a great light in the world. In him will be life, and his life shall become the light of mankind. He shall first come to his own people, but they will hardly receive him; but to as many as shall receive him to them will he reveal that they are the children of God.” After this experience Joseph never again wholly doubted Mary’s story of Gabriel’s visit and of the promise that the unborn child was to become a divine messenger to the world.
(1347.4) 122:4.2 In all these visitations nothing was said about the house of David. Nothing was ever intimated about Jesus’ becoming a “deliverer of the Jews,” not even that he was to be the long-expected Messiah. Jesus was not such a Messiah as the Jews had anticipated, but he was the world’s deliverer. His mission was to all races and peoples, not to any one group.
(1347.5) 122:4.3 Joseph was not of the line of King David. Mary had more of the Davidic ancestry than Joseph. True, Joseph did go to the City of David, Bethlehem, to be registered for the Roman census, but that was because, six generations previously, Joseph’s paternal ancestor of that generation, being an orphan, was adopted by one Zadoc, who was a direct descendant of David; hence was Joseph also accounted as of the “house of David.”
(...)

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Any Rabbi unmarried and childless at the age of 33 would be stoned as a potencial heretic.

You're right, it would be very unusual. But Jesus wasn't a Rabbi in the official system.

Let me put it this way. There are thousands of people with the nickname "Doc," but they're not actually M.D.s. It's usually given as a sign that the "Doc" is clever, smart, educated, something like that.

Jesus was called "rabbi" because he was recognized as a wise, spiritual person who taught. Not that he had been brought into the Temple heirarchy.

Jesus was called "rabbi" because he was recognized as a wise, spiritual person who taught. Not that he had been brought into the Temple heirarchy.

That's exactly what Urantia revealed about Jesus of Nazareth. ...

(1008.1) 92:4.8 4. Jesus of Nazareth. Christ Michael presented for the fourth time to Urantia the concept of God as the Universal Father, and this teaching has generally persisted ever since. The essence of his teaching was love and service, the loving worship which a creature son voluntarily gives in recognition of, and response to, the loving ministry of God his Father; the freewill service which such creature sons bestow upon their brethren in the joyous realization that in this service they are likewise serving God the Father.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Any Rabbi unmarried and childless at the age of 33 would be stoned as a potencial heretic.

You're right, it would be very unusual. But Jesus wasn't a Rabbi in the official system.

Let me put it this way. There are thousands of people with the nickname "Doc," but they're not actually M.D.s. It's usually given as a sign that the "Doc" is clever, smart, educated, something like that.
Jesus was called "rabbi" because he was recognized as a wise, spiritual person who taught. Not that he had been brought into the Temple heirarchy.

His followers considered him as such, no Pharasee would admit him to any temple teachings because he was ESSENTually a Gnostic AS-SEEN *essene*. I have the thought jealousy played a part in his persecution by his own blood (house of the Davidian). He basically sneered (their interpretation) at those wearing the hats of fate/faith/politics and by rejecting them authored his own death. By the age of 13 this boy reached a maturity in understanding his God needed no Bar-mitzvah ceremony (did that ever happen, goat sacrifice). I would imagine he was by that time traveling with his Godfather (out of country, have to live long enough; amblitory to bring a new message). Is this true the first time Jesus spoke as a 12 year old was on the steps of Solomons Temple addressing passersby? Not sure, it may just be gossip mongering (why was he there in the area in the first place, as an apprentice with his step/what/adoptive father Joseph; learning the trade of bridgebuilding, masonry for Herod). Charle, french innvocation, it is still odd that a man of 33 in that era would not be married. Throw the love element out because between families (THEN) have a lineage to protect or prolong will have had this union arranged between families AT BIRTH. Standard proceedure period, profligation of blood lines, future determinism in play or AT GREAT RISK.

It's not important to ponder if Jesus had any kids or not. What is important is his teachings. He came here over 2,000 years ago to reform the spiritual teachings on Earth. Apparently, religion was not cutting it. So his job was to teach people the truth about the Kingdom of Heaven. He was a role model for us to follow. He showed us that anybody in this world have the same capabilities of reaching the true path of salvation and has the potential to even perform more miracles than he could. So have saying that, no one denied him of getting married and having kids. He had the complete freedom of choosing a lifestyle just like anybody living today.

Originally posted by ctophil
It's not important to ponder if Jesus had any kids or not. What is important is his teachings. He came here over 2,000 years ago to reform the spiritual teachings on Earth. Apparently, religion was not cutting it. So his job was to teach people the truth about the Kingdom of Heaven. He was a role model for us to follow. He showed us that anybody in this world have the same capabilities of reaching the true path of salvation and has the potential to even perform more miracles than he could. So have saying that, no one denied him of getting married and having kids. He had the complete freedom of choosing a lifestyle just like anybody living today.

ctophil, apparently his choice was not to father a bloodline (why) as a Jew would be first and formost to profligate his family, Davidian or Josephian. It is rare in that time period to be monasitic to the point of practicing celebacy. It was unheard of (not natural). I dont see the role model in the same way the Catholics do (DONT PROCREATE IF WITHIN THE ORDER; nuns and you monks) Procreate all you can you minions to further doctine and tithe to us. As I see it Jesus died for all sins past and present, thus allowing us all miscreance we can create and enjoy, as we are immediately absolved. In his day and age being an unmarried Rabbi would have been stoned to death at age 30 as THE ORIGINAL miscreant.

Originally posted by vethumanbeing

ctophil, apparently his choice was not to father a bloodline (why) as a Jew would be first and formost to profligate his family, Davidian or Josephian. It is rare in that time period to be monasitic to the point of practicing celebacy. It was unheard of (not natural). I dont see the role model in the same way the Catholics do (DONT PROCREATE IF WITHIN THE ORDER; nuns and you monks) Procreate all you can you minions to further doctine and tithe to us. As I see it Jesus died for all sins past and present, thus allowing us all miscreance we can create and enjoy, as we are immediately absolved. In his day and age being an unmarried Rabbi would have been stoned to death at age 30 as THE ORIGINAL miscreant.

edit on 28-7-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)

Yes, the Jewish authorities believed that Jesus was a blasphemous law-breaker in every way. Especially during those days due to their consciousness, breaking the law found in the scriptures was worthy of death. That's one of the reasons Jesus was killed. They took everything to the extreme, just like later on during the Vatican's Inquisition period. The reason why he was celibate was to teach that physical procreation is just a part of the fallen consciousness. Those who follow the true path of the Kingdom shouldn't put much importance on marriage and children, those are just Earthly things. In fact, nothing in this world should be more important than raising your consciousness to a higher level. Unless you detach yourself from ALL Earthly things, then you will never be able to accomplish FULL God Consciousness. And Yes, Jesus did accomplish this after his death. He broke the cycle of reincarnation. He overcame death. Did not the Master Buddha left his wife and kids to pursue the kingdom? Same thing. And this happened over a thousand years before Jesus' time.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't get married if you want to pursue the path of true salvation. It's just a different way when you do have a spouse. Jesus chose the path of celibacy due to time constraints, because he knew he would be killed early in life. He had so much to do beforehand. But also, it is easier to keep the focus on the mind of God when you are not married, unless your spouse is also on the same path of God Consciousness.

However, there is an even deeper truth concerning Jesus' celibacy. But I am not allowed to mention it at this moment in time. There are no secrets in the Kingdom of God. But there are certain things that the current consciousness of man is not ready for yet.

reply to post by ctophil


It seems to me if celibacy was important to Jesus' ministry, the Bible wouldn't said something about it. But, the Bible neither confirms nor denies Jesus' celibacy or his marriage. He very well may have been married, since his ministry did start until after his baptism, at the age of 30. His apostles were married.