Did Jesus Lose His Temper?

[Danmark]

I believe it was Paul who said, "Be angry, but sin not."
Nothing wrong with a little anger. It's generally it's counterproductive and makes us stupid and makes us do foolish things, not to mention having an adverse effect on our health. Still... I don't suppose there's much dispute that Jesus got angry.

The question is, did he lose his temper?
A few examples from Matthew 23:

The Pharisees… preach, but do not practice.
They do all their deeds to be seen by others.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

You make him twice as much a child of Hell as yourselves.

Woe to you, blind guides….You blind fools!

You… have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.
…. You blind guides…!

You serpents, you brood of vipers! How are you to escape being sentenced to Hell?

From Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15, John 2:15,

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

[Divine Insight]

Paul said "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil" (Eph 6:12), so Christianity want rebels and daredevils who aren't afraid to go against the grain..

So for you this is what "Real Christianity" is all about?

Anti-establishment? Rebellion against authority? Anti-government and anarchy?

It just amazes me to no end how everyone creates their own Jesus hero.

Apparently anyone can use Jesus to support whatever their fancy is.

I think that's true, and one reason why Christianity is both popular and so extremely divisive and fractured.

When we stop and think about this we should be able to see that Christianity is actually the most disorganized "organized religion" in the world. Everyone uses Jesus for their own personal motives.

But I can't really argue with you. If we are going to follow Jesus as an example we too should be calling clergy fools and hypocrites. That would certainly qualify as following the lead of Jesus.

[Buy Oz Moses]

Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."


Matthew 21:18-22 New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Curses a Fig Tree
18 Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19 Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!� Immediately the tree withered.


Never Jesus? Really? Never? Angry Jesus is no joke.


Moral of the tale by Christian standards:

"If you have the faith of a mustard seed..." ...wait for it...you can ask a mountain to jump into the sea and it shall be done. Mountain cannon balls. That's what it's all about.


Moral of the tale by non believer standards: 

Preacher of peace, son of the most high God...kills a tree...because he's hungry.


There needs to be a Snickers commercial directed by Mel Gibson having comedian Lewis Black (dressed in jesus robes)angrily pointing at trees and damning them as they wither away. Then a few disciple come up to him saying "hey, Lord...here." Hands Lewis Black a Snickers bar and when he bites into it he reverts into passion of the Christ's Jim Caviezel.

[Paprika]

Another passage is the fact that he subjected himself to John's baptism of repentance FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN.

Here we go again.

Try taking into account the fact that both John and Jesus acknowledged he had no need for it.

[tam]

A few examples from Matthew 23:

The Pharisees… preach, but do not practice.
They do all their deeds to be seen by others.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

You make him twice as much a child of Hell as yourselves.

Woe to you, blind guides….You blind fools!

You… have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.
…. You blind guides…!

You serpents, you brood of vipers! How are you to escape being sentenced to Hell?

The above is simply truth. There does not have to be anger or temper involved in the above. He is just speaking truth, even if if sounds harsh.

The other example:

From Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15, John 2:15,

So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

[/quote]
If you consider being consumed by zeal... a loss of temper or anger... then perhaps. But rightfully so!


Christ loved (loves) His Father, as well as those who are seeking his Father, who are genuinely seeking and trying to do what is right. He comes into His Father's house, where the caretakers are supposed to be caring for those who seek and belong to His Father. Instead of seeing those children being cared for, He sees people using/abusing His Father's house, His Father's belongings, as well as using/abusing the children seeking to do the will of His Father... and all to turn a profit for themselves. Not only that but they are using dishonest scales to boot. (den of thieves - stealing both from the Father to turn a profit for themselves, and also stealing from the children, to turn a profit for themselves)

If your father - who you love - sent you to check on his children, and you walked into your fathers' house and found the caretakers meant to care for your father's children (your brothers and sisters) taking advantage them, stealing from them, all to turn a profit for themselves... and right there in your father's house... then you might overturn a few tables yourself. At the least you would drive them out of your father's house and away from the children.

(general you, no you specifically... since you, Danmark, have already said that you approve)


It is one thing to know that abuse occurs. It is quite another thing to walk in and see that abuse occurring before your very eyes.


Peace to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[beeswax]

Jesus said..

You serpents, you brood of vipers! How are you to escape being sentenced to Hell?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus, meek and mild and love your neighbour and your enemies..

Seems very hypocritical of Jesus doesn't it and just for doubting he was the Messiah and sentenced to hell for hypocrisy? That would mean 99.9% of all people would follow then...

He was just annoyed because the scriptures they knew inside out and probably better than Jesus did, knew all to well what the Messiah was to accomplish.

Odd there is very little about that place called hell in the OT and such a crowed and popular place it will be too.... Just like New York and London!

[tam]

Jesus said..

You serpents, you brood of vipers! How are you to escape being sentenced to Hell?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus, meek and mild and love your neighbour and your enemies..

Yes. And?

Meek and mild before GOD. Bold before men. So this does not mean that you cannot speak up on behalf of truth, or on behalf of the poor or the downtrodden, or the overburdened, the oppressed, etc, as Christ did. Many of today's religious leaders are the equivalent of the particular Pharisees Christ spoke against. So whose cause are you taking up?

Seems very hypocritical of Jesus doesn't it and just for doubting he was the Messiah and sentenced to hell for hypocrisy? That would mean 99.9% of all people would follow then...

It would be hypocritical if Christ let the religious leaders be exempt simply because they believed themselves to be untouchable, or above the rest.

Him speaking against their ways was not hypocritical.

He also did not sentence them to hell (whatever version of that word you ascribe to).

How will you avoid being sentenced to hell does not = I sentence you to hell.


Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[beeswax]

I applaud Jesus for questioning the status quo and his view of the downtrodden, the poor and the disadvantaged. But that is a far cry from then claiming he was the Son of God and he was the ONLY way to God. Name calling by Jesus was just a young man getting angry because they questioned his authority.

Would it not been more productive for Jesus to have gone around the known world at the time to espouse his social and religious views instead of sticking around the area where he knew he was at risk of losing his life? But then arguably we may all be Muslims by now? Christianity didn't flourish because of his social engineering but his resurrection and promise of eternal life..

[Buy Oz Moses]

interesting situation...

Exodus 20:12 and Ephesians 6:2 speak of honoring your mother and father. In Jewish tradition ranging back to the Bronze Age, we are taught to call our mothers "ima", a sign of respect for her title as the child barer.

Jesus in the book of John 2:4 (and others)calls his mother "gune" which is an informal title given to another woman or someone else's wife.

Many Christians have tried to pass this statement off as passive and respectful to Jesus' mother "What am to you, woman?" But the fact behind this statement is not honor or respect. Although Jesus does as he is asked by her, the statement he makes before doing the act is not honoring, it is back talk in all sects of Jewish tradition(and in some non Jewish tradition). When someone, be it abba or Ima, asks something of you, you are to show reverence (Leviticus 19) not back talk.

What right has the son of God to deny God's earthly bride the respect of calling her Ima instead of (someone else's bride)? Should we then believe as Jesus broke the laws of working miracles on the sabbath that we should too disrespect our mothers in the faces of our friends?

(For those who stretch the meaning of gune to imply the more polite "my lady" you forget the Jewish tradition of referring to abba's wife as Ima, not gune. Gune imparts a distance of informality, of separation from the man and the woman where the only separation from Ima comes from marriage, which Jesus did not take part of. Unless you imply the marriage to the church, which did not see him separate his distinction as the son of God, but surely the separation as the son of Mary.)

I'm interested to hear the point of views on this subject, as surely the statement shot back at Mary before Jesus performs one of his first miracles is defiantly in losing his temper with her request.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Buy Oz Moses in post #28]

That is relevant to the topic. Unlike the post above. There is the obvious matter of the way Jesus related to others, in an immoderate way, notably the money -changers, the Pharisees (notably the one he went to dinner with, licked the plates, shoved the spoons down his trousers and then roundly abuses him) and the frankly shocking display of temper when Peter expresses concern for his master. This is not how a role - model should behave. Worse, after just having handed Peter the keys of heaven (and earth) he tells him he is secular and flawed in his thinking. Jesus here, is frankly unbalanced.

A reasonably rational human would have patted Peter on the shoulder: "I know you are just trying to protect me, but this has to happen." The sounding off over the ribs and diet coke could have been handled better, too. Christians (and some agnostics too) are not slow to point the finger at atheists for their strident tone. But apparently it's ok if Jesus does it and so do they.

"Justified anger". It's plain and simple double standards and hypocrisy, friends and don't let nobody tell you it ain't.

But take heart, Bible believers, because I don't think Jesus did the two latter in any case. That exchange with Peter happens only in Matthew, so Matthew surely invented a pivotally important remark by Jesus that nobody else seems to have known about. And the diatribe about cleaning bowl and plate, and licking the knives and forks, too for sure, is, in Matthew and Mark, just one of the usual wrangles with the Pharisees and only Luke casts it as a denunciation across the dinner table as he wolfs the hosts' chicken and chips.

The fracas in the Temple however is another matter altogether. All four gospels agree on it so it merits a bit of credit. I think it happened, sorta. I won't go into my Pet Theory, but will just observe that there is an elements of a pretext for a fracas, because there is no way Jesus hadn't seen the market exchange many times before. If Jesus suddenly started kicking the traders' tables over, a sudden outrage as something he was formerly unaware of (one of those things God didn't tell him until needed) does not add up; it was planned and deliberate.

What's more, it was not unprotected vex. It was festival time (Passover or Sukkhot, all the same) and Pilate was there on duty with the Antonia garrison plus 500 he'd brought from Caesarea. There was no way Jesus was going to walk out of there unless he had backup. A lot of it.

But I'll let that lie for the moment, and deal with the disrespect to his mother. While not going as far as the Popes in turning her into a Catholic Kuan - Yin, she deserved better from Jesus. But I think there's a reason. The writers (being Roman Christians...I promise you, friends) did not much like Christianity originating and depending on the Jews. They did not like them, so they showed the disciples as flawed, failing, and not good enough for Jesus, like many Jews, it seems with Jesus marvelling how much more faithful Gentiles like Syrians, Samaritans of centurions were, even they could hardly have known anything about Jesus other than he reputedly healed people, so they said.

We also know very well the attitude that Jesus had towards his mother and family. Sitting amongst his cult - members, he is told his family has come to see him

"This is my family" he says, indicating his adoring cult -membership. I also think of that very strange thing in John where Jesus hands his mother over to the Disciple when his brothers are surely still there to look after her - it is symbolic of Jesus turning his birthright over from the Jews to the gentile christian who has been on the scene like a camera - drone from the start.

I anticipate faithbased denial of everything of course, but that's how I see it, and I see it fitting, folks, like the proverbial glove.

[tam]

Peace to you,

interesting situation...

Exodus 20:12 and Ephesians 6:2 speak of honoring your mother and father. In Jewish tradition ranging back to the Bronze Age, we are taught to call our mothers "ima", a sign of respect for her title as the child barer.

Jesus in the book of John 2:4 (and others)calls his mother "gune" which is an informal title given to another woman or someone else's wife.

Many Christians have tried to pass this statement off as passive and respectful to Jesus' mother "What am to you, woman?" But the fact behind this statement is not honor or respect. Although Jesus does as he is asked by her, the statement he makes before doing the act is not honoring, it is back talk in all sects of Jewish tradition(and in some non Jewish tradition). When someone, be it abba or Ima, asks something of you, you are to show reverence (Leviticus 19) not back talk.

Then perhaps you might consider that it is the tradition that is at fault, and not Christ. Why would Christ be beholden to men's traditions (Jewish or otherwise)?

Christ uses the same word when handing His mother to the disciple He loves, to see to her care:

When [Jesus] saw His mother and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, here is your son.” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” So from that hour, this disciple took her into his home.


He is using the exact same word to refer to His mother as He used above. No backtalk involved.


(He uses the same word for woman when speaking to Mary: the woman who washed his feet with her hair; also poured perfume on his feet and his head, the same woman He defended for having done such a beautiful thing for him; the same woman whose life he saved and sins he forgave.)

So because Christ uses a word that only tradition states is disrespectful (God does not state it is disrespectful), some men would accuse the Son whom God loves, of dishonoring his mother? Not only is this unjust, Christ's actions show otherwise! He grants her request. He sees to her care.

What right has the son of God to deny God's earthly bride the respect of calling her Ima instead of (someone else's bride)?

What right have the sons of men (humans) to accuse the Beloved Son of God of breaking a commandment, an accusation they base solely on their own traditions?

Should we then believe as Jesus broke the laws of working miracles on the sabbath that we should too disrespect our mothers in the faces of our friends?

My dear Lord broke no laws. Some falsely accused Him, but they were wrong.

Indignant because [Jesus] had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”

15 The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”



See also Luke 14:1-5

One Sabbath, when [Jesus] went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. 2 There in front of him was a man suffering from abnormal swelling of his body. 3 Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” 4 But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him on his way.

5 Then he asked them, “If one of you has a child[a] or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?”

(For those who stretch the meaning of gune to imply the more polite "my lady" you forget the Jewish tradition of referring to abba's wife as Ima, not gune. Gune imparts a distance of informality, of separation from the man and the woman where the only separation from Ima comes from marriage, which Jesus did not take part of. Unless you imply the marriage to the church, which did not see him separate his distinction as the son of God, but surely the separation as the son of Mary.)

Once again, why should God and His Son be bound by man's traditions (Jewish or otherwise)?



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy