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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. I'll do more tomorrow as it's getting late but you appear to be refuting your own argument. I said that Jesus was forgiving the Romans on the cross. You said no, he was forgiving the others that were doing it. That has to be the sanhedrin. So now you say he isn't forgiving them because they did the greater sin. So he is forgiving the Romans. Comments?

As to the family at the cross, ok. It isn't specific. I thought that his mother being there implied that the women were family, but I'll give you that. But how about my argument that back in Galilee (Rejection at Nazareth) the brothers and sisters were with them. Had they all died? James (Mary is described as the mother of James the younger) is surely the brother of Jesus who ran the church in Jerusalem. He was still alive, why not the rest of the family? I find it hard to suppose that the reason that Jesus handed over his mother to the disciple was because there was no other family left.

You seem to accept that as you suggests that it was ok her going into the disciples'house as she would still be able to visit them.Why couldn't she live with them? And of course none of the synoptics have this event.

I won't convince you and you won't convince me, but aren't those reasonable points?

And...peace

[tam]

Peace to you,

Ok. I'll do more tomorrow as it's getting late

No worries.

but you appear to be refuting your own argument. I said that Jesus was forgiving the Romans on the cross. You said no, he was forgiving the others that were doing it.

This is what I said:

Though He has authority to judge, and He could have - according to the law - demanded life for life (against those who executed him), he asked forgiveness for them instead.

I said nothing about excluding anyone (Romans or Jews). You excluded the Jews:

The thing about forgiveness hardly extends to the Jews, never mind the teachers of the law.They were going to suffera sack of their city and smash of the temple because they did not accept him, never mind not being saved. The forgiveness of the Romans was because (following paul) they crucified Jesus in ignorance of who he was. The agenda is to blame the Jews and excuse the Romans who actually killed him.

Then I asked you:

Who says He was not also asking forgiveness for the Jews who had persecuted Him? He doesn't say 'please forgive the Romans'. He says 'please forgive them'. Stephen - following the example set by Christ (as we are supposed to do) - said the same thing 'please forgive them this sin'. Stephen was asking forgiveness for the Jews stoning him. Did Christ not also preach 'pray for those who persecute you'?

That has to be the sanhedrin. So now you say he isn't forgiving them because they did the greater sin. So he is forgiving the Romans. Comments?

Perhaps you should take a second read? I said:

Just because one person (the Jews who handed Christ over to be executed) was guilty of a greater sin than someone else (the Romans who carried out the execution) doesn't mean Christ could not pray for forgiveness for both.

In other words, He COULD pray forgiveness for both (the person guilty of the greater sin as well as the person guilty of a lesser sin).

As to the family at the cross, ok. It isn't specific. I thought that his mother being there implied that the women were family, but I'll give you that.

But how about my argument that back in Galilee (Rejection at Nazareth) the brothers and sisters were with them. Had they all died? James (Mary is described as the mother of James the younger) is surely the brother of Jesus who ran the church in Jerusalem. He was still alive, why not the rest of the family? I find it hard to suppose that the reason that Jesus handed over his mother to the disciple was because there was no other family left.

Didn't we already conclude this matter?

I never claimed nor even thought that the brothers were dead.

You're having that argument with yourself, lol.

You seem to accept that as you suggests that it was ok her going into the disciples'house as she would still be able to visit them.Why couldn't she live with them?

Who says she couldn't?

And of course none of the synoptics have this event.

That doesn't make it immoral. Nor does it mean it never happened.

I won't convince you and you won't convince me, but aren't those reasonable points?

That the brothers are alive is a reasonable point, but I never suggested they were dead to begin with. Of course they are alive. James, the brother of the Lord, is writing after the death and resurrection and ascension of Christ. I know some people argue that can't be his flesh and blood brother, but that argument tends to be based on preference of belief (theist or atheist), rather than upon fact.

The rest of the points about Mary, Christ, the disciple He loved, the 'symbolism' of handing over the authority to gentiles instead of jews, the 'agenda' you mentioned, etc... I do not think these are reasonable points at all. I have laid out the reasons in my previous posts. I can only suggest you take a second read through them, because you have certainly missed some things in them.

And...peace

Thank you, and peace to you as well.

[TRANSPONDER]

That looked a bit evasive. The point...not that it isn't peripheral to whether Jesus got angry... is who was Jesus forgiving on the cross? The Romans who were killing him or the 'teachers of the law' in this case the Sanhedrin who (the Bible says) were really to blame for his death? Or anyone else? This is a simple straight question. It should have a simple straight answer.

And ok. You got me in that I can't show the women at the crucifixion included Jesus' sisters, but you rather generously take it that the family was still alive and James (the less, brother of Jesus) was one of them. So the question is why would Jesus need to hand his mother over to this disciple? Her home and family was in Galilee. There is no question, consultation, comments from her or anyone else. He says 'Go' and she goeth, into the disciples house from then on.

As I say this is only in John and I see it as ficticious - symbolic of the transfer of Jesus birthright, authority or Mojo from the Jewish church to the gentile. This is just my explanation rather like the reason why the Pharisees never argue when Jesus makes sill arguments against the Law is because this is all written by Greek Christians and none of it actually happened.

But suppose it did, isn't Jesus' actions a bit authoritative? None of my family would have even put my old mum in home without asking her what she wanted. The point here is that Jesus is brutally authoritative. His entitlement allows him to burst into the relatives house (Temple) and smash the furniture. He disposes of his mother without consulting her. He teaches nonsense, on his own authority, and Authority (from God if not AS God) is abrogated by him to do as he likes. The Christian sense of entitlement is why Jesus thinks he can march into the Temple and cause a ruckus.

Let's look back at any other points from the other day.

I recall you question my conclusion that Jesus needed backup. The problem was there from the early days One account is a vivid scenario of Jesus kicking tables over as the "White -f aced" Temple police did nothing. Thus conveniently disposing of anyone who might interfere. But Josephus (so I gather.. I could try to hind the reference) explains what happened at festivals. Because of the tendency of the Jews to cause unrest at festival times when a mass of them collected at the temple, Pilate would bring his 500 auxiliaries from Caesarea and with the Antonia Garrison of 500 would post them on the Gallieries overlooking the sacrificial area. (galleries over the court of the court of the women and the place of offering money).

It is supported and historically sound that 1000 Romans with the governor keeping watch were there when Jesus broke loose. Since it is likely this act was planned (he'd known about the temple trade since he was 12) he must have had backup. 5,000 Bethsaidan men backup in fact - if it actually happened.

But that's a whole other conspiracy theory. The point is that Jesus might have been entitled in modern terms to preach against the temple trade, but the outburst of violence is disregarding the rules of decent behavior and only Christian entitlement above and beyond any human law can be used to justify it. Which is why religious authority is not good, if Iran (at least) didn't teach us that.