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]

Well, we have the good old 'do as i say, not as I do' of the God apology. It's ok if God does evil (and Jesus loses his rag) because they can get away with what they like, but humans get criticized for the same thing. Double standards and hypocrisy.

I mentioned above that Jesus handing over his mother to the disciple (the story -method of the Eye of the narrator) is not an act of kindness or consideration let alone respect by him, because he is taking her from his family - brothers and sisters - and handing her over to a disciple. I suggest it is symbolic of taking Jesus' birthright or authority away from the Jewish origins and handing it to the representative of Christianity, but that's just my suggestion. But otherwise it is a pretty wretched and disrespectful thing to do. But what can one expect from a Book that says a girl should be forcibly married to her rapist?

[alexxcJRO]

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.

Off course he lost is temper. He was just another delusional-narcisistic, charismatic religious/cult leader(mere human) with grandiose beliefs about himself.
Just like Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Sathya Sai Baba.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's the problem with 'Righteous anger'. It leads to double standards, arrogance and bigotry and in the end 'religion makes good people do bad things' because they believe that their anger or worse is justified because they are Right.

But on all evidence, they are not, and their anger is justified only by their own belief. Is the anger of the Muslim of the Buddhists (we have seen it in Sri Lanka) validated or excused by their Faith? I doubt it. The justification of Christian anger (right kind of Christian of course) up to and including intimidation and violence, through Faith in their being right is the problem, and a very real and serious one.

[tam]

Peace to you, Transponder,

Well, we have the good old 'do as i say, not as I do' of the God apology. It's ok if God does evil (and Jesus loses his rag) because they can get away with what they like, but humans get criticized for the same thing. Double standards and hypocrisy.

I think you are correct that there is hypocrisy involved, but it is not hypocrisy on the part of God or of Christ.

If someone entered your father's house and disrespected him in his house, stole from your siblings or from other people your father was protecting or guiding, are you telling me that you would not be angry? That you would not throw them out of your father's house? Thieves in your father's house, robbing your siblings and others seeking care from your father, and that would be okay?

Of course not.

Some of the things some of you guys think, I just don't get it. Some of you are all - oh, religion and religious leaders are a bunch of liars and thieves (and religion does indeed steal from the sheep, and religion is full of lies). But here Christ throws out some of those thieves, and you're against Him. Same as when He calls the religious leaders out on their hypocrisy, their double standards, etc... you do the same thing! But Christ cannot?

Come now.

I mentioned above that Jesus handing over his mother to the disciple (the story -method of the Eye of the narrator) is not an act of kindness or consideration let alone respect by him, because he is taking her from his family - brothers and sisters - and handing her over to a disciple.

Who says He is taking her away from his flesh and blood brothers, rather than that He is giving her another son, and that son another mother, as well as seeing to her care after His death (and resurrection)? Regardless of what his flesh and blood brothers chose to do, the disciple whose care He gave her into would always take her into his home and care for her.

Why are you looking for some nefarious motivation here?

I suggest it is symbolic of taking Jesus' birthright or authority away from the Jewish origins and handing it to the representative of Christianity, but that's just my suggestion. But otherwise it is a pretty wretched and disrespectful thing to do.

It's wretched and disrespectful to ensure your mother is cared for? To see to the comfort and care of others even while in pain on the cross?

But what can one expect from a Book that says a girl should be forcibly married to her rapist?

What does this have to do with Christ seeing to His mother's care, offering comfort to both his mother and the disciple he loves? Was Mary forced to go into that disciple's house, to receive care? Was she no longer permitted to see her flesh and blood children? If that is what you are implying, then where are these terrible instructions?

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you, Transponder,

Well, we have the good old 'do as i say, not as I do' of the God apology. It's ok if God does evil (and Jesus loses his rag) because they can get away with what they like, but humans get criticized for the same thing. Double standards and hypocrisy.

I think you are correct that there is hypocrisy involved, but it is not hypocrisy on the part of God or of Christ.

If someone entered your father's house and disrespected him in his house, stole from your siblings or from other people your father was protecting or guiding, are you telling me that you would not be angry? That you would not throw them out of your father's house? Thieves in your father's house, robbing your siblings and others seeking care from your father, and that would be okay?

Of course not.

Some of the things some of you guys think, I just don't get it. Some of you are all - oh, religion and religious leaders are a bunch of liars and thieves (and religion does indeed steal from the sheep, and religion is full of lies). But here Christ throws out some of those thieves, and you're against Him. Same as when He calls the religious leaders out on their hypocrisy, their double standards, etc... you do the same thing! But Christ cannot?

Come now.

I mentioned above that Jesus handing over his mother to the disciple (the story -method of the Eye of the narrator) is not an act of kindness or consideration let alone respect by him, because he is taking her from his family - brothers and sisters - and handing her over to a disciple.

Who says He is taking her away from his flesh and blood brothers, rather than that He is giving her another son, and that son another mother, as well as seeing to her care after His death (and resurrection)? Regardless of what his flesh and blood brothers chose to do, the disciple whose care He gave her into would always take her into his home and care for her.

Why are you looking for some nefarious motivation here?

I suggest it is symbolic of taking Jesus' birthright or authority away from the Jewish origins and handing it to the representative of Christianity, but that's just my suggestion. But otherwise it is a pretty wretched and disrespectful thing to do.

It's wretched and disrespectful to ensure your mother is cared for? To see to the comfort and care of others even while in pain on the cross?

But what can one expect from a Book that says a girl should be forcibly married to her rapist?

What does this have to do with Christ seeing to His mother's care, offering comfort to both his mother and the disciple he loves? Was Mary forced to go into that disciple's house, to receive care? Was she no longer permitted to see her flesh and blood children? If that is what you are implying, then where are these terrible instructions?

Two main points. It is Jesus (and his muscle as he'd never get away with it otherwise) is depicted as entering the house of other people on the grounds that his ancestor wouldn't have approved of them, and starts smashing the furniture. It is the intruder is in the wrong here, even if he just preached his complaints. And that's the real point - Jesus doesn't just denounce, he (supposedly - I don't believe it was as it is written) loses his rag and gets physical. This is anger and the excuse that it is Righteous anger neither washes nor excuses that.

The other point is the business of Jesus handing his mother over to a stranger. If we trust the Gospel record, the family was still living. The daughters were there. Even if the Bethany group were not family (as I think it looks like) there is no reason to suppose there was no-one of her family could look after their mother. Guard against making up stuff like all the brothers had died or something. On reason, the family, not some stray disciple, were the ones she should stay with. It was not a question of them being banned the house, but why she should be given to this unrelated (we suppose) person when it wasn't necessary.

Moreover, nobody but John has this story, so I think he made it up. Then I have to ask why. The only suggestion I have is symbolic of Jesus' authority passing from the Jewish family to this Christian figure of the disciple that Jesus loved. Whoever that was.

The whole thing looks bad for the Biblical attitude towards women as having no rights other than what the male head of the family said. That's why I compared it to a largely 2nd class status for women in the Bible. It might have been common in the day but it is no guide to us now.

And peace to you, too

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you, Transponder,

Well, we have the good old 'do as i say, not as I do' of the God apology. It's ok if God does evil (and Jesus loses his rag) because they can get away with what they like, but humans get criticized for the same thing. Double standards and hypocrisy.

I think you are correct that there is hypocrisy involved, but it is not hypocrisy on the part of God or of Christ.

If someone entered your father's house and disrespected him in his house, stole from your siblings or from other people your father was protecting or guiding, are you telling me that you would not be angry? That you would not throw them out of your father's house? Thieves in your father's house, robbing your siblings and others seeking care from your father, and that would be okay?

Of course not.

Some of the things some of you guys think, I just don't get it. Some of you are all - oh, religion and religious leaders are a bunch of liars and thieves (and religion does indeed steal from the sheep, and religion is full of lies). But here Christ throws out some of those thieves, and you're against Him. Same as when He calls the religious leaders out on their hypocrisy, their double standards, etc... you do the same thing! But Christ cannot?

Come now.

I mentioned above that Jesus handing over his mother to the disciple (the story -method of the Eye of the narrator) is not an act of kindness or consideration let alone respect by him, because he is taking her from his family - brothers and sisters - and handing her over to a disciple.

Who says He is taking her away from his flesh and blood brothers, rather than that He is giving her another son, and that son another mother, as well as seeing to her care after His death (and resurrection)? Regardless of what his flesh and blood brothers chose to do, the disciple whose care He gave her into would always take her into his home and care for her.

Why are you looking for some nefarious motivation here?

I suggest it is symbolic of taking Jesus' birthright or authority away from the Jewish origins and handing it to the representative of Christianity, but that's just my suggestion. But otherwise it is a pretty wretched and disrespectful thing to do.

It's wretched and disrespectful to ensure your mother is cared for? To see to the comfort and care of others even while in pain on the cross?

But what can one expect from a Book that says a girl should be forcibly married to her rapist?

What does this have to do with Christ seeing to His mother's care, offering comfort to both his mother and the disciple he loves? Was Mary forced to go into that disciple's house, to receive care? Was she no longer permitted to see her flesh and blood children? If that is what you are implying, then where are these terrible instructions?

Two main points. It is Jesus (and his muscle as he'd never get away with it otherwise) is depicted as entering the house of other people on the grounds that his ancestor wouldn't have approved of them, and starts smashing the furniture. It is the intruder is in the wrong here, even if he just preached his complaints. And that's the real point - Jesus doesn't just denounce, he (supposedly - I don't believe it was as it is written) loses his rag and gets physical. This is anger and the excuse that it is Righteous anger neither washes nor excuses that.

No, according to the account, it is not the house of other people. Even if you did not accept that this was the house of His Father (though it was), Christ was Jewish. He could not have been an intruder. Thieves on the other hand...

The other point is the business of Jesus handing his mother over to a stranger.

Right off the bat you are making an unwarranted assumption.

The disciple Christ loved is not a stranger. He is known to Christ. He would have been known to Mary.

If we trust the Gospel record, the family was still living.

If we trust the gospel record, there is no reason to suggest that the disciple Christ loved is a stranger.

The daughters were there. Even if the Bethany group were not family (as I think it looks like) there is no reason to suppose there was no-one of her family could look after their mother.

Perhaps you might want to take a second read through my previous points?

Even IF the others could look after her, how does it hurt her to have another son? To have another home within which she could be cared for? How does it hurt her OR the disciple Christ loved that Christ gave them to one another (here is your son, here is your mother)? For care, for comfort?

Again I ask you,

Was Mary forced to go into that disciple's house, to receive care? Was she no longer permitted to see her flesh and blood children? If that is what you are implying, then where are these terrible instructions?

Guard against making up stuff like all the brothers had died or something.

There is no reason to suggest that all the brothers had died (and reasons to suggest the exact opposite; ie, James, the brother of the Lord). There is nothing nefarious going on here that could possibly require a justification.

On reason, the family, not some stray disciple, were the ones she should stay with. It was not a question of them being banned the house, but why she should be given to this unrelated (we suppose) person when it wasn't necessary.

Again, this is not some stray disciple. This is the disciple Christ loved. A disciple whom Christ knew would care for His mother no matter what might come. It doesn't have to be a statement against His flesh and blood brothers. But if His brothers (the flesh and blood brothers) had not YET accepted Him as the Christ (we know at least one did come to accept Him), and His mother HAD accepted Him as the Christ, then it might indeed be wise (and loving) to ensure she had a accepted home with His disciple (one who He knew would care for her, and where both of them could have comfort in one another).

It doesn't mean she would have been forced to go against her will.

Moreover, nobody but John has this story, so I think he made it up. Then I have to ask why. The only suggestion I have is symbolic of Jesus' authority passing from the Jewish family to this Christian figure of the disciple that Jesus loved. Whoever that was.

1 - your suggestion is based on an assumption that if only one person had something recorded in an account, it must have been made up. But that is not true. And of course this incident personally affected the person who WROTE the account, and that is a fairly reasonable explanation as to why he would choose to include it in his account.

2 - There isn't an "it can be Jewish" OR "it can be Christian" dilemma here, as if you can be one thing but not the other thing. The apostles (like Christ) were all Jewish. They also all became Christian (meaning - anointed ones, anointed with holy spirit). They were Jewish Christians. The disciple Christ loves - in the very gospel account you are reading - is JEWISH. He is Jewish IN the ACCOUNT. The 'torch' (or really simply the caring of a mother) was being passed from one Jew (Christ) to another Jew.

The whole thing looks bad for the Biblical attitude towards women as having no rights other than what the male head of the family said.

Because ensuring that your mother is cared for and has a home is somehow infringing upon her rights?

Once again, who says she was forced to go and stay with the disciple Christ loved? Who say she could not have - if she chose - gone and stayed with one of her biological sons? Who says she did not stay in various places, but that the disciple Christ loved took her into his home whenever she wanted or needed?

That's why I compared it to a largely 2nd class status for women in the Bible. It might have been common in the day but it is no guide to us now.

It was common a century ago right here in Western countries.

But caring for your mother has nothing to do with that. He was also caring for His disciple (a man). He gave his mother a son and his disciple a mother.

Again, nothing nefarious here except what you are reading into it.



Peace still to you, and thank you for your wish of peace,
tammy

[TRANSPONDER]

Peace to you,

Peace to you, Transponder,

Well, we have the good old 'do as i say, not as I do' of the God apology. It's ok if God does evil (and Jesus loses his rag) because they can get away with what they like, but humans get criticized for the same thing. Double standards and hypocrisy.

I think you are correct that there is hypocrisy involved, but it is not hypocrisy on the part of God or of Christ.

If someone entered your father's house and disrespected him in his house, stole from your siblings or from other people your father was protecting or guiding, are you telling me that you would not be angry? That you would not throw them out of your father's house? Thieves in your father's house, robbing your siblings and others seeking care from your father, and that would be okay?

Of course not.

Some of the things some of you guys think, I just don't get it. Some of you are all - oh, religion and religious leaders are a bunch of liars and thieves (and religion does indeed steal from the sheep, and religion is full of lies). But here Christ throws out some of those thieves, and you're against Him. Same as when He calls the religious leaders out on their hypocrisy, their double standards, etc... you do the same thing! But Christ cannot?

Come now.

I mentioned above that Jesus handing over his mother to the disciple (the story -method of the Eye of the narrator) is not an act of kindness or consideration let alone respect by him, because he is taking her from his family - brothers and sisters - and handing her over to a disciple.

Who says He is taking her away from his flesh and blood brothers, rather than that He is giving her another son, and that son another mother, as well as seeing to her care after His death (and resurrection)? Regardless of what his flesh and blood brothers chose to do, the disciple whose care He gave her into would always take her into his home and care for her.

Why are you looking for some nefarious motivation here?

I suggest it is symbolic of taking Jesus' birthright or authority away from the Jewish origins and handing it to the representative of Christianity, but that's just my suggestion. But otherwise it is a pretty wretched and disrespectful thing to do.

It's wretched and disrespectful to ensure your mother is cared for? To see to the comfort and care of others even while in pain on the cross?

But what can one expect from a Book that says a girl should be forcibly married to her rapist?

What does this have to do with Christ seeing to His mother's care, offering comfort to both his mother and the disciple he loves? Was Mary forced to go into that disciple's house, to receive care? Was she no longer permitted to see her flesh and blood children? If that is what you are implying, then where are these terrible instructions?

Two main points. It is Jesus (and his muscle as he'd never get away with it otherwise) is depicted as entering the house of other people on the grounds that his ancestor wouldn't have approved of them, and starts smashing the furniture. It is the intruder is in the wrong here, even if he just preached his complaints. And that's the real point - Jesus doesn't just denounce, he (supposedly - I don't believe it was as it is written) loses his rag and gets physical. This is anger and the excuse that it is Righteous anger neither washes nor excuses that.

No, according to the account, it is not the house of other people. Even if you did not accept that this was the house of His Father (though it was), Christ was Jewish. He could not have been an intruder. Thieves on the other hand...

The other point is the business of Jesus handing his mother over to a stranger.

Right off the bat you are making an unwarranted assumption.

The disciple Christ loved is not a stranger. He is known to Christ. He would have been known to Mary.

If we trust the Gospel record, the family was still living.

If we trust the gospel record, there is no reason to suggest that the disciple Christ loved is a stranger.

The daughters were there. Even if the Bethany group were not family (as I think it looks like) there is no reason to suppose there was no-one of her family could look after their mother.

Perhaps you might want to take a second read through my previous points?

Even IF the others could look after her, how does it hurt her to have another son? To have another home within which she could be cared for? How does it hurt her OR the disciple Christ loved that Christ gave them to one another (here is your son, here is your mother)? For care, for comfort?

Again I ask you,

Was Mary forced to go into that disciple's house, to receive care? Was she no longer permitted to see her flesh and blood children? If that is what you are implying, then where are these terrible instructions?

Guard against making up stuff like all the brothers had died or something.

There is no reason to suggest that all the brothers had died (and reasons to suggest the exact opposite; ie, James, the brother of the Lord). There is nothing nefarious going on here that could possibly require a justification.

On reason, the family, not some stray disciple, were the ones she should stay with. It was not a question of them being banned the house, but why she should be given to this unrelated (we suppose) person when it wasn't necessary.

Again, this is not some stray disciple. This is the disciple Christ loved. A disciple whom Christ knew would care for His mother no matter what might come. It doesn't have to be a statement against His flesh and blood brothers. But if His brothers (the flesh and blood brothers) had not YET accepted Him as the Christ (we know at least one did come to accept Him), and His mother HAD accepted Him as the Christ, then it might indeed be wise (and loving) to ensure she had a accepted home with His disciple (one who He knew would care for her, and where both of them could have comfort in one another).

It doesn't mean she would have been forced to go against her will.

Moreover, nobody but John has this story, so I think he made it up. Then I have to ask why. The only suggestion I have is symbolic of Jesus' authority passing from the Jewish family to this Christian figure of the disciple that Jesus loved. Whoever that was.

1 - your suggestion is based on an assumption that if only one person had something recorded in an account, it must have been made up. But that is not true. And of course this incident personally affected the person who WROTE the account, and that is a fairly reasonable explanation as to why he would choose to include it in his account.

2 - There isn't an "it can be Jewish" OR "it can be Christian" dilemma here, as if you can be one thing but not the other thing. The apostles (like Christ) were all Jewish. They also all became Christian (meaning - anointed ones, anointed with holy spirit). They were Jewish Christians. The disciple Christ loves - in the very gospel account you are reading - is JEWISH. He is Jewish IN the ACCOUNT. The 'torch' (or really simply the caring of a mother) was being passed from one Jew (Christ) to another Jew.

The whole thing looks bad for the Biblical attitude towards women as having no rights other than what the male head of the family said.

Because ensuring that your mother is cared for and has a home is somehow infringing upon her rights?

Once again, who says she was forced to go and stay with the disciple Christ loved? Who say she could not have - if she chose - gone and stayed with one of her biological sons? Who says she did not stay in various places, but that the disciple Christ loved took her into his home whenever she wanted or needed?

That's why I compared it to a largely 2nd class status for women in the Bible. It might have been common in the day but it is no guide to us now.

It was common a century ago right here in Western countries.

But caring for your mother has nothing to do with that. He was also caring for His disciple (a man). He gave his mother a son and his disciple a mother.

Again, nothing nefarious here except what you are reading into it.



Peace still to you, and thank you for your wish of peace,
tammy

You are missing the point. Of course the sisters at least knew this disciple . But he was a stranger in that he was not part of the Jesus family. If the sisters were living (as was the case at the resurrection, so Luke says) the Brothers should be, too. After all, it was hardly a year since the people at Nazareth were saying 'this man's brothers and sisters are with us'. The brothers all died by the time Jesus got to Jerusalem?

There is no valid or indeed moral reason for Jesus to hand his mother over, whether needing care or not, to a disciple replacing the .actual sons as her sons with a disciple who wasn't. It is immoral and a disregard of her rights. It is a Problem when decent people start excusing reprehensible acts on the part of their ideological leaders. I am thankful therefore to say it is an invention of John's (not in the synoptics) and I think symbolic of the Jesus mandate passing from the Jewish followers to the Christian followers.

The excuse that the Temple was 'his father's house' is an example of the problem when Christians think their Dogmas overrule human rules and even rights. It was not his house, but the Temple of the Jewish people and no matter what beliefs were in his head, any god or his messiah should have shown some respect for the property (as they saw it) of others. What Jesus did was not a good example, and Righteous anger and the various 'he owned it because God did' apologetics don't excuse this behavior, any more than it excuses the Christian tendency to ride roughshod over the rights of others because they think it is what God wants.

Yes, I think there was a great difference between the Jewish - observant followers of Jesus (who existed, unless we think Paul was not real) and the Greek gentile Christians who had not only dismissed Judaism but turned the man - messiah into a god.

I think that the Gospel ambivalence towards the twelve reflects this problem - the twelve were the ones who followed Jesus, but the Christians did not really like them. So they fail, are stupid and inadequate, and serve only to pass the message to the gentiles whose Faith (so the gospels tell us) exceeds that of the Jews. Yes, there is a great difference between Jewish Christian and Greek gentile Christian.

And, yes, the 'oh - just because someone doesn't mention it..' excuse is inadequate and high time Bible critics stopped Bible apologists playing that overdone excuse. The probability must be that the more significant things are ignored and the more the gospels - even those supposed to have 'copied' Mark - leave something out, the probability must be, I insist, that people were inventing stuff; and that is why important events may appear only in one gospel, and may even be contradicted. Faithbased denial aside, Reasonable people must credit that 'someone is making stuff up' above the 'oh - the others who were there didn't know that happened', excuse. I think it's time this miserable 'eyewitness error' excuse was exposed for the faithbased denial it really is.

So, supposing this rather shocking giving his old mum to a stranger (not a part of his own family (1) and aside from making stuff up (maybe the household earners all died, or they had rented her room out or they all got leprosy) that this appears only in John like a lot of other stuff the synoptics have never heard of, the probability is it was Invented. Then one had to ask 'Why?'.

I think the 'do as I say, not as I do' (plainly in the OT and even in the New) IS down to God and Jesus, and not how Christians conduct themselves, which is of course following human morals and secular Law and not the instructions of the Bible, which would be as bad as the Taliban if the Bible was followed.

I apologise if I sometimes seem to skip points. Your posts can be long and often say the same thing. So I address points that seem to me to be significant and try to keep it to a manageable length.

(1) and it has to be said - this is the tip of the iceberg when bad stuff is excused, on the grounds "That was what they did back then". Back then Family mattered and when some head of the family git rid of this person or that in marriage or banishment or for whatever reason, it is bad today and was bad then even if it was commonly done.

[tam]

Peace to you Transponder,

Peace to you,

Peace to you, Transponder,

Well, we have the good old 'do as i say, not as I do' of the God apology. It's ok if God does evil (and Jesus loses his rag) because they can get away with what they like, but humans get criticized for the same thing. Double standards and hypocrisy.

I think you are correct that there is hypocrisy involved, but it is not hypocrisy on the part of God or of Christ.

If someone entered your father's house and disrespected him in his house, stole from your siblings or from other people your father was protecting or guiding, are you telling me that you would not be angry? That you would not throw them out of your father's house? Thieves in your father's house, robbing your siblings and others seeking care from your father, and that would be okay?

Of course not.

Some of the things some of you guys think, I just don't get it. Some of you are all - oh, religion and religious leaders are a bunch of liars and thieves (and religion does indeed steal from the sheep, and religion is full of lies). But here Christ throws out some of those thieves, and you're against Him. Same as when He calls the religious leaders out on their hypocrisy, their double standards, etc... you do the same thing! But Christ cannot?

Come now.

I mentioned above that Jesus handing over his mother to the disciple (the story -method of the Eye of the narrator) is not an act of kindness or consideration let alone respect by him, because he is taking her from his family - brothers and sisters - and handing her over to a disciple.

Who says He is taking her away from his flesh and blood brothers, rather than that He is giving her another son, and that son another mother, as well as seeing to her care after His death (and resurrection)? Regardless of what his flesh and blood brothers chose to do, the disciple whose care He gave her into would always take her into his home and care for her.

Why are you looking for some nefarious motivation here?

I suggest it is symbolic of taking Jesus' birthright or authority away from the Jewish origins and handing it to the representative of Christianity, but that's just my suggestion. But otherwise it is a pretty wretched and disrespectful thing to do.

It's wretched and disrespectful to ensure your mother is cared for? To see to the comfort and care of others even while in pain on the cross?

But what can one expect from a Book that says a girl should be forcibly married to her rapist?

What does this have to do with Christ seeing to His mother's care, offering comfort to both his mother and the disciple he loves? Was Mary forced to go into that disciple's house, to receive care? Was she no longer permitted to see her flesh and blood children? If that is what you are implying, then where are these terrible instructions?

Two main points. It is Jesus (and his muscle as he'd never get away with it otherwise) is depicted as entering the house of other people on the grounds that his ancestor wouldn't have approved of them, and starts smashing the furniture. It is the intruder is in the wrong here, even if he just preached his complaints. And that's the real point - Jesus doesn't just denounce, he (supposedly - I don't believe it was as it is written) loses his rag and gets physical. This is anger and the excuse that it is Righteous anger neither washes nor excuses that.

No, according to the account, it is not the house of other people. Even if you did not accept that this was the house of His Father (though it was), Christ was Jewish. He could not have been an intruder. Thieves on the other hand...

The other point is the business of Jesus handing his mother over to a stranger.

Right off the bat you are making an unwarranted assumption.

The disciple Christ loved is not a stranger. He is known to Christ. He would have been known to Mary.

If we trust the Gospel record, the family was still living.

If we trust the gospel record, there is no reason to suggest that the disciple Christ loved is a stranger.

The daughters were there. Even if the Bethany group were not family (as I think it looks like) there is no reason to suppose there was no-one of her family could look after their mother.

Perhaps you might want to take a second read through my previous points?

Even IF the others could look after her, how does it hurt her to have another son? To have another home within which she could be cared for? How does it hurt her OR the disciple Christ loved that Christ gave them to one another (here is your son, here is your mother)? For care, for comfort?

Again I ask you,

Was Mary forced to go into that disciple's house, to receive care? Was she no longer permitted to see her flesh and blood children? If that is what you are implying, then where are these terrible instructions?

Guard against making up stuff like all the brothers had died or something.

There is no reason to suggest that all the brothers had died (and reasons to suggest the exact opposite; ie, James, the brother of the Lord). There is nothing nefarious going on here that could possibly require a justification.

On reason, the family, not some stray disciple, were the ones she should stay with. It was not a question of them being banned the house, but why she should be given to this unrelated (we suppose) person when it wasn't necessary.

Again, this is not some stray disciple. This is the disciple Christ loved. A disciple whom Christ knew would care for His mother no matter what might come. It doesn't have to be a statement against His flesh and blood brothers. But if His brothers (the flesh and blood brothers) had not YET accepted Him as the Christ (we know at least one did come to accept Him), and His mother HAD accepted Him as the Christ, then it might indeed be wise (and loving) to ensure she had a accepted home with His disciple (one who He knew would care for her, and where both of them could have comfort in one another).

It doesn't mean she would have been forced to go against her will.

Moreover, nobody but John has this story, so I think he made it up. Then I have to ask why. The only suggestion I have is symbolic of Jesus' authority passing from the Jewish family to this Christian figure of the disciple that Jesus loved. Whoever that was.

1 - your suggestion is based on an assumption that if only one person had something recorded in an account, it must have been made up. But that is not true. And of course this incident personally affected the person who WROTE the account, and that is a fairly reasonable explanation as to why he would choose to include it in his account.

2 - There isn't an "it can be Jewish" OR "it can be Christian" dilemma here, as if you can be one thing but not the other thing. The apostles (like Christ) were all Jewish. They also all became Christian (meaning - anointed ones, anointed with holy spirit). They were Jewish Christians. The disciple Christ loves - in the very gospel account you are reading - is JEWISH. He is Jewish IN the ACCOUNT. The 'torch' (or really simply the caring of a mother) was being passed from one Jew (Christ) to another Jew.

The whole thing looks bad for the Biblical attitude towards women as having no rights other than what the male head of the family said.

Because ensuring that your mother is cared for and has a home is somehow infringing upon her rights?

Once again, who says she was forced to go and stay with the disciple Christ loved? Who say she could not have - if she chose - gone and stayed with one of her biological sons? Who says she did not stay in various places, but that the disciple Christ loved took her into his home whenever she wanted or needed?

That's why I compared it to a largely 2nd class status for women in the Bible. It might have been common in the day but it is no guide to us now.

It was common a century ago right here in Western countries.

But caring for your mother has nothing to do with that. He was also caring for His disciple (a man). He gave his mother a son and his disciple a mother.

Again, nothing nefarious here except what you are reading into it.



Peace still to you, and thank you for your wish of peace,
tammy

You are missing the point. Of course the sisters at least knew this disciple . But he was a stranger in that he was not part of the Jesus family. If the sisters were living (as was the case at the resurrection, so Luke says) the Brothers should be, too. After all, it was hardly a year since the people at Nazareth were saying 'this man's brothers and sisters are with us'. The brothers all died by the time Jesus got to Jerusalem?

How is it me who is missing the point, Transponder, when I said in my previous posts that the brothers were indeed alive?

I have no doubt that the flesh and blood brothers were yet alive.

(I do not understand why you are bringing up 'sisters' at all.)

There is no valid or indeed moral reason for Jesus to hand his mother over, whether needing care or not, to a disciple replacing the .actual sons as her sons with a disciple who wasn't. It is immoral and a disregard of her rights.

Once again, how? How is it immoral that He ensured her care with someone He knew would never turn her away or put her out? How does it disregard her rights to ensure she has a home, always?

Again I ask, was she forced to go into the home of the disciple Christ loved against her will? Was she no longer permitted to go into the homes of her flesh and blood sons?

It is a Problem when decent people start excusing reprehensible acts on the part of their ideological leaders.

And I think it is truly absurd for this to be called a reprehensible act.

Christ did not tell her that she was no longer mother to her flesh and blood sons. He did not tell them that she was no longer their mother.

It's like saying if a daughter is betraying or rejecting her mother by calling another woman (her husband's mother), mother.

Giving a son another mother does not mean he must reject his own birth mother. Giving a mother another son does not mean she has to reject her other sons.

I am thankful therefore to say it is an invention of John's (not in the synoptics) and I think symbolic of the Jesus mandate passing from the Jewish followers to the Christian followers.

You can believe as you want of course, but there are holes in this hypothesis.

The excuse that the Temple was 'his father's house' is an example of the problem when Christians think their Dogmas overrule human rules and even rights. It was not his house, but the Temple of the Jewish people and no matter what beliefs were in his head, any god or his messiah should have shown some respect for the property (as they saw it) of others.

Who is the 'they' in your brackets above? The Tabernacle (the Tent that God had Moses built while in the desert) was for God to dwell in. The physical Temple was a representation of the true Temple (the spiritual Temple - the Body of Christ - within which God dwells), and the Most Holy Place in that temple represented the Most Holy One (God Himself).

What Jesus did was not a good example, and Righteous anger and the various 'he owned it because God did' apologetics don't excuse this behavior, any more than it excuses the Christian tendency to ride roughshod over the rights of others because they think it is what God wants.

But it was okay for thieves to ride roughshod over the rights of others?

Again,

If someone entered your father's house and disrespected him in his house, stole from your siblings or from other people your father was protecting or guiding, are you telling me that you would not be angry? That you would not throw them out of your father's house? Thieves in your father's house, robbing your siblings and others seeking care from your father, and that would be okay?

Yes, I think there was a great difference between the Jewish - observant followers of Jesus (who existed, unless we think Paul was not real) and the Greek gentile Christians who had not only dismissed Judaism but turned the man - messiah into a god.

I think that the Gospel ambivalence towards the twelve reflects this problem - the twelve were the ones who followed Jesus, but the Christians did not really like them. So they fail, are stupid and inadequate, and serve only to pass the message to the gentiles whose Faith (so the gospels tell us) exceeds that of the Jews. Yes, there is a great difference between Jewish Christian and Greek gentile Christian.

Transponder, the earliest followers of Christ (in addition to the twelve) were also Jewish.

No doubt there were differences between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Some of the Jewish followers had a hard time accepting gentiles into the fold. Peter, himself, needed Christ to intervene first and makes sure he understood not to 'call unclean that which had been made clean'. But there is no indication that the gentiles had any sort of problem with the Twelve.

It sounds like you are pulling that one out of thin air.

It doesn't even make sense, Transponder. The disciple Christ loved is one of the twelve!

And, yes, the 'oh - just because someone doesn't mention it..' excuse is inadequate and high time Bible critics stopped Bible apologists playing that overdone excuse.

Simply saying something is inadequate does not make it so. Just because someone doesn't mention something does not mean that another person made it up <- that is a fact. Indeed, if all the gospels contained all the exact same information, people would complain that there is just one account, and that is not reliable. In fact, that is what people say about the three synoptic gospels. But when one gospel has details not included in the three synoptic gospels, well, then the complain changes: that fourth gospel must be 'inventing stuff' because it has information that the other gospels are missing.

If they're the same, they are not reliable; if they are different, they're not reliable.

Children. In. The. Marketplace.

The probability must be that the more significant things are ignored and the more the gospels - even those supposed to have 'copied' Mark - leave something out, the probability must be, I insist, that people were inventing stuff; and that is why important events may appear only in one gospel, and may even be contradicted. Faithbased denial aside, Reasonable people must credit that 'someone is making stuff up' above the 'oh - the others who were there didn't know that happened', excuse. I think it's time this miserable 'eyewitness error' excuse was exposed for the faithbased denial it really is.

I never claimed others didn't know it happened. Others did not include it. Their reasons are their own.

So, supposing this rather shocking giving his old mum to a stranger (not a part of his own family (1)

1 - Just because someone is not a flesh and blood member of your family does not mean that they are not your family.

2 - Christ did not give her to a stranger, as if he sold her. HE provided a(nother) son to her, to care for her, someone He trusted to always take care of her and never put her out.

You might want to remember that He also 'gave' the disciple He loved to His mother.

and aside from making stuff up

Like assuming an act of care for one's mother somehow means passing the torch from Jews to Gentiles? (even when every person involved in this entire scene was Jewish?)

(maybe the household earners all died, or they had rented her room out or they all got leprosy) that this appears only in John like a lot of other stuff the synoptics have never heard of, the probability is it was Invented.

Except you have to make HUGE leaps to come to your opinion. You have to read nefarious motives INTO this act, and since you don't think this account is true, you have to read nefarious motives into the author. But then you have to somehow explain how passing the care of a Jewish woman into the care of a Jewish man (a Jewish man who is one of the Twelve) shows disrespect to Jews - and more specifically, to the Twelve. You also have to show that gentile Christians had a problem with the Twelve.

How can giving one's mother into the care of one of the twelve signify dislike toward the Twelve? How can it signify that the 'torch' was being passed to the Gentiles when the man being told 'here is your mother' was a fellow Jew, one of the Twelve?

Then one had to ask 'Why?'.

Seems to me that you have some other questions that need answering before drawing the conclusion you have drawn.

I think the 'do as I say, not as I do' (plainly in the OT and even in the New) IS down to God and Jesus,

In some things that will be true (do as I say, not as I do). That just make sense. If you don't have the power or the knowledge to do something, then you should not. For example, God is the Judge (and Christ has authority to Judge as well). We do not, and for good reason (we can and do make mistakes; we are often wrong in our judgments; and we, ourselves, all sin/commit wrongdoing.)

and not how Christians conduct themselves, which is of course following human morals and secular Law and not the instructions of the Bible, which would be as bad as the Taliban if the Bible was followed.

That all depends on how people interpret it. Regardless, I follow Christ. 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 apologise if I sometimes seem to skip points. Your posts can be long and often say the same thing. So I address points that seem to me to be significant and try to keep it to a manageable length.

Lol, your posts are as long as mine, Transponder : )

I appreciate your apology, thank you, but I do wish you would address the points that reveal the flaws in your thinking on this matter. I have bolded some of those points above.

b](1) and it has to be said - this is the tip of the iceberg when bad stuff is excused, on the grounds "That was what they did back then". Back then Family mattered and when some head of the family git rid of this person or that in marriage or banishment or for whatever reason, it is bad today and was bad then even if it was commonly done.[/b]

How was Mary 'gotten rid of'?


Peace again to you.

[William]

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?

My understanding of "losing one's temper" is generally understood to be something which occurs when someone comes to the point of being controlled by their emotions, rather than remaining in control of them.

Anger in itself is a natural enough internal response to external events.

In the case of the portrayed image of Jesus whipping up a storm by allowing his emotions to be externalized both physically and verbally, plainly wanting those who witnessed it to get the gist of his reasons for not being pleased with how things had turned out "in his Fathers House".

The externalizing itself is a form of symbolizing - Jesus symbolized an attitude, his overall claim being that he was sent by his Father and that some otherwise untainted image of יהוה had been replaced by a false representation and that is what Jesus was focused upon symbolizing through his internal knowledge and his external action.

So while the action might be observed to be a "loss of temper", it - more accurately - can be spoken of as "a calculated symbolic gesture which could not be mistaken or misinterpreted as to its overall meaning."

Contextually, the lead-up is telling the reader that there was a lot of attention on Jesus up to that moment and this adds strength to the observation that the act was calculated rather than simple a loss of temper.

Contextually, the follow-through is also informing the reader that Jesus then graphically used his Fathers House as it was intended by The Father, to be used.

The act of throwing his temper around, cleared out that which was not of The Fathers House.
Apparently some where not impressed with the ensuring results.

The Act is reminiscent of both the Flood and the Second Coming Stories.

[Purple Knight]

My understanding of "losing one's temper" is generally understood to be something which occurs when someone comes to the point of being controlled by their emotions, rather than remaining in control of them.

Then maybe that needs to change. If you're angry and all you do is yell at people, I doubt that is wrong.

I'm for emotions informing reason, not being opposed to reason. I don't think Jesus did anything wrong, yelling at people who, as far as the story goes, were doing something wrong. If he'd been meek, and laid out what they were doing wrong calmly and followed up with, "So, could you please not corrupt the temple with money?" then he would have been brushed off and there would be no story.

But it also means there's hypocrisy in Christians who say it's wrong to get angry at all, or who insist upon meekness and acceptance when dealing with wrongs. If Jesus is so godly that he can't lead us by example because we're just that different, and what applies to him does not apply to us, then we're better off ignoring him and selecting the best of us, who can lead us by example.