The Goal

[RubySera_Martin]

Person of Jesus or sound doctrine?

Which part of Jesus' "person" do we look to for our pattern, the time when he:

1. cursed a tree for not having fruit at the wrong time of year
2. upset the money-changers tables and drove out the businessmen in the temple
3. ignored a mother with a sick child and called her a dog when he did talk to her
4. healed the important officer's servant from a distance

Oh no! I did not realize there were so many negative parts of Jesus' life to look at.

Let me try again:

1. he calmed a stormy sea
2. he was able to sleep no matter how badly the boat was tempous-tossed
3. knew it was for everyone's benefit that he out-wait the desperation of wanting to heal Lazarus from his deathy illness
4. he committed his soul into God's hands
5. he "was obedient, even to the death on the cross"

 

[earl]

Perhaps Jesus Son of Man and Jesus Son of God. earl

 

[leastone]

Which part of Jesus' "person" do we look to for our pattern, the time when he....

The pattern, or design, that we should seek for is "the heavenly pattern" --- the spiritual design that reflects the divine intent.

Which part of Jesus' "person" do we look to for our pattern, the time when he....

Rather than selecting already selectively reported historical acts and incidents, to find a pattern, we should go to the person and discern his spiritual pattern.

Which part of Jesus' "person" do we look to for our pattern, the time when he ....

He is our complete pattern, for the fullness of whatever there could possibly be, was revealed in and through him. Divinity made present in humanity, without reserve, for "He had the Spirit without measure."

How was this divine pattern expressed in Jesus' person?

His good friend John described Him as follows:
"He was full of grace and truth..."

His self-description was as follows:
"Be like Me (learn of Me): I am meek and humble of heart..."

Grace and truth; meekness and humility: the pattern for the glory of God, that is, the sweet fragrance of His presence, to be present in an undeniable way.

What more is there to say?

Respectfully submitted out of reverence for Christ,

Learner.

 

[wil]

Which part of Jesus' "person" do we look to for our pattern, the time when he:

1. cursed a tree for not having fruit at the wrong time of year
2. upset the money-changers tables and drove out the businessmen in the temple
3. ignored a mother with a sick child and called her a dog when he did talk to her
4. healed the important officer's servant from a distance

Oh no! I did not realize there were so many negative parts of Jesus' life to look at. Let me try again:

1. he calmed a stormy sea
2. he was able to sleep no matter how badly the boat was tempous-tossed
3. knew it was for everyone's benefit that he out-wait the desperation of wanting to heal Lazarus from his deathy illness
4. he committed his soul into God's hands
5. he "was obedient, even to the death on the cross"

all of the above. Without Jesus saying take this cup from me, and the rest....we think he could do no wrong. The fact that he was able to move FORWARD after having issues with his faith, after making mistakes, misjudgements in the eyes of others...makes this road easier for us. It allows us to look back on our past (uh 10 seconds ago) and realize that we too can decide to do better next time. The second half of the grouping indicates stuff for us to strive for as well. But the first half of the grouping is just as important the indication that we too can move forward, despite....

 

[Dondi]

Person of Jesus or sound doctrine?

Which part of Jesus' "person" do we look to for our pattern, the time when he:

1. cursed a tree for not having fruit at the wrong time of year
2. upset the money-changers tables and drove out the businessmen in the temple
3. ignored a mother with a sick child and called her a dog when he did talk to her
4. healed the important officer's servant from a distance

Oh no! I did not realize there were so many negative parts of Jesus' life to look at.

Let me try again:

1. he calmed a stormy sea
2. he was able to sleep no matter how badly the boat was tempous-tossed
3. knew it was for everyone's benefit that he out-wait the desperation of wanting to heal Lazarus from his deathy illness
4. he committed his soul into God's hands
5. he "was obedient, even to the death on the cross"

No doubt, Jesus did some strange, if not seemingly contradictory, things in his life. Certainly in a cursory reading of scripture, one might conclude that Jesus seemed to go against tthe "pattern" of his character. But rather than rush to judgement about the acts he committed, wouldn't it be more helpful to discern the reasons behind those acts. Sometimes, it's just a matter of a misunderstanding.

Jewish literature of the Old Testament is filled with allegories that lend to deeper and more profound meanings that what appears on the surface. As a Rabbi, Jesus employed many parables and sayings congruent to Jewish thought of His time.

I will go through a couple of these to show what I mean:

1. cursed a tree for not having fruit at the wrong time of year

Obviously, there is a lesson here beyond a sadistic cursing of a tree not in season. Some scholars contend that the fig tree was symbolic of the spiritual health Israel, and that because she wasn't producing the proper fruits of repentance in any season. Jesus may have been thinking of Jeremiah 8:13:

"I will surely consume them, saith the LORD: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them."

The Scriptures say that Jesus came to the fig tree hungry. And finding no fruit, He cursed it, that it bear fruit no longer.

further study of this can be found here:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/gospels/figtree.htm

2. upset the money-changers tables and drove out the businessmen in the temple

Some would find fault with Jesus because He got angry, based on His own words in 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."

So did Jesus sin? No. But this is talking about being angry with someone without a cause. And when we learn the reason behind Jesus driving the money changers away, we can see that He had every right to be angry.

"And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine."

These money changers were making a profit on the Temple sacrifices. The Temple sacrifices were part of the process that God established with Moses for the atonement of the sins of Israel. them as thieves. For they had perverted the sacrifices to their own ends.

I think there is a coorelation between the cursing of the fig tree and the driving out the money changers, for the latter is sandwiched within the incident of the fig tree. To take advantage of people by overcharging for sacrifices invoked a righteous anger in Jesus, impelling Him to charge It was as if Jesus was proclaiming that big changes were about to happen in God's dealings with Israel. Indeed, by 70 A.D, the Temple was destroyed and the sacrifices ceased altogether.

I'm not going to explore all of these incidents, but I think you get the picture that there is more that is going on than meets the eye in these acts of Jesus.

 

[flowperson]

Person of Jesus or sound doctrine?

Which part of Jesus' "person" do we look to for our pattern, the time when he:

1. cursed a tree for not having fruit at the wrong time of year
2. upset the money-changers tables and drove out the businessmen in the temple
3. ignored a mother with a sick child and called her a dog when he did talk to her
4. healed the important officer's servant from a distance

Oh no! I did not realize there were so many negative parts of Jesus' life to look at.

Let me try again:

1. he calmed a stormy sea
2. he was able to sleep no matter how badly the boat was tempous-tossed
3. knew it was for everyone's benefit that he out-wait the desperation of wanting to heal Lazarus from his deathy illness
4. he committed his soul into God's hands
5. he "was obedient, even to the death on the cross"

The myth of Jesus and His life on earth is intended to teach us miserable humans imbedded in the dualistic realities of this place that oneness and transcendance are possible if we "allow" ourselves to follow His example and teachings. As Earl so wisely pointed out, there is an inherent conflict between what Jesus referred to himself as, "Son of Man", and what the myths regarding him insist upon imposing upon His persona, "Son of G-d".

Naming has power over one's existence and works. All ancient communities recognized this basic fact of life. And it is clear to me that the dualistic warfare of the universe has been brought to bear by both the forces of light and darkness upon the head and life of this one person in history to teach us the "basic" realities of life and death. We're all trying to learn those lessons here, but I pray in ways more realistic than speculative.

flow....

 

[RubySera_Martin]

The myth of Jesus and His life on earth is intended to teach us miserable humans imbedded in the dualistic realities of this place that oneness and transcendance are possible if we "allow" ourselves to follow His example and teachings. As Earl so wisely pointed out, there is an inherent conflict between what Jesus referred to himself as, "Son of Man", and what the myths regarding him insist upon imposing upon His persona, "Son of G-d".

Naming has power over one's existence and works. All ancient communities recognized this basic fact of life. And it is clear to me that the dualistic warfare of the universe has been brought to bear by both the forces of light and darkness upon the head and life of this one person in history to teach us the "basic" realities of life and death. We're all trying to learn those lessons here, but I pray in ways more realistic than speculative.

flow....

Flow, that is profound. Thanks. I was really deeply impressed that I found it almost impossible to find any details in Jesus' life to show the "personna [that] myth has bestowed upon him."

originally posted by Wil:

all of the above. Without Jesus saying take this cup from me, and the rest....we think he could do no wrong. The fact that he was able to move FORWARD after having issues with his faith, after making mistakes, misjudgements in the eyes of others...makes this road easier for us. It allows us to look back on our past (uh 10 seconds ago) and realize that we too can decide to do better next time. The second half of the grouping indicates stuff for us to strive for as well. But the first half of the grouping is just as important the indication that we too can move forward, despite....

I'm just amazed at the stuff people come up with. Maybe this is why I like Jesus. He's so human, for lack of a better word. And he hangs in there for better or for worse. He does what he thinks needs to be done and he takes the consequences "like a man."

 

[neosnoia]

Which part of Jesus' "person" do we look to for our pattern, the time when he:

1. cursed a tree for not having fruit at the wrong time of year
2. upset the money-changers tables and drove out the businessmen in the temple
3. ignored a mother with a sick child and called her a dog when he did talk to her
4. healed the important officer's servant from a distance

Oh no! I did not realize there were so many negative parts of Jesus' life to look at.

Heh. You should read "Jesus Unplugged" by Bert Gary. The whole book is a closer look at the 'provocative' side of Jesus.

Regarding some of the above situations I think:

1. Was symbolic.
2. Was a pissed-off Rabbi that loved his Father and wasn't afraid to say so.
3. Was Jesus trading barbs with a very smart woman, who gave as good as she got (which he knew she would).
4. Not sure about this one. It's an issue because the officer was 'important'? Wasn't he also Roman?

 

[Thomas]

Hi Flow -

there is an inherent conflict between what Jesus referred to himself as, "Son of Man", and what the myths regarding him insist upon imposing upon His persona, "Son of G-d".

Actually, "Son of Man" in the OT is used as a Messianic Title, referring to the Divinity of the Person who bears it:

"... And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death... "

This then was the claim upon which Jesus was condemned.

It is true that there are two readings of the phrase in Scripture, but as ever, context is everything. In claiming to be the 'Son of Man' in this context, Jesus is claiming to be 'the Christ, the Son of God' - which is why the high priest 'rent his clothes' - again, not simply a sign of anger, but an act with very precise meaning.

Thomas

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Heh. You should read "Jesus Unplugged" by Bert Gary. The whole book is a closer look at the 'provocative' side of Jesus.

Regarding some of the above situations I think:

1. Was symbolic.
2. Was a pissed-off Rabbi that loved his Father and wasn't afraid to say so.
3. Was Jesus trading barbs with a very smart woman, who gave as good as she got (which he knew she would).

I like that.

Not sure about this one. It's an issue because the officer was 'important'? Wasn't he also Roman?

Yes, he was Roman. Maybe a centurion. I don't really know about the "important" bit. I hear so much bitterness or whatever expressed that people will do things for males of rank that they won't do for poor women of no rank. Against the backdrop of him putting off and ignoring a poor woman it seemed maybe he just wanted the recognition of healing a person in a Roman Officer's household.

Jesus Unplugged sounds like a good book. Unfortunately I don't have time to read all the good books.

 

[wil]

...Against the backdrop of him putting off and ignoring a poor woman it seemed maybe he just wanted the recognition of healing a person in a Roman Officer's household...

I always thought this was yet another example of openess, tolerance and not dilineating between classes. Didn't matter what your past or status was all were judged equally, yet when suddenly is seems to appear some reverse discrimnation going on it is pointed out...

 

[neosnoia]

I always thought this was yet another example of openess, tolerance and not dilineating between classes. Didn't matter what your past or status was all were judged equally, yet when suddenly is seems to appear some reverse discrimnation going on it is pointed out...

It would have been a bit controversial, to say the least, for Jesus to have healed a Roman officer's servant. I looked up the passage:

But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, Go, and he goes, and to another, Come, and he comes, and to my servant, Do this, and he does it." When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith."

​

 

[RubySera_Martin]

Maybe this underscores my lack of knowledgability of NT Jewish society. I am hoping for some enlightenment with the courses I'm taking this fall and winter on the NT.

 

[flowperson]

Hi Flow -

there is an inherent conflict between what Jesus referred to himself as, "Son of Man", and what the myths regarding him insist upon imposing upon His persona, "Son of G-d".

Actually, "Son of Man" in the OT is used as a Messianic Title, referring to the Divinity of the Person who bears it:

"... And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death... "

This then was the claim upon which Jesus was condemned.

It is true that there are two readings of the phrase in Scripture, but as ever, context is everything. In claiming to be the 'Son of Man' in this context, Jesus is claiming to be 'the Christ, the Son of God' - which is why the high priest 'rent his clothes' - again, not simply a sign of anger, but an act with very precise meaning.

Thomas

The respone "thou hast said:" is fairly ambiguous in my opinion. With this answer Jesus totally reflects the priest's interpretation back to the priest. He leaves the interpretation of the "priest's" reality scenario for Jesus entirely up to the priest for priestly purposes, and then goes on to describe the reality of "son of man" on his terms. Of course they condemned Him for that, since he would not clearly bow to established authority. But was he in essence passing judgement upon himself ? It's not so readily apparent to me in this passage. The interpretation of what Jesus really meant was left totally up to the priests in His so doing this, and true to form they condemned Him

I find this dichotomy of interpretation similar to Jesus' comment regarding the coin with Caesar's image on it; but of course, referring to a secular/sacred divide and not a dichotomy solely within sacred matters. Perhaps Jesus was referring to a similar dichotomy here in that the OT refers to women as "daughters of men" and compares that with the sacred origin of men as "sons of G-d". Perhaps Jesus was just advancing another secular sort of interpretation ?

Thanks Thomas for the post, but most of this is really over my head, so don't chop me up too badly.

flow....

 

[RubySera_Martin]

If memory serves me correctly (I'm not looking it up at the moment because I'm not sure where to look) some of the OT prophets referred to themselves in similar terms. I remember this because I was really shocked the first time I saw it. I eventually concluded that this was was an accepted way of referring to oneself without exalting oneself as God's Prophet. Thus, Jesus was merely following tradition.