Can Jewish law be fulfilled?

[Harmonious]

And the verse YOU brought, James, was WORSE:

John 2:4

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

This is remarkably disrespectful. But this is touted by you to be an example of "okay by God"?

As far as I can tell, this is a pure example of precisely how sinful and arrogant Jesus was.

 

[james2ko]

And the verse YOU brought, James, was WORSE:

John 2:4

Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.

This is remarkably disrespectful. But this is touted by you to be an example of "okay by God"?

When Mary and Joseph found Jesus talking to the religious teachers at the temple, He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?"

It had been about twelve years since His supernatural conception,and Jesus may have been gently reminding His human guardians that He understood His real parentage was of God and that He had a special commission to fulfill on this earth as the very Son of God.

Fast forward 18 years to John 2:4. Jesus again apparently alluded to His coming crucifixion and resurrection to glory when He replied to a request from His mother for a pressing social need. The expression appears to be another gentle reminder to her of His most important calling. Of course, Jesus did honor the wishes of His mother on this occasion (verses 5-10).

In addressing His mother as "woman," He was not disparaging her in any sense. It was "no" term of disrespect in the language of that day" (Critical and Experimental Commentary, vol. 5, p. 357). "The fact that our Lord on the cross (John 19:26) addressed his mother by the same term woman . . . shows that the word is as respectful as the term lady, and scarcely less affectionate than the term mother. See Matthew 15:28; Luke 13:12 ;John 4:21; 20:13 (Whedon 's Commentary on the Gospels, p. 242)

 

[james2ko]

How do you figure?

It is simple Jewish law, that even children understand from kindergarten. It doesn't come with a specific punishment that I'm aware of. But it was a sin on Jesus' part.

He should have known better.

And he certainly wasn't a good role model, the way you claimed he was.

That is merely your opinion based on a misreading and misunderstanding of the text.

 

[Harmonious]

When Mary and Joseph found Jesus talking to the religious teachers at the temple, He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?"

It had been about twelve years since His supernatural conception,and Jesus may have been gently reminding His human guardians that He understood His real parentage was of God and that He had a special commission to fulfill on this earth as the very Son of God.

Fast forward 18 years to John 2:4. Jesus again apparently alluded to His coming crucifixion and resurrection to glory when He replied to a request from His mother for a pressing social need. The expression appears to be another gentle reminder to her of His most important calling. Of course, Jesus did honor the wishes of His mother on this occasion (verses 5-10).

Interesting concept.

In addressing His mother as "woman," He was not disparaging her in any sense. It was "no" term of disrespect in the language of that day" (Critical and Experimental Commentary, vol. 5, p. 357). "The fact that our Lord on the cross (John 19:26) addressed his mother by the same term woman . . . shows that the word is as respectful as the term lady, and scarcely less affectionate than the term mother. See Matthew 15:28; Luke 13:12 ;John 4:21; 20:13 (Whedon 's Commentary on the Gospels, p. 242)

No - your commentaries do not reflect Jewish law or custom at all.

If he was respectful, he should have referenced Mary as "Mother", in some form.

Otherwise... In Hebrew (and Aramaic), the word for woman is the same as the word for wife.

How is THAT respectful?

Jewish law and custom hasn't changed all THAT much, James.

 

[Harmonious]

That is merely your opinion based on a misreading and misunderstanding of the text.

Nothing you have said has led me to believe that I HAVE a misunderstanding or misreading of the text.

I realize that the intentions you read therein are very different than mine, as you see righteous intentions on Jesus' behalf that I don't see there.

But what I told you about Jesus' behavior is the naked truth about Jesus and his failure to adhere to Jewish law, if the gospels are to be believed.

If you believe that Jesus was above Jewish law, or that the rules didn't pertain to him, I could almost see your point. But as a Jewish man, the laws of honoring his mother pertained to him as much as they do to ME in this day and age.

And he failed. The idea that Mary was gracious enough to go along with it speaks well of HER, but it says nothing about HIS impertinence and arrogant behavior towards his mother.

 

[Autodidact]

Jesus' family did not yet fully understand his ministry, as can be seen in Mar 3:21. Jesus explained that in our spiritual family, the relationships are ultimately more important and longer lasting than those formed in our physical families.

I In which case Jesus both violated the commandement, and preached against. So far from perfectly following them, He did precisely the opposite.

So, again, that "fulfilling" thing--what is it supposed to mean?

 

[james2ko]

Nothing you have said has led me to believe that I HAVE a misunderstanding or misreading of the text.

And quite respectfully, nothing you have said has led me to believe that Jesus disrespected His mother.

I realize that the intentions you read therein are very different than mine, as you see righteous intentions on Jesus' behalf that I don't see there.But what I told you about Jesus' behavior is the naked truth about Jesus and his failure to adhere to Jewish law. If you believe that Jesus was above Jewish law, or that the rules didn't pertain to him, I could almost see your point. But as a Jewish man, the laws of honoring his mother pertained to him as much as they do to ME in this day and age.

My apologies. I thought that was a foregone conclusion. I'll address it from that perspective:

When Jesus reprimands Mary, calling her "woman" (gunai) rather than "mother" (meter), He implies that He is not conforming to her authority but acting under His Heavenly Father's authority. This statement establishes that Mary, even as His physical mother, has no authority over Jesus. On the two occasions in which Mary is seen intruding in His ministry—here and in Matthew 12:46-50—Jesus verbally moves her aside. His rebuke censures her assumption of authority she does not have. She also seems to lack the humility with which we must go to God with our requests.

Since God the Father had already predetermined Jesus' agenda, Mary's request is inappropriate because she tries to determine what He should do. The Father would not have let Mary change His plan, so He probably already inspired Christ to perform this miracle. Obviously, Jesus does not deny Mary a solution, but He does mildly and respectfully rebuke her for her attitude toward Him and His purpose.

 

[Autodidact]

When Jesus reprimands Mary,

Stop right there. There's your problem.

calling her "woman" (gunai) rather than "mother" (meter), He implies that He is not conforming to her authority but acting under His Heavenly Father's authority. This statement establishes that Mary, even as His physical mother, has no authority over Jesus.

Yes, and that is in direct violation of one of the most important commandments in Judaism. In so doing, he was violating this important commandment.

On the two occasions in which Mary is seen intruding in His ministry—here and in Matthew 12:46-50—Jesus verbally moves her aside. His rebuke censures her assumption of authority she does not have.

Under the commandments, she does have that authority. Jesus failed to follow that commandment.

 

[james2ko]

I In which case Jesus both violated the commandement, and preached against. So far from perfectly following them, He did precisely the opposite.

So, again, that "fulfilling" thing--what is it supposed to mean?

Like I said, If His "Dad" saw nothing wrong with it neither should we.

 

[Gloone]

How embarrassing it must have been for Jesus to have his mother follow him around everywhere as if she had psychological problems that she could not overcome.

 

[Autodidact]

Like I said, If His "Dad" saw nothing wrong with it neither should we.

That's not the point. A poster stated that Jesus followed the commandments perfectly. It has been demonstrated that in fact He violated them. That poster was wrong.

Next interpretation of "fulfilled" please? Obviously it doesn't mean "followed perfectly."

 

[Gloone]

That's not the point. A poster stated that Jesus followed the commandments perfectly. It has been demonstrated that in fact He violated them. That poster was wrong.

Next interpretation of "fulfilled" please? Obviously it doesn't mean "followed perfectly."

Maybe he fulfilled his own prophecy. If that is the case then he isn't a Jew.

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe he fulfilled his own prophecy. If that is the case then he isn't a Jew.

And maybe Christianity is a blithering mess of unresolved contradictions and superstitious mythology.

 

[Gloone]

And maybe Christianity is a blithering mess of unresolved contradictions and superstitious mythology.

Not for Christians it isn't. Just for Jewish people that have a hard time understanding it.

 

[Harmonious]

Ah. I see the problem.

James (Gloone too, but I was particularly responding to James), I recognize that you are a Christian. I'm sure it is a beautiful thing to be.

And I am a Jew. Also a beautiful thing to be.

And the thing that we are failing to communicate to each other (which I'll get to in a moment) is further exacerbated by the fact that you are under the assumption that Jesus is god, or son of God, or whatever, and therefore is exempt from any previous laws that would otherwise pertain to him.

I, who believe no such thing about the man, am operating under the assumption that Jesus was a Jewish man, nothing more or less.

Now that this established set of facts is out of the way, I can move on to what we are failing to communicate to each other.

You are of the mind that Jesus fulfilled the commandments. I am very much of the mind that he has not.

You are probably not only of the mind that Jesus fulfilled the commandments, but that by doing so, it releases all Jews from the necessity of fulfilling commandments beyond either the Ten Commandments, or the Two, Loving God and Loving Man.

I am very much of the mind (and I thought it was obvious from my participation in this thread, but I'll repeat it again just in case) that Jesus had a great deal of difficulty performing the commandments on the simplest level, never mind performing them so "perfectly" that everyone else's obligations were absolved therefrom.

I showed you, particularly in the Book of Mark, an example of Jesus behavior. If you think of Jesus only as a Jewish man who is as obligated to abide by Jewish law as all the Jews around him, you will see and understand that Jesus was very rude to his mother. The example you brought in John showed Jesus being even MORE rude to his mother. As such, this is a blatant demonstration of Jesus failing miserably to adhere to "honoring his mother."

The idea that Jesus had the need to fulfill his ministry, as per the "will of his Father" is interesting. However, regardless of whether Jesus was a teacher, a Rabbi, a judge, a Cohen, or something more impressive, he was still a Jewish man. And he was obligated to act as a Jewish man.

If you want to believe that he was more impressive, and not entirely human, that is your prerogative - I know, you are Christian.

However... Ministry or not, you cannot say that he fulfilled the commandments perfectly if these examples show precisely how Jesus failed to keep the commandment of honoring his mother. No matter how pressing his duty was, there was NO CALL for him to be rude to his mother, regardless of the fact that she deferred to him.

That is a Jewish response to reading an account of a Jewish man who was rude to his mother. Whatever else he was, or whatever excuses you choose to find for him, he was a man who was rude to his mother.

 

[Autodidact]

Not for Christians it isn't. Just for Jewish people that have a hard time understanding it.

I don't know whether you're Christian, Gloone, but you seem to have quite a hard time understanding it, or at least explaining it in any way that makes sense. What's that "fulfilling" thing about again?

 

[james2ko]

That's not the point. A poster stated that Jesus followed the commandments perfectly. It has been demonstrated that in fact He violated them. That poster was wrong.

Next interpretation of "fulfilled" please? Obviously it doesn't mean "followed perfectly."

And he did. Respectfully reprimanding your parents for doing something wrong is not dishonoring them..

 

[Harmonious]

And he did. Respectfully reprimanding your parents for doing something wrong is not dishonoring them..

From the example you brought, it was NOT respectful.

 

[james2ko]

From the example you brought, it was NOT respectful.

Once again, apparently it was respectful enough to God the Father, and His opinion is the only one that counts in my book.

 

[Gloone]

I don't know whether you're Christian, Gloone, but you seem to have quite a hard time understanding it, or at least explaining it in any way that makes sense. What's that "fulfilling" thing about again?

To propagate. And if sin was passed down to Jesus through his parents then Jewish people have failed to understand the commandments given to them by god.