You’re categorical statement that there was no instance in the Bible of Jesus showing love and compassion toward His mother was shown to be false. Instead of retracting this clearly erroneous statement, you want to say it is in doubt and doesn’t count? How silly! It is in the Bible! Show evidence that this is not currently in the Bible, or acknowledge that you made an erroneous statement.

Penatics, you are a trip! You discount this example because John is the only one to write of it and therefore suspect (in your opinion) to have “made it up”, yet the example you are championing to illustrate a fantasy hostility by Jesus towards Mary is...can we say this together?....only mentioned by John? If you believe John is unreliable in one part, what makes you certain he was credible in the circumstances that constitute your example?

I recommend you not do anymore cutting and pasting of other people’s ideas, regardless of how fascinating you may find them. You certainly can not expound on them, you definitely can not defend them, and it really makes you look very silly.

Rarely do we get such candor from a contribotor to a discussion board, but I did want to thank you for this penatis.

The quick translation of your statement above tells us that when a statement agrees with what you already believe, you take it on faith, and do not bother to research the claim. And when it disagrees with what you already believe, you will research it vigorously, presumably to find some flaw in the argument.

I told you that you were a dogmatic fundamentalist anti-Christian sceptic, penatis. Do you see more clearly now why I have given you this label?

Nomad

Hi Rugby, and nice to meet you.

All I did was copy the quotation from the NET Bible site, and I have not bothered to research it. Considering the amount of material produced by the Early Fathers, I wouldn't doubt that a few of them might have looked into Jesus' familial relations, and used this as a proof text of some kind. If I had to guess who would have done this, I would say either Tertullian or Origen, but to be honest, I have never run across such an argument.

I see no reason to doubt the NET translators in their claim, but I certainly wouldn't put much weight in an unknown argument that I could not check out for myself, even if it did offer a support to my own previously held beliefs.

Thanks again, and if I find anything, I will let you know, but I am with you that the text needs to be tortured pretty badly to read much more than mild annoyance from Jesus in this one.

From the same source I quoted earlier:

NET Bible

John 2:4
Note 6sn The term Woman is Jesus' normal, polite way of addressing women (Matt 15:28, Luke 13:12; John 4:21; 8:10; 19:26; 20:15). But it is unusual for a son to address his mother with this term. The custom in both Hebrew (or Aramaic) and Greek would be for a son to use a qualifying adjective or title. Is there significance in Jesus' use here? It probably indicates that a new relationship existed between Jesus and his mother once he had embarked on his public ministry. He was no longer or primarily only her son, but the "Son of Man." This is also suggested by the use of the same term in 19:26 in the scene at the cross, where the beloved disciple is "given" to Mary as her "new" son.

It's hard to take this term and make it look like Jesus was being a complete ass to His mother, but for someone eager to make such a claim, as you can see on this thread, there is pretty much no way to actually disuade them.

Peace,

Nomad

[This message has been edited by Nomad (edited February 09, 2001).]

Dear, dear penatics:

I will take you at your word. In the quote above, it is clear that you believe that some of the Greek fathers considered Jesus’ remark to be a rebuke, and it is equally clear that this is not a unanimous opinion (unless you believe that the word some is synonymous with all). Since the only other option is the one with which you have stated repeatedly that you totally disagree, I am sure that you will now research this issue – as you said you would above: “I would have researched their reasoning for I would have totally disagreed with that position.”.

Enough tongue in cheek. I really do not believe nor expect you to do any research into your subject. You have already made it clear that you do not do your own research, and it is equally clear that you really have no intentions of investigating anything that is not currently posted on a bulletin board which allows you to freely cut and paste “your” opinion to BBS such as this one.

It is a shame. We may never know what you really believe.

The point that penatis is making is that Jesus did not have a very good relationship with his family and therefore it is the best reading of the text to think that Jesus was rebuking his mother. I don't know if it was was a rebuke per se, but whatever it was, it probably wasn't a positive statement.

"When Jesus got out of the boat a man with an evil spirit met him. And seeing Jesus from a distance...[he] said, 'What have I to do with you (ti emoi kai soi), Jesus, son of the most high God? I implore you by God do not torment me!'" (Mk. 5:2,7).

"And Jesus says to her, 'What do I have to do with you (ti emoi kai soi), woman?'" (Jn. 2:4).

The fact that the only other time in which this statement (ti emoi kai soi) is used concerns a demon doesn't look too good.

[This message has been edited by Le pede (edited February 10, 2001).]

RugbyJJ: Dear, dear penatics:

I use the name "penatis," not "penatics." Also, obviously, I am not your "Dear, dear."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have invested no faith in the NET Bible. I have merely taken their word that some Greek Fathers considered the remark of Jesus to his mother to be a rebuke. If the NET Bible had said that Jesus was acting in a loving and compassionate manner with his remark, I would have researched their reasoning for I would have totally disagreed with that position.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RugbyJJ: I will take you at your word. In the quote above, it is clear that you believe that some of the Greek fathers considered Jesus’ remark to be a rebuke, and it is equally clear that this is not a unanimous opinion (unless you believe that the word some is synonymous with all).

I took the NET Bible to be correct in its statement that SOME Greek Fathers considered Jesus remark to be a rebuke. I have made that clear several times now. I have made NO CLAIMS about what ALL Greek Fathers considered.

RugbyJJ: Since the only other option is the one with which you have stated repeatedly that you totally disagree, I am sure that you will now research this issue – as you said you would above: “I would have researched their reasoning for I would have totally disagreed with that position.”.

I don't disagree with the statement made by the NET Bible that SOME of the Greek Fathers considered the remark by Jesus to be a rebuke; therefore, I have no reason to spend more time reading what the Greek Fathers wrote on this issue. I will say this, I think I have read just as much from the so-called Church Fathers as you have.

RugbyJJ: Enough tongue in cheek. I really do not believe nor expect you to do any research into your subject.

What you believe and expect are based on an infinitesimal amount of knowledge about me and my attitude about research. Your comment is unwarranted.

RugbyJJ: You have already made it clear that you do not do your own research

I have made no such thing clear. It is what you would like to believe. I think I am as well-versed on this issue as yourself and have researched it as much as you have.

RugbyJJ: ...and it is equally clear that you really have no intentions of investigating anything that is not currently posted on a bulletin board which allows you to freely cut and paste “your” opinion to BBS such as this one.

You are quite mistaken here. I rarely use "bulletin boards" since I have an extensive library. I DO NOT "cut and paste." That is the method of those who visit the Christian apologetic websites for all their material. Again, I will put my knowledge and research expertise up against yours any day.

RugbyJJ: It is a shame. We may never know what you really believe.

I think Jesus rebuked his mother at the wedding in Cana. I have supported my view with textual evidence FROM THE NT. I asked you for counter evidence. Thus far, you have not presented anything substantive.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RugbyJJ: The biggest problem with absolute statements is that they are so easily disproved. Perhaps the “nowhere in the NT does Jesus indicate any love or compassion” fails to take into account Jesus’ action while on the cross, dying (John 19:26&27).
And, perhaps Jesus' actions during his execution are disputed and cannot be used as convincing historical evidence. For example, please list all the times Jesus expressed love and compassion toward his family in "Mark," "Matthew," or "Luke." BTW, they do not mention the incident the writer of "John" does. PERHAPS "John" made it up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RugbyJJ: You’re categorical statement that there was no instance in the Bible of Jesus showing love and compassion toward His mother was shown to be false.

No, it was not. We read in "John": "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. (19:26)

We as readers find out that Jesus loved his disciple, but we are not told Jesus loved his mother. Furthermore, according to Jewish custom, even in families where family members do not get along, someone is asked to take in survivors, if needed. I disagree that Jesus showed love and compassion for his mother in this incident.

RugbyJJ: Instead of retracting this clearly erroneous statement, you want to say it is in doubt and doesn’t count? How silly! It is in the Bible! Show evidence that this is not currently in the Bible, or acknowledge that you made an erroneous statement.

How silly of you, RugbyJJ! Admit that you made a mistake in your interpretation of Jesus' actions at his execution. Point out where the writer said Jesus loved his mother. Point out where the writer said Jesus showed compassion for his mother.

RugbyJJ: Penatics, you are a trip!

Bon Voyage!! BTW, the name is "penatis." The name does not have a "c" in it.

RugbyJJ: You discount this example because John is the only one to write of it and therefore suspect (in your opinion) to have “made it up”, yet the example you are championing to illustrate a fantasy hostility by Jesus towards Mary is...can we say this together?....only mentioned by John? If you believe John is unreliable in one part, what makes you certain he was credible in the circumstances that constitute your example?

Neither you nor I know precisely what Jesus actually did in history, and I am not alone in thinking that the writer may have made up the scene at the execution. Surely, you are aware of this fact.

With respect to the incident at Cana, I don't know what happened. But, I think whatever happened, the writer depicted Jesus as rebuking his mother.

RugbyJJ: I recommend you not do anymore cutting and pasting of other people’s ideas

At this point, you have not shown that you are qualified to be giving me any advice or recommendations.

RugbyJJ: ...regardless of how fascinating you may find them. You certainly can not expound on them, you definitely can not defend them, and it really makes you look very silly.

Fortunately, your opinion of what or who looks "silly" is not a big concern of mine.

Honestly, do you have something more than insults?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:
I have invested no faith in the NET Bible. I have merely taken their word that some Greek Fathers considered the remark of Jesus to his mother to be a rebuke. If the NET Bible had said that Jesus was acting in a loving and compassionate manner with his remark, I would have researched their reasoning for I would have totally disagreed with that position.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Rarely do we get such candor from a contribotor to a discussion board, but I did want to thank you for this penatis.

I wish to thank Nomad. I always attempt to be honest and forthright.

Nomad: The quick translation of your statement above tells us that when a statement agrees with what you already believe, you take it on faith, and do not bother to research the claim.

Actually, my position is a very reasonable one. Why spend more effort than is necessary to research material that is agreement with history? Again, my goal is to find out precisely what happened in history; I am not out to preach "salvation."

Nomad: And when it disagrees with what you already believe, you will research it vigorously, presumably to find some flaw in the argument.

This is a misreprentation of my position, as Nomad well knows. If a theologian makes a statement based on his disire to lead people to "salvation," and not based on history, I will point out the difference. Nomad dogmattically preaches apologetics. He is not concerned with history.

Nomad: I told you that you were a dogmatic fundamentalist anti-Christian sceptic, penatis. Do you see more clearly now why I have given you this label?

No, I do not. Nomad seems to disagree with ALL whose only goal is to ascertain what actually took place in history. I get labeled a "dogmatic fundamentalist anti-Christian skeptic" because I take a historian's viewpoint.

Hmm... your opinions have now become history I see.

And now that I know that once you have reached that opinion, you stop researching the question, that explains a great deal. Sadlt, you do not see it yourself, but this is not unusual for dogmatists.

I know. I was still hoping however.

Nomad

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by penatis:
Actually, my position is a very reasonable one. Why spend more effort than is necessary to research material that is agreement with history?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: Hmm... your opinions have now become history I see.

I agree with history, not theology. There is a world of difference.

Nomad: And now that I know that once you have reached that opinion, you stop researching the question, that explains a great deal.

I continue to read, study,and research as much as is possible. There must be some prioritization. Nomad doesn't understand this.

Nomad: Sadlt, you do not see it yourself, but this is not unusual for dogmatists.

I am dogmatic when it comes to historical accuracy. It is a fault that I can live with.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nomad: I told you that you were a dogmatic fundamentalist anti-Christian sceptic, penatis. Do you see more clearly now why I have given you this label?
No, I do not.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nomad: I know. I was still hoping however.

Nomad continues to insult me and misrepresent my views. The reason he does this is obvious, he has nothing substantive to offer. Surely, if he did, he would.




[This message has been edited by penatis (edited February 10, 2001).]