Steven Carr

John 2
After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples.

Why does Jesus of Nazareth go to Capernaum with his mother and brothers?

Was this a family outing? Why are they off to Capernaum when they all came from Nazareth?

Mark 3
Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

It must have been a strange trip to Capernaum with his family following Jesus and his disciples and the two parties arguing over the sanity of Jesus....

Chili

I suppose it shows that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God when sanity must prevail.

Saramago

Eh? Explain please? I don't understand what you mean by this, particularly where "fearful" & "fall into the hands of" come into play in the verses cited in the OP.

Chili

If sanity must prevail the risk of insanity is the danger at hand which obviously here was the case . . . as proclaimed by the scribes who came from Jerusalem (not Nazareth) and thus knew that Jesus was expelling demons with the Prince of Demons (angel of ligth instead of the Light) which then is why Michael (the right hand angel of Mary) did not put Lucifer under restraint (vs.27 if you want to follow along) and thus this Jesus [this Joseph who generated the Jesus of Mark] had commited the sin against the HS (in my words called 'spiritual fornication').

Note that I used Michael and Mary just as the symbol for victory but this line in Mark is the eficient cause foreshadowing that no Assention will follow in the end.

It is probably also true that 'no food at the table' is a parallel of 'no manger' in Matthew.

Saramago

Thank you, that clarifies things. I now recognize that you and I experience reality differently.

Walrus

Another thread with no visible purpose but to slam Christianity, but I will clarify one thing. These two passages are not related to each other in the Bible. They take place at different times, the John 2 passage just after the wedding in Cana, and the Mark 3 passage later in his ministry. To try to tie them together in this way is to twist Biblical passages for purposes of your own agenda, whatever that may be.

Chili

Sorry sir, I am never part of my argument.

Saramago

Both involve Jesus, his family, the disciples, Capernaeum, and "the" story of Jesus as related in the gospels.

And, since you mentioned that these 2 events take place at different times:

The John 2 passage takes place 3 days after Jesus's baptism by John (John 1:29-2:1) and "not many days" before Passover and Jesus's show of temper at the temple in Jerusalem (John 2:12-16).

Yet Jesus is reported elsewhere to have immediately gone from his baptism to spend 40 days and nights alone in the wilderness (Mark 1:9-13)...and, he is reported elsewhere to have overturned tables etc in the temple in Jerusalem either the day he entered the city (Luke 19:36-45, Matthew 21:1-13) or the day after he entered the city (Mark 11:1-17), near the end of his ministry.

I do not accept that pointing out actual discrepancies in the text, and asking questions, is "slamming Christianity" or "twisting Biblical passages to your own purposes". It meets the stated goals of this freethought discussion board. If you don't like it, you are free to go to any of the numerous sites where people can wallow in their twisted interpretations of how it all makes perfect sense.

spin

The AV translation of 3:19b has an error. It should be "Then he went home" (εις οικον), the same idiom as Mk 2:1, where it was known that he was "at home" (εν οικω). So where is home, if not Capernaum?


spin

Walrus

In the OP, which I was responding to, there was no actual discepancy in the text. Two unrelated scriptures were quoted in an attempt to make them seem about the same event, which they weren't. If that's not twisting Biblical passages, I don't know what is.