Most trustworthy ?

[The_Fisher_King]

How would that be transgressing?

Damaging people's property. I know I didn't argue this in my post, but if we have a more expansive notion of what is sinful than simply transgressing the law, the kind of anger and violence that Jesus (pbuh) is said to have shown here is arguably not in keeping with someone who is said to be sinless.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

These are your private interpretations .

Of course.
My references to him appearing to have done things are because I'm cautious about my interpretations.

Ok does it say He transgressed the law ? No .

Well, the authors of these texts perhaps didn't think he transgressed the law in these respects, but that shouldn't stop us from analysing them and thinking about what they might actually signify.

Either your correct ,or the bible is correct.

Or the authors of these texts didn't join up all the dots.

Jesus was not angry ( unrighteous anger ) without a cause ,either.

What was his supposed cause?

Also, what about the above verses that speak of him transgressing the law in relation to kosher foods?

 

[Shakeel]

His answer is a little more profound than that .

Of course, you could say, he is teaching a lesson. However, couldn't God's prophet, let alone God Himself, teach a lesson without the insult that comes with it?

Did he have to ask, "who is my mother?" in order to make the point? Did he have to speak as if his mother was either equally a mother to him as the disciples, or even worse, less so?

An ordinary person we could easily excuse for such clumsiness, but someone who is God's prophet or, supposedly, God Himself?

Unless you're going to say, "he was just a man like us. Maybe he was a little bit clumsy, maybe he didn't find that important," etc, but you don't. You insist he is perfect, sinless, infallible and God.

 

[Shakeel]

Damaging people's property. I know I didn't argue this in my post, but if we have a more expansive notion of what is sinful than simply transgressing the law, the kind of anger and violence that Jesus (pbuh) is said to have shown here is arguably not in keeping with someone who is said to be sinless.

I disagree. What should a prophet have done? Prophets, as well as ourselves, can get angry for the sake of Allah. It would be the strangest thing if the bible said he ignored those people and their sin.

What if he had merely spoken? Would it have worked? Would they have stopped?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I disagree. What should a prophet have done? Prophets, as well as ourselves, can get angry for the sake of Allah. It would be the strangest thing if the bible said he ignored those people and their sin.

What if he had merely spoken? Would it have worked? Would they have stopped?

Were they committing sin, though? Many, many Jews had gathered in Jerusalem for Passover. It has been argued by James F. McGrath of Butler University that the buying and selling of animals related to the use of animals for sacrifice in the temple. The money-changers were there to convert the many currencies of the people into the accepted currency for paying the temple taxes. This makes sense to me.

I don't by the way believe that Jesus (pbuh) did this.

 

[John1.12]

Of course.
My references to him appearing to have done things are because I'm cautious about my interpretations.



Well, the authors of these texts perhaps didn't think he transgressed the law in these respects, but that shouldn't stop us from analysing them and thinking about what they might actually signify.



Or the authors of these texts didn't join up all the dots.



What was his supposed cause?

Also, what about the above verses that speak of him transgressing the law in relation to kosher foods?

Again, I believe the text in context when it says Jesus was with out sin .

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Again, I believe the text in context when it says Jesus was with out sin .

That is your right, of course.

 

[John1.12]

Of course.
My references to him appearing to have done things are because I'm cautious about my interpretations.



Well, the authors of these texts perhaps didn't think he transgressed the law in these respects, but that shouldn't stop us from analysing them and thinking about what they might actually signify.



Or the authors of these texts didn't join up all the dots.



What was his supposed cause?

Also, what about the above verses that speak of him transgressing the law in relation to kosher foods?

The accusations were done by the pharisees to try trap him in a position where they could accuse him ( ironically) But look at Jesus s responses . There's the answers .

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The accusations were done by the pharisees to try trap him in a position where they could accuse him ( ironically) But look at Jesus s responses . There's the answers .

Do you mean his supposed 'rulings' on kosher food?

 

[Shakeel]

Were they committing sin, though? Many, many Jews had gathered in Jerusalem for Passover. It has been argued by James F. McGrath of Butler University that the buying and selling of animals related to the use of animals for sacrifice in the temple. The money-changers were there to convert the many currencies of the people into the accepted currency for paying the temple taxes. This makes sense to me.

I don't by the way believe that Jesus (pbuh) did this.

I'd think so since Jesus (peace be upon him) mentioned robbing. It is said it was because they were profiting by making people pay in order to worship. Doesn't really matter what it is, though. In the context Jesus (peace be upon him) is the Messenger, he was angry and he mentioned robbery. Why would one doubt him?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I'd think so since Jesus (peace be upon him) mentioned robbing. It is said it was because they were profiting by making people pay in order to worship. Doesn't really matter what it is, though. In the context Jesus (peace be upon him) is the Messenger, he was angry and he mentioned robbery. Why would one doubt him?

I doubt much of the NT as giving a true account of events.

 

[John1.12]

Damaging people's property. I know I didn't argue this in my post, but if we have a more expansive notion of what is sinful than simply transgressing the law, the kind of anger and violence that Jesus (pbuh) is said to have shown here is arguably not in keeping with someone who is said to be sinless.

Its 'Anger WITHOUT A CAUSE ,which is a sin .
Matt 5
22But 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.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Its 'Anger WITHOUT A CAUSE ,which is a sin .
Matt 5
22But 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.

But I'm not sure he did have just cause in what is said to have transpired at the temple. I think the animal sellers and the money-changers were simply going about their business in the temple as was their right and to ensure that the people had animals to offer as sacrifice and money to pay the temple taxes.

 

[John1.12]

But I'm not sure he did have just cause in what is said to have transpired at the temple. I think the animal sellers and the money-changers were simply going about their business in the temple as was their right and to ensure that the people had animals to offer as sacrifice and money to pay the temple taxes.

And yet you have nothing from the text that SAYS what you believe?

 

[John1.12]

But I'm not sure he did have just cause in what is said to have transpired at the temple. I think the animal sellers and the money-changers were simply going about their business in the temple as was their right and to ensure that the people had animals to offer as sacrifice and money to pay the temple taxes.

Your missing the fact that he fulfills prophecy when he does what he does.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

And yet you have nothing from the text that SAYS what you believe?

Sure, these are my interpretations, I don't deny that.

 

[John1.12]

Sure, these are my interpretations, I don't deny that.

Wouldn't it be better to believe what it says ?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Your missing the fact that he fulfills prophecy when he does what he does.

What prophecy does he fulfill in relation to what is said to have happened at the temple?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Wouldn't it be better to believe what it says ?

No, not if I think there are alternative explanations that better explain what is happening.

 

[John1.12]

What prophecy does he fulfill in relation to what is said to have happened at the temple?

6And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

17And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.