Sometimes Jesus was UNcivil

[Poppy]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

[PeterTheAleut]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

Are you sure it's so clear that He was ticked at His mum? Might you not instead be reading current usage of the word "woman" into the text? What if, back then, "woman" was a term of great endearment much unlike what the word has since become to us English speakers?

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Are you trying to justify your sharp tongue here?

[Stephen St. Pierre]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Couldn't have said it better meself!

Many Christians seem to have lost their "saltiness". There is a time to be kind and gentle and there is a time to put your foot down and set 'em straight.

"And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers' money, and overthrew their tables;" - John 2:14,15

[Justin Kissel]

Being harsh or rude does have it's advantages at times. When my daughter is running down the walkway towards the street you can better believe that my tone becomes much more authoritarian and much less gentle. Nonetheless, good discernment is often required for when to apply harsher tones, and generally being nice is a more sober route than taking a chance by being harsh. As St. James said:

"But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace." - James 3:17-18

Yes, we are to be without hypocrisy--we probably shouldn't unnecessarily sugar coat are words or put up an artificially pleasant facade. Nonetheless, we are to be gentle, peaceable, full of mercy, and make peace when we can. Jesus may have known when to call people a brood of vipers, so as to have the best results for those listening, but I'm not so sure how manyof us have been given such a gift of discernment. True, priests generally have to give it a shot, as St. Gregory the Theologian so eloquently put it (see Oration 2, 30-33). But for those of us who don't have that calling... it seems like a dangerous thing. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov warns of this in his book on monasticism. While he is speaking of monks, his words are just as applicable to the laity:

A monk must be extremely cautious of carnal and animal zeal, which outwardly appears pious but in reality is foolish and harmful to the soul. Worldly people and many living the monastic life, through ignorance and inexperience, often praise such zeal without understanding that it springs from conceit and pride.  They extol this zeal as zeal for the faith, for piety, for the Church, for God.  It consists in a more or less harsh condemnation and criticism of one's neighbours in their moral faults, and in faults against good order in  church and in the performance of the church services.  Deceived by a wrong conception of zeal, these imprudent zealots think that by yielding themselves to it they are imitating the holy fathers and holy martyrs, forgetting that they--the zealots--are not saints, but sinners.

If the saints accused or convicted those who were living in sin or irreligion, they did so at the command of God as their duty, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not at the instigation of their passions and demons.  Whoever decides of his own self-will to convict his brother or make some reprimand, clearly betrays and proves that he considers himself more prudent and virtuous than the person he blames, and that he is acting at the instigation of passion and deception and diabolic thoughts.  We need to remember the Saviour's injunction: "Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye', when there is a log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matt 7:3-5)

--St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov), The Arena: An Offering to Contemporary Monasticism, (Holy Trinity Monastery, 1997), p. 140

[biro]

Yes, people may have to be more confrontational when it's time to take a stand on something. Jesus always did it with love and truth, though. I can't always say the same.   It's something to keep in mind.

[Nero]

Jesus simply put his foot down. He wasn't being uncivil - the merchants and coin-exchangers were. The modern day equivalent would be a priest ripping down product advertisements / bilboards that people have put up on church ground without permission.

[sainthieu]

Rarely, we may be called upon to refuse to be moved. Christ does it only once. This rarity indicates the gravity of the issue.

[Poppy]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

Are you sure it's so clear that He was ticked at His mum? Might you not instead be reading current usage of the word "woman" into the text? What if, back then, "woman" was a term of great endearment much unlike what the word has since become to us English speakers?

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Are you trying to justify your sharp tongue here?

The word "woman" might have been a term of endearment but even if you leave off that word, he is still saying...."what is it any of my business??" to his mum....he is still saying ..."Yeah and??"

I don't have a sharp tongue any more than you have a stubbon personality.

[PeterTheAleut]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

Are you sure it's so clear that He was ticked at His mum? Might you not instead be reading current usage of the word "woman" into the text? What if, back then, "woman" was a term of great endearment much unlike what the word has since become to us English speakers?

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Are you trying to justify your sharp tongue here?

The word "woman" might have been a term of endearment but even if you leave off that word, he is still saying...."what is it any of my business??" to his mum....he is still saying ..."Yeah and??"

I don't have a sharp tongue any more than you have a stubbon personality.

Being stubborn does have its advantages.

[TristanCross]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't ticked at His mom. It seems like it, but only because we are not used to the culture of Jesus' time. I would suggest read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn.

[FrChris]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't ticked at His mom. It seems like it, but only because we are not used to the culture of Jesus' time. I would suggest read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn.

Frankly, I would avoid Hahn's works. He rcently has been discussed on this site for making his rather ridiculous assumption (which betrays his lack of understanding regarding Patristic thought) that theology must develop.

I would rather recommend that one read anything written by any of the Church Fathers, or any homilies by the same.

www.ccel.org is a great place to start this search!

[Poppy]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

Are you sure it's so clear that He was ticked at His mum? Might you not instead be reading current usage of the word "woman" into the text? What if, back then, "woman" was a term of great endearment much unlike what the word has since become to us English speakers?

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Are you trying to justify your sharp tongue here?

The word "woman" might have been a term of endearment but even if you leave off that word, he is still saying...."what is it any of my business??" to his mum....he is still saying ..."Yeah and??"

I don't have a sharp tongue any more than you have a stubbon personality.

Being stubborn does have its advantages.

So does keeping it zipped for me right about now before my smart mouth lands me in a whole heap of shigley haha...

[TristanCross]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't ticked at His mom. It seems like it, but only because we are not used to the culture of Jesus' time. I would suggest read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn.

Frankly, I would avoid Hahn's works. He rcently has been discussed on this site for making his rather ridiculous assumption (which betrays his lack of understanding regarding Patristic thought) that theology must develop.

I would rather recommend that one read anything written by any of the Church Fathers, or any homilies by the same.

www.ccel.org is a great place to start this search!

Still, this particular book, "Hail, Holy Queen", refutes so many Protestant arguments against Mary.

[yeshuaisiam]

The mom thing is often said to be cultural.

However, I'm ready to start calling people names after this post.  You are right about this.

God came down to give us an example of how to live.  This is our example. 

[ialmisry]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

Are you sure it's so clear that He was ticked at His mum? Might you not instead be reading current usage of the word "woman" into the text? What if, back then, "woman" was a term of great endearment much unlike what the word has since become to us English speakers?

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Are you trying to justify your sharp tongue here?

The word "woman" might have been a term of endearment but even if you leave off that word, he is still saying...."what is it any of my business??" to his mum....he is still saying ..."Yeah and??"

He addresses her the same way at the Cross, and He wasn't ticked off at her.

She appears at the first mircale, and at the end of His ministry at the Cross, and she is addressed as Eve was in Paradise:"Woman."

[Cavaradossi]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

My contention is that, his human will being perfectly obedient to the will of God, Christ's judgmental statements are much like his "righteous anger" at the temple. We, because we are susceptible to spiritual delusion, are best to avoid ever thinking that we can wield anger or judgment in a righteous fashion like Christ could.

[Michael L]

I think that anytime that someone is not POLITICALLY CORRECT they are accused of being uncivil or a bully - many times in these internet setting a cyber-bully. Thus, the push in our day to never speak the truth in order to not offend anyone would have not been accepted by Christ or His disciples. Recently on another forum Fr. Alexander Lebedeff wrote the following regarding political correctness which I think is relevant here:

I would like to make a few comments on political correctness as expressed by participants on this list.

We see people defending homosexuality: a hot discussion topic today in society, which generally is not tolerant of those who consider homosexuality as an abomination and a sin.

We see people mentioning "self esteem," while the Orthodox Church considers self-esteem (pride) to be the mother of all sins. In fact, in our prayers we each call ourselves "the first among sinners" --
meaning the worst. Therefore, we consider ourselves worse than axe murderers, serial rapists or child abusers. How high should our self-esteem be if that is how we are taught to consider ourselves?

And recently, there have appeared several accusations, primarily against clergy, of "bullying" -- also a hot topic on the politically correct agenda.

Priests who have forcefully defended the teaching of the Church are being accused of bullying.

In response, I'd like to take a page from the book of our Evangelical Christian brethren to address this issue.

They frequently ask WWJD -- What Would Jesus Do?

Well, we certainly know, from the Scriptures, what Jesus DID.

He constantly verbally attacked the Pharisees, calling them all sorts of names: serpents, spawn of vipers, white-washed tombs filled with rotting bones and all uncleanness, fools, hypocrites, blind guides,
among other epithets (See Matthew 23).

Actually, quite a large part of the words of Christ recorded in the Gospel are diatribes against the Pharisees, Saduccees and Scribes.

Now, based on contemporary politically correct thinking, Our Lord was clearly **bullying** his listeners.

If a priest on this list would take the epithets used by our Lord and use them to address other list members, would he not immediately be accused of bullying?

But calling his listeners rather awful names was exactly what the Lord did. (As did St. John the Baptist. See Luke 3:7, where the Forerunner addresses the multitude who came to be baptized by him: "Spawn of
vipers!")

But wait. There's more!

Let's go back to What Would Jesus Do?

What did He do when he saw that His Temple was being turned into a den of iniquity?

Well, Our Lord made a scourge--a whip made of ropes-- and laid into the moneychangers and the sellers of sheep and doves and cattle in the temple--and he overturned the tables of the moneychangers.

John 2:13-16:

"And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem and found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and also the changers of money, sitting there.

And when He had made a scourge of small cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overthrew the tables.

And He said unto those who sold doves, "Take these things hence! Make not My Father's house a house of merchandise!"

Just imagine the scene. Here are the sellers of birds and cattle needed for the sacrifices, and money changers, doing the job that their family had probably done for generations.

All of a sudden, a long-haired man attacks them with something like a cat-o-nine-tails and turns over their tables, spills all the money on the ground and then chases them all out of the Temple.

I wonder is there is anyone who would not consider such behavior as "bullying."

How many criminal charges do you think a contemporary District Attorney could find that would apply to such behavior? Assault and Battery, Causing a Public Disturbance, Disorderly Conduct, damage to
personal property, disturbing a religious service. . .

Yet that's what Jesus did. . .

(And, since the commentators on the Gospels seem to be unanimous that the Evangelists are describing two different incidents--one at the beginning of Christ's preaching and one at the end -- Our Lord did it
"twice."

I've been tempted to hang the Gustav Dore illustration depicting this in our Parish Council meeting room. (Just kidding)

http://www.creationism.org/images/DoreBibleIllus/uJoh0215Dore_TheBuyersAndSellersDrivenOutOfTemple.jpg

It is a healthy reminder of Our Lord as being a Lord of Power and righteous wrath, rather than the saccharin-sweet image found in Protestant teaching materials.

So--rather than accusing those who defend the teaching of the Church of "bullying," when they are attempting to keep the Church of Christ from becoming a den of iniquity--perhaps we should become a little less politically correct and listen to what they have to say.

With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

[minasoliman]

I don't know if this is a Semitic thing, but on the contrary, the term "woman" if understood in an Arabic setting is completely different from Western understanding.  In Arabic, sometimes I say to my mother (and to my grandmothers, God rest their souls) "ya sittie" which can translate "Oh woman," but it's a sign of affection and close relationship, not rudeness.  It's like saying "ya habibi", i.e. "oh love."  Sometimes we even say things like "ya sitt el habayib," i.e. "oh woman of the beloved," or "ya sitt el qul," i.e. "oh woman of all."  It's an honorific term more than anything.  Christ to me here shows His mother honor and love, not rudeness.  It's Western equivalent if anything should be, "Dearest" or maybe even "Lady," as many Catholic traditions honor her as "Our Lady of..."

And there is an affectionate way of saying, "What does your concern have to do with me?"  Haven't you ever had a mini-discussion with your mother like this, "Dearest Lady, why do I need to do this?"

You know, in Arabic culture, as a sign of condolence to a family who lost a loved one, we say, literally, "The rest in your life" (el baqya fi hayatak).  It's an odd expression in Western ears, might even be rude if taken the wrong way, but in Arabic it's normal and compassionate to say something like that.  It's sad that a passage like this in English concerning the Holy Theotokos caused many Protestants to be so dishonoring to her, when in fact, it never was the case.

[Justin Kissel]

Yuns guys wanting to be uncivil should go the whole way, like this guy does.

[IsmiLiora]

Yuns guys wanting to be uncivil should go the whole way, like this guy does.

Wow, I totally thought that was a parody at first.

Real Science Friday, LOVE. That's hilar.

[Justin Kissel]

Nope, Bob Enyart is the real deal. I used to watch him when he had a tv show on my local Christian station back in the 90's, I used to frequent a forum where a lot of his followers were (theologyonline.com), I even called in to his radio show a few times. Also, that article is just the tip of the iceberg... he's a mid-Acts dispensationalist, an open theist, thinks America's criminal justice system should be modeled on the OT law (e.g. homosexuals should be put to death), etc. Fascinating stuff.

[Severian]

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

Here's a good article which provides patristic insight to this Scripture:
Click here

God bless,
Severian

[biro]

I think Minasoliman is right. Sometimes tones don't carry over from one language to another. Things get lost in translation. I've heard it said that by "Woman," Jesus meant something like "Ma'am," so that makes sense.

[Poppy]

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

Here's a good article which provides patristic insight to this Scripture:
Click here

God bless,
Severian

thankyou severian, sweet!!

[TristanCross]

About the "woman" thing:

You need to understand that He wasn't disrespecting Mary at all. You, sir, need to stop interpreting things that happened 2000 in a 21st Century context. Go learn about Jewish culture from that time, read the Bible in context, and learn from the Early Church Fathers.

[TristanCross]

From Scott Hahn's "Hail, Holy Queen":

But let’s return for a moment to Jesus’ initial response. Did you notice how He addressed her? He called her not “Mother” or even “Mary,” but “Woman.” Again, non-Catholic commentators will sometimes claim that Jesus intended the epithet “Woman” to convey disrespect or reproach. After all, shouldn’t He address her as “Mother”? First, we should point out that since Jesus was obedient all His life to the law, it is unlikely that He would ever show dishonor to His mother, thereby violating the fourth commandment. Second, Jesus will again address Mary as “Woman,” but in very different circumstances. As He hangs dying on the cross, He will call her “Woman” when He gives her as mother to His beloved disciple, John (Jn 19:26). Surely, in that instance, He could mean no reproach or dishonor. Yet we miss more than Jesus’ sinlessness if we reduce the word “woman” to an insult. For Jesus’ use of that word represents yet another echo of Genesis. “Woman” is the name Adam gives to Eve (Gen 2:23). Jesus, then, is addressing Mary as Eve to the New Adam—which heightens the significance of the wedding feast they’re attending. Still, we can anticipate some outraged objection: how can Mary be His bride if she’s His mother? To answer that, we must consider Isaiah’s prophecy of the coming salvation of Israel: “You shall no more be termed Forsaken…but you shall be called My Delight Is in Her, and your land Married. For as a young man marries a virgin, so shall your sons marry you, and as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you” (Is 62:4–5; italics added). There’s a lot suggested in those two compact verses: Mary’s virginal motherhood, her miraculous conception, and her mystical marriage to God, who is at once her Father, her Spouse, and her Son. The mystery of divine maternity runs deep, because the mystery of the Trinity runs still deeper.

“Woman” redefines Mary’s relationship not only with Jesus but also with all believers. When Jesus gave her over to His beloved disciple, in effect He gave her to His beloved disciples of all time. Like Eve, whom Genesis 3:20 calls “mother of all the living,” Mary is mother to all who have new life in baptism. At Cana, then, the New Eve radically reverses the fatal decision of the first Eve. It was woman who led the old Adam to his first evil act in the garden. It was woman who led the New Adam to His first glorious work. The figure of Eve reappears later in the New Testament, in the book of Revelation, which is also attributed to John the Evangelist. There, in chapter 12, we encounter “a woman clothed with the sun” (v. 1), who confronts “the ancient serpent, who is called the devil” (v. 9). These images hark back to Genesis, where Eve faces the demonic serpent in the garden of Eden and where God curses the serpent, promising to “put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed” (Gen 3:15). Yet the images of Revelation also point to a New Eve, one who gave birth to a “male child” who would “rule all the nations” (12:5). That child could only be Jesus; and so the woman could only be His mother, Mary. In Revelation, the ancient serpent attacks the New Eve because the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 is fresh in his memory. The New Eve, however, appears prevailing over evil, unlike her long-ago type in the garden of Eden.

Hahn, Scott (2005-10-18). Hail, Holy Queen (pp. 36-38). Image. Kindle Edition.

Note: I am allowed to use this quote from the book.

[PeterTheAleut]

About the "woman" thing:

You need to understand that He wasn't disrespecting Mary at all. You, sir, need to stop interpreting things that happened 2000 in a 21st Century context. Go learn about Jewish culture from that time, read the Bible in context, and learn from the Early Church Fathers.

Poppy's a her, not a sir.

[TristanCross]

About the "woman" thing:

You need to understand that He wasn't disrespecting Mary at all. You, sir, need to stop interpreting things that happened 2000 in a 21st Century context. Go learn about Jewish culture from that time, read the Bible in context, and learn from the Early Church Fathers.

Poppy's a her, not a sir.

I can't edit it, but yeah, my bad 

[Shiny]

Poppy as I have been reading your posts and certaintly this one I did want to advise you of a warning that following Christ will shake up your worldview if you don't agree with His teachings. I know quite a few atheists, for example, who refuse to embrace Christianity (after surmounting intellectual and evidential backing) because that would mean changing their worldview. All I can advise to you is being a follower of Christ demands all of you and it is seriously the hardest path to take. But one well worth taking.

[Sarah]

Christ was not being disrespectful.  In fact, he did exactly what Mary asked him to do.

[Dyhn]

Even if we read the times Jesus was less than diplomatic in his style, we need to remember that his motivations would have been correct and untarnished unlike our own.

~ Dyhn

[Poppy]

About the "woman" thing:

You need to understand that He wasn't disrespecting Mary at all. You, sir, need to stop interpreting things that happened 2000 in a 21st Century context. Go learn about Jewish culture from that time, read the Bible in context, and learn from the Early Church Fathers.

EPIC FAIL lolOl

You, sir, need to get new specs

Why has everyone focused in on the "woman" thing?? Even if you take that out, you are still left with his blunt comment after that.

What does your concern have to do with me...... why don't you try saying that to YOUR mum sometimes and see what response you get haha...

Dyhn, yeah he would have been holy so that's my point though. Just because someone is a bit direct it don't have to mean that they are being rude or breaking a rule. He obviously wasn't so, that means something.

[PeterTheAleut]

About the "woman" thing:

You need to understand that He wasn't disrespecting Mary at all. You, sir, need to stop interpreting things that happened 2000 in a 21st Century context. Go learn about Jewish culture from that time, read the Bible in context, and learn from the Early Church Fathers.

EPIC FAIL lolOl

You, sir, need to get new specs

Why has everyone focused in on the "woman" thing?? Even if you take that out, you are still left with his blunt comment after that.

What does your concern have to do with me...... why don't you try saying that to YOUR mum sometimes and see what response you get haha...

Is this evidence that you're projecting your understanding of modern culture and usage of words onto what Jesus said to his mother 2000 years ago? It's certainly easy to do, but it's also rather lazy.

I also think, from my own experience as an adult, that it is sometimes necessary to say kindly yet firmly to my mother, "Mom, I appreciate your concern for me, but I am an adult/no longer a child. I am capable of living my own life, discerning my own mission, making my own decisions." There's nothing uncivil or blunt in that at all. Additionally, the text of the passage you're reading is incapable of communicating tone of voice and other such nonverbal cues that are so important to understanding whether Jesus talked to His mother bluntly or with great tact. You choose to see unmitigated directness; I prefer to see nothing but the most lovingly respectful tact.

[Poppy]

About the "woman" thing:

You need to understand that He wasn't disrespecting Mary at all. You, sir, need to stop interpreting things that happened 2000 in a 21st Century context. Go learn about Jewish culture from that time, read the Bible in context, and learn from the Early Church Fathers.

EPIC FAIL lolOl

You, sir, need to get new specs

Why has everyone focused in on the "woman" thing?? Even if you take that out, you are still left with his blunt comment after that.

What does your concern have to do with me...... why don't you try saying that to YOUR mum sometimes and see what response you get haha...

Is this evidence that you're projecting your understanding of modern culture and usage of words onto what Jesus said to his mother 2000 years ago? It's certainly easy to do, but it's also rather lazy.

I also think, from my own experience as an adult, that it is sometimes necessary to say kindly yet firmly to my mother, "Mom, I appreciate your concern for me, but I am an adult/no longer a child. I am capable of living my own life, discerning my own mission, making my own decisions." There's nothing uncivil or blunt in that at all. Additionally, the text of the passage you're reading is incapable of communicating tone of voice and other such nonverbal cues that are so important to understanding whether Jesus talked to His mother bluntly or with great tact. You choose to see unmitigated directness; I prefer to see nothing but the most lovingly respectful tact.

fine, i think you just about covered everything

its not lazy though... im not lazy.... i read allot and i search hard for things to understand what im reading. I might be reading it through my own culture sure but thas done from ignorance not laziness. Thanks for helping me out of the shamefull ignorant pit i was stuck in with your own molatoff cocktail of tact, gentleness and understanding.

[TristanCross]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't ticked at His mom. It seems like it, but only because we are not used to the culture of Jesus' time. I would suggest read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn.

Frankly, I would avoid Hahn's works. He rcently has been discussed on this site for making his rather ridiculous assumption (which betrays his lack of understanding regarding Patristic thought) that theology must develop.

I would rather recommend that one read anything written by any of the Church Fathers, or any homilies by the same.

www.ccel.org is a great place to start this search!

Do we not often quote Origen, a know heretic? What Hahn has to offer in this particular case is very valuable. His explanation of who the Mother of God is and what she does is tremendous, besides his defenses of modern Marian doctrines being developed within the Roman Church.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

About the "woman" thing:

You need to understand that He wasn't disrespecting Mary at all. You, sir, need to stop interpreting things that happened 2000 in a 21st Century context. Go learn about Jewish culture from that time, read the Bible in context, and learn from the Early Church Fathers.

EPIC FAIL lolOl

You, sir, need to get new specs

Why has everyone focused in on the "woman" thing?? Even if you take that out, you are still left with his blunt comment after that.

What does your concern have to do with me...... why don't you try saying that to YOUR mum sometimes and see what response you get haha...

Is this evidence that you're projecting your understanding of modern culture and usage of words onto what Jesus said to his mother 2000 years ago? It's certainly easy to do, but it's also rather lazy.

I also think, from my own experience as an adult, that it is sometimes necessary to say kindly yet firmly to my mother, "Mom, I appreciate your concern for me, but I am an adult/no longer a child. I am capable of living my own life, discerning my own mission, making my own decisions." There's nothing uncivil or blunt in that at all. Additionally, the text of the passage you're reading is incapable of communicating tone of voice and other such nonverbal cues that are so important to understanding whether Jesus talked to His mother bluntly or with great tact. You choose to see unmitigated directness; I prefer to see nothing but the most lovingly respectful tact.

fine, i think you just about covered everything

its not lazy though... im not lazy.... i read allot and i search hard for things to understand what im reading. I might be reading it through my own culture sure but thas done from ignorance not laziness. Thanks for helping me out of the shamefull ignorant pit i was stuck in with your own molatoff cocktail of tact, gentleness and understanding.

Poppy, the Lord was a grown man when he started His ministry. He was well past adolescence and may indeed have been slightly annoyed at His mother prodding Him to perform a miracle as He may have thought that it was not time yet. In any case, the important fact is that He did perform a miracle at His mother's request. I would think that this is a sign of His respect for the Theotokos that far greater than mere respectful language.

As for folks reacting to your style, which can be rather brash and out there at times, if I were in your place, I would be grateful to be able to learn from their reactions, negative and disproving as they may be. I have nine grandchildren and I hope that each one of them will turn out to be a learner and seeker that you are. That does not mean that I do not recoil at times with their mannerisms and use of language. 

[yeshuaisiam]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't ticked at His mom. It seems like it, but only because we are not used to the culture of Jesus' time. I would suggest read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn.

Frankly, I would avoid Hahn's works. He rcently has been discussed on this site for making his rather ridiculous assumption (which betrays his lack of understanding regarding Patristic thought) that theology must develop.

I would rather recommend that one read anything written by any of the Church Fathers, or any homilies by the same.

www.ccel.org is a great place to start this search!

Do we not often quote Origen, a know heretic? What Hahn has to offer in this particular case is very valuable. His explanation of who the Mother of God is and what she does is tremendous, besides his defenses of modern Marian doctrines being developed within the Roman Church.

I don't think Origen was a heretic.   Origen was just hated because he actually used his mind.

[Justin Kissel]

I don't think Origen was a heretic.   Origen was just hated because he actually used his mind.

Why was Origen considered a heretic?

[JamesRottnek]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't ticked at His mom. It seems like it, but only because we are not used to the culture of Jesus' time. I would suggest read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn.

Frankly, I would avoid Hahn's works. He rcently has been discussed on this site for making his rather ridiculous assumption (which betrays his lack of understanding regarding Patristic thought) that theology must develop.

I would rather recommend that one read anything written by any of the Church Fathers, or any homilies by the same.

www.ccel.org is a great place to start this search!

Do we not often quote Origen, a know heretic? What Hahn has to offer in this particular case is very valuable. His explanation of who the Mother of God is and what she does is tremendous, besides his defenses of modern Marian doctrines being developed within the Roman Church.

I don't think Origen was a heretic.   Origen was just hated because he actually used his mind.

So you think that Origen was absolutely correct in his teachings?

[PeterTheAleut]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't ticked at His mom. It seems like it, but only because we are not used to the culture of Jesus' time. I would suggest read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn.

Frankly, I would avoid Hahn's works. He rcently has been discussed on this site for making his rather ridiculous assumption (which betrays his lack of understanding regarding Patristic thought) that theology must develop.

I would rather recommend that one read anything written by any of the Church Fathers, or any homilies by the same.

www.ccel.org is a great place to start this search!

Do we not often quote Origen, a know heretic? What Hahn has to offer in this particular case is very valuable. His explanation of who the Mother of God is and what she does is tremendous, besides his defenses of modern Marian doctrines being developed within the Roman Church.

I don't think Origen was a heretic.   Origen was just hated because he actually used his mind.

Origen was condemned as a heretic because he taught that human souls pre-exist their incarnation in human bodies.

[PeterTheAleut]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't ticked at His mom. It seems like it, but only because we are not used to the culture of Jesus' time. I would suggest read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn.

Frankly, I would avoid Hahn's works. He rcently has been discussed on this site for making his rather ridiculous assumption (which betrays his lack of understanding regarding Patristic thought) that theology must develop.

I would rather recommend that one read anything written by any of the Church Fathers, or any homilies by the same.

www.ccel.org is a great place to start this search!

Do we not often quote Origen, a know heretic?

Fr. Chris didn't recommend we avoid Scott Hahn's works because he's a heretic; rather, Fr. Chris recommended we avoid Dr. Hahn's works because his ridiculous assumptions betray a gross ignorance of Patristic thought.

What Hahn has to offer in this particular case is very valuable. His explanation of who the Mother of God is and what she does is tremendous, besides his defenses of modern Marian doctrines being developed within the Roman Church.

Is his explanation based on a good understanding of Patristic thought?

[Poppy]

About the "woman" thing:

You need to understand that He wasn't disrespecting Mary at all. You, sir, need to stop interpreting things that happened 2000 in a 21st Century context. Go learn about Jewish culture from that time, read the Bible in context, and learn from the Early Church Fathers.

EPIC FAIL lolOl

You, sir, need to get new specs

Why has everyone focused in on the "woman" thing?? Even if you take that out, you are still left with his blunt comment after that.

What does your concern have to do with me...... why don't you try saying that to YOUR mum sometimes and see what response you get haha...

Is this evidence that you're projecting your understanding of modern culture and usage of words onto what Jesus said to his mother 2000 years ago? It's certainly easy to do, but it's also rather lazy.

I also think, from my own experience as an adult, that it is sometimes necessary to say kindly yet firmly to my mother, "Mom, I appreciate your concern for me, but I am an adult/no longer a child. I am capable of living my own life, discerning my own mission, making my own decisions." There's nothing uncivil or blunt in that at all. Additionally, the text of the passage you're reading is incapable of communicating tone of voice and other such nonverbal cues that are so important to understanding whether Jesus talked to His mother bluntly or with great tact. You choose to see unmitigated directness; I prefer to see nothing but the most lovingly respectful tact.

fine, i think you just about covered everything

its not lazy though... im not lazy.... i read allot and i search hard for things to understand what im reading. I might be reading it through my own culture sure but thas done from ignorance not laziness. Thanks for helping me out of the shamefull ignorant pit i was stuck in with your own molatoff cocktail of tact, gentleness and understanding.

Poppy, the Lord was a grown man when he started His ministry. He was well past adolescence and may indeed have been slightly annoyed at His mother prodding Him to perform a miracle as He may have thought that it was not time yet. In any case, the important fact is that He did perform a miracle at His mother's request. I would think that this is a sign of His respect for the Theotokos that far greater than mere respectful language.

As for folks reacting to your style, which can be rather brash and out there at times, if I were in your place, I would be grateful to be able to learn from their reactions, negative and disproving as they may be. I have nine grandchildren and I hope that each one of them will turn out to be a learner and seeker that you are. That does not mean that I do not recoil at times with their mannerisms and use of language. 

I KNOW!!!! and i been agreeing with allot of you about this. I keep saying it obviously wasn't wrong of him because he was perfect and without sin. Sometimes to talk to people directly about something isn't bad and i don't think he was being bad i think he was just being direct. And yeah you make a rli good point about the fact that he did it, which is respectfull rather than focusing on the words he said to her. Anyone can say words....either brash ones or flattering ones but they are ONLY words. Cheap.

So yeah i agree with you its what he did that matters.

As for my style, i dont need any comments on it. Im not here for personal evaluation. What can i learn from someones reaction to me?? Nothing thats for them to learn what there like not me.

[ialmisry]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't ticked at His mom. It seems like it, but only because we are not used to the culture of Jesus' time. I would suggest read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn.

Frankly, I would avoid Hahn's works. He rcently has been discussed on this site for making his rather ridiculous assumption (which betrays his lack of understanding regarding Patristic thought) that theology must develop.

I would rather recommend that one read anything written by any of the Church Fathers, or any homilies by the same.

www.ccel.org is a great place to start this search!

Do we not often quote Origen, a know heretic? What Hahn has to offer in this particular case is very valuable. His explanation of who the Mother of God is and what she does is tremendous, besides his defenses of modern Marian doctrines being developed within the Roman Church.

I don't think Origen was a heretic.   Origen was just hated because he actually used his mind.

then you can stop using yours, if you have started, and make a good Mormon.

[vorgos]

According to Dr. Jeannie Constantinou in her podcast "Search the Scriptures" on AFR, this was a Hebrew expression and it was rendered in Greek literally thus the confusion. According to her it means, "we understand each other, you don't have to tell me".

You can listen to her describing this 38 minutes into this episode of her series at

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_14_translations_and_versions

HTH

[Iconodule]

Sometimes Jesus didn't keep a civil tongue in his head and that didn't make him unholy.... because in his human self.... he didn't sin and he was perfect, so being truthfull but sometimes uncivil obviously wasn't a rule breaker.

His first miracle was at the wedding and he was clearly ticked at his mum when he said this ""Woman, what does your concern have to do with me?" even when your not a kid any more, that's still his mum he was talking to.

When he called the pharisees a brood of vipers....hypocrits....white washed tombs... full of iniquity. Lots of ad homs there uh?? I'm sure he could have thought of another way to say that but, i like it that he was just direct.....obviously wasn't a rule breaker either...no sin in being truthfull and direct because Jesus never sinned or broke a rule.

So yeah, maybe we should all be more Christ-like.

Jesus wasn't ticked at His mom. It seems like it, but only because we are not used to the culture of Jesus' time. I would suggest read "Hail, Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn.

Frankly, I would avoid Hahn's works. He rcently has been discussed on this site for making his rather ridiculous assumption (which betrays his lack of understanding regarding Patristic thought) that theology must develop.

I would rather recommend that one read anything written by any of the Church Fathers, or any homilies by the same.

www.ccel.org is a great place to start this search!

Do we not often quote Origen, a know heretic? What Hahn has to offer in this particular case is very valuable. His explanation of who the Mother of God is and what she does is tremendous, besides his defenses of modern Marian doctrines being developed within the Roman Church.

I don't think Origen was a heretic.   Origen was just hated because he actually used his mind.

Have fun resurrecting in your spherical body.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Sometimes Jesus was UNcivil