Did Jesus ever get mad?

[Living Well Is Best Revenge]

Originally Posted by Nava

First time I hear that version, I always got the "they weren't his brothers, they were his manitos" explanation.

Well, ok, since this wasn't Mexico, the actual expression used was parientes al estilo ribero, but that means "cousins of any known degree and people he grew up with going into and out of each other's houses all the time". Sort of like my youngest brother has three brothers who are not related to us by blood at all, but they were all born in the same apartments building in the same year, they were always classmates, and they still know things about each other some of their blood relatives don't.

Exactly. I believe BigT is mistaken on the Catholic school of thought.

[scrumpert]

I think he was mad because he was ripped off on a dime bag.

[Annie-Xmas]

Originally Posted by 3waygeek

I can't believe no one's mentioned Jesus's asking "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" during the Crucifixion. Jesus may not have been full-on angry then, but he was definitely a bit cross.

Being nailed to a cross would make anyone more than a bit cross.

[Mangosteen]

Originally Posted by The Second Stone

The moneychangers in the temple got him mad. He smashed up their stuff and "threw" them from the temple. So the story goes. I don't know that he beat them up, or ordered them to leave or what.

So when having a church bake sale, remember not to charge retail. That and Jesus isn't keen on bankers. My recollection is that moneychangers charged full retail plus for animals to be sacrificed and that they charged a premium for converting unclean money into temple money. There are others who post on the boards, Tomndebb and Polycarp (he still here?) who know a heck of a lot more about this stuff.

Never got the "money changer" thing. Why would the temple care if someone put a Syrian "dollar" or an Egyptian "Peso", etc. in the offering box? The priests were only interested in money and why would they care what form it was in. All the coins were accepted locally for any goods you wanted to buy. There was no reason to change one kind of money for another.

When I was in southern Indian a few years back. There were lots of money changers in front of the temples, especially on Holy Days. However these moneychangers were not exchanging one type of currency for another. They were giving change.

Hundreds of beggars lined the entrance way to the temples. And worshipers needed lots of small coins so they could offer alms to as many of these beggars as possible. Worshipers would hand a 100 Repee note to the money changer and get 95 (or something less than 100) back and the money changer would make a small profit on every transaction for his trouble.

I always wondered if the money changers during Jesus' time were only giving maybe only the equivalent of "88cents for each $1.00" they changed for the worshipers and this is what pissed Christ off so much.

[Lobohan]

There was the time he palm striked a leper and all that was left was a screaming bloody skeleton.

I'm sure I read that in the bible.

[ftg]

Originally Posted by Mangosteen

Never got the "money changer" thing. Why would the temple care if someone put a Syrian "dollar" or an Egyptian "Peso", etc. in the offering box? The priests were only interested in money and why would they care what form it was in. All the coins were accepted locally for any goods you wanted to buy. There was no reason to change one kind of money for another.

People were not donating money, they were buying items for sacrifice from merchants outside the Temple.

There were too many coins of varying quality for a simple merchant to keep track. It required a bit of specialized knowledge to ascertain if that Persian drachma was mostly or very little silver and how much of the coin was left after people had sliced off bits of it.

Also, prices for a lot of stuff were frequently fixed in the local coin. The authorities would not be happy if you did your own currency exchange for goods, dancing around on the worth of the coins involved, as that would open the doors to people selling at higher/lower cost than the mandated amount.

Once you had a money-changing business going, then you basically become a banker of sorts and then things get really interesting. And bankers were just as despised back then as they are today.

[kambria]

Originally Posted by Living Well Is Best Revenge

Exactly. I believe BigT is mistaken on the Catholic school of thought.

That's right--the Catholic "position" on a given Scripture verse is that, with the exception of the very few verses on which the Pope/Magisterium has spoken authoritatively, there is no Catholic position. In this case, Catholics are free to believe whatever they like about who those "brothers" may be, provided that they aren't taken as Mary's biological children. They could be Joseph's sons from a previous marriage, cousins (consistent with the Aramaic language interpretation of "brothers"), etc.

[elbows]

He was pissed because all those merchants were eating into the collection plate profits. Gold chalices don't grow on trees, y'know. We'll never get a bigger church if someone else fleeces the gullible before we get a shot at them, damn!

[Chronos]

The other reason moneychangers were needed was that most secular coins had graven images on them, and thus weren't allowed in the Temple itself.

[MyFootsZZZ]

If you ask my wacky neighbor, she'll tell you god and Jesus are pretty pissed off now... and Jesus's mom is basically the one holding them back from clocking us in the face.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Lynn Bodoni

If there were a loving and kind god, we would not have blister packs. Or if there were a righteous god, he would do some serious smiting (blister pack designers, telemarketers, etc.).

I agree. My girlfriend's ex is a packaging engineer. Now you know how to blame.

[elbows]

I feel your hate for blister packs but please be aware, currently drugs, perfectly good expensive prescriptions drugs, get destroyed, rather than reused. They cannot be recycled, to Africa say, out of a fear that they may have been contaminated. Blister packs mean left over drugs can be recycled.

I cared for someone till their death, they took a lot of meds. And during their final months, the meds were often changed, switched out etc, at quite a speed. By the time it was over, I had enough meds to open a pharmacy. I spent a full year trying to find a way to get them into the hands of someone who could use them. There was absolutely nothing wrong with them, they were all destroyed! It broke my heart, and is a shameful waste in a world of need. The law requires they be destroyed - unless - wait for it - they are in blister packs!

Just something to think about, not scolding, I promise!

[CC]

and wouldn't THAT be something for a deity to be pissed about? Man, where are these guys when you need them?

[Passion of the Shrubber]

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

This passage in the Bible was edited to make it acceptable to the more sensitive religious folk. IRL, Jesus actually said:

"Get those muthafuckin' snakes out of my muthafuckin' temple!"

[legalsnugs]

Originally Posted by kambria

That's right--the Catholic "position" on a given Scripture verse is that, with the exception of the very few verses on which the Pope/Magisterium has spoken authoritatively, there is no Catholic position. In this case, Catholics are free to believe whatever they like about who those "brothers" may be, provided that they aren't taken as Mary's biological children. They could be Joseph's sons from a previous marriage, cousins (consistent with the Aramaic language interpretation of "brothers"), etc.

So, per the Catholic Church, despite what the Bible actually says, they could be pretty much anything except actual brothers.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

What's the buzz?

Apparently a pretty good one. I'm going with bath salts. Don't eat me, bro!