Board index ‹ Jesus

[Super Sleuth]

He told his followers to hate their families. If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26

He came to break apart families. I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. Matthew 10:35-36

The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Luke 12:51-53

He insisted that his followers love him more than anyone else (including their families). He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37

He encouraged people to abandon their home and family for his name's sake. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29-30, Luke 18:29-30

He was rude to his own family. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Matthew 12: 47-49, Mark 3:31-34, Luke 8:20-21

**He was dismissive of other people's feelings toward their families.**And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. Matthew 8:21-22, Luke 9:59-62

He discouraged marriage. They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Luke 20:35

[jimwalton]

You have cherry-picked texts without (1) trying to understand what Jesus was saying, and (2) not realizing that Jesus speaks in a wide variety of literary forms (exaggeration, metaphor, parable, simile, etc.).

> Luke 14.26

The whole chapter is about how society's made-up rules and categories don't pertain to the kingdom of God. In vv. 1-5, their man-made rules about the Sabbath should not get in the way of treating people with compassion. In vv. 7-14, our obsession with status and honor should give way to true humility and consideration of others. In vv. 15-24, we read of the true danger of not understanding all this stuff. The self-righteous will never see the kingdom of God, but the seeking and the humble who accept God's call, no matter what their social station and category, will be received. In vv. 25-35 (the text you picked), He is letting them know that accepting God's call could have great social repercussions. Everyone must count the cost (vv. 28, 31-33), because there could be a price to pay in society (physical persecution, intellectual persecution, rejection from friends and family). Jesus makes this point by using hyperbole. "Hate" in Semitic thought often meant "love less; not prefer; not choose. It was a Hebrew idiom meting "to love much more than." Jesus believed in honoring one's parents (Lk. 18.20). Here he is saying that if your choice of following Christ causes you to have to walk away from your family, you must not hesitate. He is calling into being a radical community of voluntary commitment, willing for Jesus's sake to go any distance and pay any price.

> Luke 12.51-53; Mt. 10.35-36

Obviously we have to look at the context, because in Jn. 14.27 he said he came to bring peace. In many senses, Jesus has come to bring peace to individuals, by saving them, freeing them from the slavery of sin, breaking down barrier walls between people, and reconciling people to God. But in another sense, the person of Jesus brings conflicts between people, as many people mock and treat him with derision, while others worship. Jesus’s own family opposed him (Mk. 3.21), and his friends and townspeople turned against him (Lk. 4.14-30). The same was true of Paul, as many people tried to kill him. People fight over Jesus and over faith, even today. The cross of Christ is both a stumbling block and it breaks down the walls of separation.

He quotes from the prophet Micah. The division between families is not really the point. The point is that sin will be judged now, just as it was in ancient Israel. Sin causes deterioration of families, relationships, and societies. Jesus has come to heal, restore, and reconcile, but many don't accept it, and that in itself creates more problems.

> Matthew 10.37

He doesn't say not to love and honor your parents or children, but that your love for God is the highest value in life.

> Mt. 19.29; Mk. 10.29-30; Lk. 18.29-30

The thrust of the passage is the way people perceive the path to heaven (based on good works, earning a place, being religious, and having been blessed in life, i.e., with wealth), and the real path to heaven (humility and accepting God’s free gift of eternal life through substitutionary atonement). He is not saying you should reject family, but instead that your relationship with God is the most important relationship in life. Jesus mentions that the sacrifice being affirmed is in the most important cultural bond: the kinship bond. His point here is that God is your greatest allegiance; he is our ultimate kinship responsibility.

> Mt. 12.47-49; Mk. 3.31-34; Lk. 8.20-21

He's not rude to his family. He is neither denying nor underrating human relationships. He is not rejecting his earthly family at all, but using it as a teachable moment about discipleship. He is teaching about positions and priorities, discipleship and devotion, more than about family.

It's also a radical point for his Jewish listeners, who felt that by virtue of their ethnic origin and family heritage they got a free ride to heaven. "Not so," Jesus insists.

> Mt. 8.21-22; Lk. 9.59-62

This is a trick, and knowing some background helps. Family members would NEVER be outside talking with a rabbi during the mourning period after death. This means his dad isn't dead yet, or he's been dead a while. Therefore his excuse is just that—a poor excuse for refusal or delay.

We never find out if the first man ended up following Jesus or not. Nor do we find out about this man. One thing is clear, though: We all get to choose what do, and there will be consequences, both pro and con, for every decision we make. We must determine to count the costs and make the choice.

> Luke 20.35

Pay attention to the context. He has been asked a question about life in heaven. His answer is that marriage is part of this age, not the next. He's not discouraging marriage, but explaining that the next life is a different mode of existence altogether, and we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking the future is just a continuation of the present.

Jesus is not anti-family. He affirms the honor of one's parents (Lk. 18.20), the blessedness of children (Lk. 18.15-17), and respect for siblings (he had at least 2 sets of siblings as disciples). In most of these verses, Jesus is letting us know that our relationship with God trumps all other relationships.

[Soccer dude]

> Pay attention to the context.

I think that's part of the problem - you don't really know the context. From a broader perspective, the majority of modern scholars view Jesus as the leader of a Jewish apocalyptic movement. His message regarding separation from your family (which OP demonstrates as multiply attested in our gospels) is further supported by Paul's discussion of marriage in 1Cor 7.

It seems to me that the criterion of dissimilarity points to the passages OP cites as being authentic. They resulted from an apocalyptic mindset that was slowly smoothed over during the early decades of the movement when it became apparent that the resurrection was not immanent.

[jimwalton]

> I think that's part of the problem - you don't really know the context

Easy, Tiger. Stand down. Each of the Gospel writers arranged the material to suit their thesis in writing. We can examine their contexts to discern the point they were trying to make with Jesus's words.

> From a broader perspective, the majority of modern scholars view Jesus as the leader of a Jewish apocalyptic movement.

This could be the fallacy of authority. The majority of modern scholars are secular and many approach the text with bias. I've experienced this firsthand. They don't want to be bothered with the facts—they have their minds made up to deprecate the text and its source. At one time the majority of scholars believed in the flat earth, or that time was constant. We learn as we go. That "the majority of (secular skeptical) scholars" take a certain position means nothing to real scholarship.

> His message regarding separation from your family

Jesus doesn't teach the separation of family, but instead only the ranking of the relationship with God as taking precedence over family kinship ties.

> ...is further supported by Paul's discussion of marriage in 1Cor 7.

First of all, if we want to all of Paul's views of marriage, we have to look at all of his views, not just one. Eph. 5.22-31 give a very exalted view of marriage, so you can't just dismiss Jesus and Paul by cherry-picking texts.

Secondly, if you understand the context of 1 Cor. 7, it is not a treatise on marriage but an answer to a question. He is answering specific questions, the exact content of which we are not informed. Also, the manner and method of his discussion and the special arguments employed could be fully understood only in the light of the erroneous opinions existing in the church at Corinth, and as to these, we are not fully informed. It seems certain, at least, that some Christians regarded marriage as an absolute duty. Others considered the marriage state as an inferior moral condition, a weak concession to the flesh. Still other held that by accepting Christ all existing social relationships, including marriage, were dissolved.

Therefore, Paul writes with reference to certain conditions that were purely local and temporary. To apply this to every injunction literally and to Christians in all ages would be misleading. Ergo, Paul isn't anti-family, either.

> It seems to me that the criterion of dissimilarity points to the passages OP cites as being authentic. They resulted from an apocalyptic mindset that was slowly smoothed over during the early decades of the movement when it became apparent that the resurrection was not immanent.

Paul and Gospel writers understood that Christ's return was not imminent. In 2 Peter 3.9, Peter writes that God's timetable is different than our human one. It's going to be a long time. Rev. 6.11 speaks of delay. Jesus's parables often indicate delay (Mt. 25.5, for instance). Jesus's point in the "soon" language is so that we would always be ready, even though it delay. There was a constant tension between "It could happen tonight" and "We might be here for a long time."

> They resulted from an apocalyptic mindset that was slowly smoothed over during the early decades of the movement when it became apparent that the resurrection was not immanent.

They weren't sure when to expect Jesus, and that was part of the genius of Jesus's words. It could have been soon, and it could have been 2000 years later. If you are admitting that their "mindset was slowly smoothed over during the early decades," it seems you are admitting that by the time they wrote the NT, they were looking further down the tunnel of history.

[Brave]

> This could be the fallacy of authority. The majority of modern scholars are secular and many approach the text with bias. I've experienced this firsthand. They don't want to be bothered with the facts—they have their minds made up to deprecate the text and its source. At one time the majority of scholars believed in the flat earth, or that time was constant. We learn as we go. That "the majority of (secular skeptical) scholars" take a certain position means nothing to real scholarship.

True - you have to look at the peer reviewed literature that has not been refuted or redacted. And the state of Bible studies happens to currently be a critical mess with no consensus because no one agrees on an evaluative criteria, resulting in Christian and secular scholars being unable to agree about the basic facts about Jesus' life or what we can meaningfully glean from the Bible.

All this to say that you can't really make a 'contextual' argument from the Bible without admitting that everyone else is trying to do the same thing and coming to different conclusions.

[jimwalton]

> True - you have to look at the peer reviewed literature that has not been refuted or redacted

I agree, but even peer-reviewed literature has to be taken with a grain of salt. After all, no one asks for a reference from someone who is going to give a bad one. Often peer-reviewed literature is reviewed by a collection of people who are generally in agreement with what is written (though no one agrees with everything an author says), and who make slight suggestions or corrections.

There is certainly a wide disparity of positions when we talk about scholars and the Bible. "The majority of modern scholars" easily become a valueless term, as does "peer-reviewed literature." It's not like science. It's a different kind of academic discipline.

> And the state of Bible studies happens to currently be a critical mess with no consensus because no one agrees on an evaluative criteria, resulting in Christian and secular scholars being unable to agree about the basic facts about Jesus' life or what we can meaningfully glean from the Bible.

This is true. It's quite the mess. I, along with many many others, do my best to examine the data objectively, evaluate positions, and infer the most reasonable conclusion. "Consensus" can be tough to find. I find there are many secular scholars trying to discredit the text, and their bias is somewhat obvious. I find also many "fundamentalist" scholars with just as much bias in the other direction. I do think, however, there are a vast number of scholars at various places on the continuum in the middle, trying to approach the text honestly and fairly.

> All this to say that you can't really make a 'contextual' argument from the Bible without admitting that everyone else is trying to do the same thing and coming to different conclusions.

I think we can make legitimate contextual arguments, since context is a huge avenue to proper understanding. We consider linguistics, culture, artifacts, documents, form criticism, literary factors, and whatever we can get our hands on to draw appropriate and justifiable conclusions. There will always be disagreement, especially in the fields of exegesis and hermeneutics. So we don't necessarily go with "the majority of modern scholars," but rather with true wisdom about such things.

The viewpoint that Jesus was anti-family doesn't hold up. First, Jewish society was rigorously pro-family, and there's no credible evidence to see Jesus as standing apart from that. Secondly, Jesus affirmed the value of family relationships enough times in His ministry to show us His view on that matter. Third, Jesus was prone to radical and hyperbolic statements when He was talking about the kingdom of God that we can easily interpret His statements as pushing people to a radical view of the place of God in their lives. And since these statements that have been references were all in contexts of teaching about the costs of discipleship, it is more likely Jesus meant them as statements of essential and profound discipleship than as anti-family declarations.

[Soccer dude]

> Easy, Tiger. Stand down.

I beg your pardon. There's no need to get sassy.

> Each of the Gospel writers arranged the material to suit their thesis in writing.

No doubt.

> They don't want to be bothered with the facts

It's difficult to hear someone discount scholarship the way you do. The scholarly process builds on decades of research... lifetimes of research... maybe you could tell me which scholars you've read, and why you disagree with some of their positions.

> Jesus doesn't teach the separation of family, but instead only the ranking of the relationship with God as taking precedence over family kinship ties.

No. That's not what he says. Ranking has nothing to do with it. He says you must completely disavow your family - there's no caveat. There's no relativism in the speech. None. A person who does not hate his family, such a person cannot be his disciple. He doesn't say that someone who loves their family more... more has nothing to do with it. I beg you to read it again.

All you can do is ask yourself why? what does it mean - modern scholarship explains this (fairly well, imo) by putting it in the context of 2nd temple apocalyptic.

> First of all, if we want to all of Paul's views of marriage, we have to look at all of his views, not just one. Eph. 5.22-31

It's difficult to try to explain Paul by citing a text that many (probably most) scholars regard as pseudonymous. Ephesians was not likely written by Paul.

> He is answering specific questions, the exact content of which we are not informed.

1Cor is answering specific questions from the Corinthian body concerning whether or not they should get married. Paul says that they shouldn't. Remain as you are. It's quite simple - there's not enough time.

> Paul and Gospel writers understood that Christ's return was not imminent.

I could cite a lot of passages (including in 2 peter) that point to immanent eschatological expectation. I could also walk you through the historical contexts in Daniel and Revelation. But actually, it may be better if you read scholars' own words. I can recommend a few if you're interested.

> Jesus's words.

I'm sorry, but again, that's part of the problem - you don't know which words are Jesus' and which words are those of later authors. It's a difficult concept, but it's true.

[jimwalton]

> I beg your pardon. There's no need to get sassy.

Wasn't being sassy, but responding to your comment of "You don't really know the context." Since you don't know me, or know what I know, this was quite the prejudicial accusation.

> It's difficult to hear someone discount scholarship the way you do. The scholarly process builds on decades of research... lifetimes of research... maybe you could tell me which scholars you've read, and why you disagree with some of their positions.

I know from firsthand experience the bias of many scholars. I find there are many secular scholars trying to discredit the text, and their bias is somewhat obvious. I find also many "fundamentalist" scholars with just as much bias in the other direction. I do think, however, there are a vast number of scholars at various places on the continuum in the middle, trying to approach the text honestly and fairly. To just press a point with "the majority of modern scholars..." is not nearly as legitimate in biblical studies as it is in other academic disciplines. The "decades of research" and "lifetimes of research" too often comes with prejudicial bias and baggage. We must be very careful, and we have to be judicious scholars.

I know that biblical studies is an active discipline, based on millennia of analysis. In the late 19th century, however, biblical studies took a radical turn toward alleged Bible scholars working hard to discredit the biblical text. In the early 20th century, the distinct academic trend became a wide effort to disparage the text. "The Jesus Seminar" illustrates the farce of secular biblical studies, taking votes among a group of biblical minimalists to decide which passages were legitimate and which were specious. Lately, thanks to the work of many honest biblical scholars, those kinds of farcical efforts are being undone, but the literature is still full of them, and hence the "majority of modern scholars" fallacy.

> No. That's not what he says. Ranking has nothing to do with it. He says you must completely disavow your family - there's no caveat. There's no relativism in the speech. None. A person who does not hate his family, such a person cannot be his disciple. He doesn't say that someone who loves their family more... more has nothing to do with it. I beg you to read it again.

The viewpoint that Jesus was anti-family doesn't hold up. First, Jewish society was rigorously pro-family, and there's no credible evidence to see Jesus as standing apart from that. Secondly, Jesus affirmed the value of family relationships enough times in His ministry to show us His view on that matter. Third, Jesus was prone to radical and hyperbolic statements when He was talking about the kingdom of God that we can easily interpret His statements as pushing people to a radical view of the place of God in their lives. And since these statements that have been references were all in contexts of teaching about the costs of discipleship, it is more likely Jesus meant them as statements of essential and profound discipleship than as anti-family declarations.

> All you can do is ask yourself why? what does it mean - modern scholarship explains this (fairly well, imo) by putting it in the context of 2nd temple apocalyptic.

Except that 2nd-temple apocalyptic was not the prevailing worldview of the era. While there were a number of Jewish (and a few Christian) apocalypses, the tenor of the NT writings are Gospel (theological biography) and epistle, with only slight and sparse apocalyptic references. The bulk of the NT material is couched in biography and theology, not apocalyptic expectation (and therefore interpretation).

> It's difficult to try to explain Paul by citing a text that many (probably most) scholars regard as pseudonymous. Ephesians was not likely written by Paul.

The evidence for Pauline authorship of Ephesians is fairly substantive.

* Many of the early church fathers (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Hermas, and Polycarp) support Paul’s authorship. The external evidence is very early in Paul’s favor. By the close of the second century the Epistle was universally received as St. Paul’s. The external evidence is unanimous.
* His name is mentioned twice alone with some people whom Paul knew.
* The thinking and theology is wholly Pauline.
* If Paul didn’t write it, a *hypothesis of the great unknown* is required. If it was not Paul, the author “out-Pauls” Paul, showing more genius than Paul himself. If that is so, why didn’t he put his own name on it?

Now, I'm aware that there's a case against Pauline authorship as well.

* Lack of personal greetings, awkward for a man who spent 3 years there and who is prone to personal greetings in his other letters.
* It is said that it has a different vocabulary and sentence structure than are typical for Paul. (But vocabulary is not always a definite indicator of authorship.)
* It is said that the doctrine goes beyond Paul's era and thinking. (Eh, that's fairly subjective.)
* Ephesians is lacking key Pauline terms, such as "justification," "righteousness of God," any mention of Abraham, and the Law. (But given his audience and purpose in writing, these are inconclusive regarding authorship.)

I think a strong case can be made for Pauline authorship, and it's impossible for you take a settled conclusion of "Ephesians was not likely written by Paul." I think the case is stronger for Pauline authorship than against.

> 1Cor is answering specific questions from the Corinthian body concerning whether or not they should get married. Paul says that they shouldn't. Remain as you are. It's quite simple - there's not enough time.

We know the general theme of their question: "It is good for a man not to marry" (1 Cor. 7.1). I find it interesting that where Paul goes immediately is not to eschatology but instead to morality (1 Cor. 7.2). If he were going to ply eschatological waters, I would expect him to follow with something like, "Jesus is coming back in a few years. Cool your jets." Instead he launches his talk into sexual morality, marital faithfulness, dealing with long-term temptations, and marital continuity and obligations over the long haul.

He counsels widows to stay unmarried (7.8), but with no reference to Jesus's return. But since a long-term is in view, marriage is better than immorality (7.9). He counsels couples to stay together (7.10), discusses divorce (7.11-15).

Why would he encourage a slave to gain his freedom if at all possible (7.21) if he had only a short view of eschatology?

As a matter of fact, there is nothing at all in the chapter that would lead us to believe that Paul is speaking only from the viewpoint of 2nd-Temple apocalyptic. It's more likely that you have superimposed that perspective on the text, because it's not explicit.

1 Cor. 7.29: "What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short."

I guess my question for you would be: Why do you see eschatology as the overriding theme rather than morality? To me the vast majority of the chapter is Paul's talk about Christianity ethics (consistent with almost all the rest of Corinthians) over and above talk about eschatology (an only occasional theme in the book).

> I could cite a lot of passages (including in 2 peter) that point to immanent eschatological expectation. I could also walk you through the historical contexts in Daniel and Revelation. But actually, it may be better if you read scholars' own words. I can recommend a few if you're interested.

I'm aware of the passages. There are also balancing passages that show they realized Jesus wasn't returning soon. I'm also aware of the historical contexts of Daniel and Revelation, both highly debated books with regard to to authorship, time of writing, and interpretation.

> you don't know which words are Jesus' and which words are those of later authors

An examination of the Gospel writings gives little reason to question the authenticity of ascribing almost all of the words to Jesus. We'd have to go text by text rather than speaking in generalities, but there is little evidence or basis upon which to doubt the legitimacy of the references to Christ's own mouth.

[Brave]

To be clear: I am not arguing that Jesus is anti-family. But one cannot say that Jesus was pro-Jewish societal norms -- otherwise he would have had no business reforming anything. Paul is pretty clear about the unimportance of starting a family, and he is our best window into the early Christian cult teachings. I don't take any of the red letter in the gospel as, well, the gospel truth, just so you know where I'm starting from, but Jesus being anti-family is completely and utterly beside the point for me. The issue is whether or not we can trust any of the ancient claims we have about the man, and I don't think we can.

> So we don't necessarily go with "the majority of modern scholars," but rather with true wisdom about such things.

Can you expand on that? As a secularist who tries to deal in probabilities, this feels like a way to say 'my contextual reading, while not agreed on by all scholars, is based on true wisdom and therefore I am justified in my interpretation.' And what I see from the outside is yet another interpretation to pile on the heap.

[jimwalton]

> But one cannot say that Jesus was pro-Jewish societal norms -- otherwise he would have had no business reforming anything.

I'm not aware that Jesus expressed any issue with societal norms. Jesus addressed their religious norms. Just about everything He said pertained to the hypocrisy and misguidedness of their religious perspectives, which Jesus considered to be askew from God's intent. He rarely, if ever, addressed ANY of the social issues of the day. He didn't talk about slavery, homosexuality, infanticide (the Roman Empire's version of abortion), or education, and only spoke very briefly about marriage and divorce when asked. Jesus's beef was with the religious establishment.

In addition, Jesus was notably conformant to many practices of Jewish piety of His day: almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. He presupposed the validity of the Temple, the sacrifices, and Israel's holy days. He read and quoted the Scriptures and regarded them as authoritative. He attended synagogue services. And He accepted the authority of the Torah. It could be completely out of character, given all those things we KNOW, to perceive Jesus as anti-family and against Jewish social norms.

> Paul is pretty clear about the unimportance of starting a family,

We don't know too much about Paul's stance on starting a family. In 1 Corinthians 7 he is not writing a theology of marriage and family, but answering a specific question for a particular group (a very troubled group with many misunderstandings and distortions). It's very difficult, if not impossible, to take what Paul says to them as having any kind of
universal application, or to take this as a good rendition of Paul's perspective on things.

The ancient world generally took one of three positions pertaining to marriage and procreation: (1) Marriage and procreation are vital and necessary for all who are physically capable of it (the majority view). (2) Marriage is a distraction and should never be undertaken by the wise man except in the rare instances where one might find a spouse equally devoted to the philosophic lifestyle (the Cynic position). (3) Marriage is good for most people, but one must make exceptions for those too committed to other spiritual pursuits to take time for it (an early-2nd-century rabbi).

Paul combines elements of the second and third views without subscribing to either. He was not against marriage or children. What he was FOR is total dedication to God.

> The issue is whether or not we can trust any of the ancient claims we have about the man, and I don't think we can.

This is where we differ. With four different accounts from 4 different writers, two from the band of disciples, one Jew who was not one of the 12, and one Gentile, we have an abundance of material about Jesus. Despite being on the periphery of the Roman Empire in backwater Palestine, we have as many sources of Jesus as we have about Emperor Tiberius.

There's no credible reason to doubt the accuracy of the Gospels. They are full of material that agrees with other extrabibilcal sources. Their information agrees with the archaeological, geographical, and cultural knowledge we have from other sources. Their literary styles match other contemporaneous histories and biographies of the ancient world (Josephus, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius). The authors were in a position to report accurate historical information (even if you disagree that they were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), since all 4 were written in the 1st century. We have every reason to trust the Gospel accounts.

> Can you expand on that? As a secularist who tries to deal in probabilities, this feels like a way to say 'my contextual reading, while not agreed on by all scholars, is based on true wisdom and therefore I am justified in my interpretation.' And what I see from the outside is yet another interpretation to pile on the heap.

We have to utilize research, every tool of analysis we have, and also use a whole lot of common sense. There are so many factors that play into accurate interpretation, and it's easy for bias to skew one's work. People who work merely to discredit the text or to justify it a priori don't do the rest of us any favors, though the Internet is full of such work. So often (far too often), I'm having these conversations, and people just link me to "X" Internet sites, as if that ends the discussion. Or they find a battery of scholars who agree with them, and, well, that says it all! It doesn't.

We have to use our heads. Our conversation here is a good example. Jesus was a fastidious Jew, conforming to their societal norms, affirming the Torah and living by it, very much a part of their culture, and yet He gets accused of being anti-family by the original poster. But such a perspective is WAY off to the side of (1) anybody who has done considerable reading and research in the life of Jesus, and (2) anybody who doesn't have an axe to grind.

I once was hosting a Russian tourist in America for the first time. She was simply astounded that our homes and places of business didn't have bars in all the windows, high walls, barbed wire, and strong gates around every building, as they do in Russia (and in many countries). The clearest and simplest explanation was, "We're Americans. We're not that kind of people." I've never had bars on my windows in my many different homes, nor have I ever had a break-in. Except in rare circumstances or the bad parts of the cities, we don't have to protect against that, because it rarely happens. In most places in America most of the time, a locked door is sufficient.

When you are familiar with the life of Jesus, the accusation that He was a family-hater and anti-Jewish social norms just doesn't wash. He wasn't "that kind of people." Years of reading and research, along with a measure of wisdom, gives the clear and easy answer to the question.