Jesus...the prankster?

[Mystic_Warrior]

No, he was a “Man of Sorrows” did I not say that?

Yes, you did. So? That was one aspect of Him because of the passion. Do you honestly believe that this characteristic of him “sums him up”? You didn’t answer any of my questions I put forth to you. I’d like an answer.

Don’t you think somebody described thusly would likely be quite different than the average joe you might see on the street, such that, at least we could say, He was more sorrowful than cranking out a smile every time He looked around?

The average joe I see nowadays is a man and woman of sorrows.

Think about it.

I did and think your narrow interpretation of the Savior is quite…narrow.

Would you call a man with a good percentage of smiles and laughter, such a person?

This is really absurd. I believe He experienced all of the emotions that we do today. Some days I’m smiling all day. Some days I’m a pretty glum person. Some days there’s a mixture of both ups and downs. Talking about percentages is a really illogical and absurd statement.

Yes, there is a lot of things He did we know nothing about, but, like I said, you have Man of Sorrows and 2 cries. It seems there’s nothing to support that he was the holy equivalent to Art Linkletter.

You can believe what you like. You can put Jesus in a cute little sorrowful box if you want to. I choose to use the logic that says that if I experience emotions, and Scripture talks Jesus having emotions, then it’s a pretty fair bet that He sometimes smiled and have fun - just like I do.

So, are you saying that Jesus as a baby never “cooed” or laughed, that as a young boy he sat at home with a glum face all the time, and spent his entire life dejected and never smiled or laughed? Hopefully you’ll get around to answering at least one of my questions.

MW

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

In his humanity he had a sense of humour but not like mine. he was not a sinner

 

[Charles_22]

The fact is we do not know. However if you believe that children flocked to Jesus because he was special and that they somehow had some special power to detect his inner motivations (aside from their humility and innocence) - that’s just wacky. Whne you see hoofprints, think horses, not zebras ()unless of course you are in Africa). Children came to Jesus because he offered thme a smile and laughter and open arms - which was probably something in short supply at the time of occupied Judea. This does not discount his “specialness” that children =might have sensed, but kids are simple and Jesus knew that of course.

Nope, but you “could” be right. There’s nothing there to indicate that the children coming to Him were any bit more drawn to one thing than the other, but I happen to think their intuition, if you want to call it that, was a bit less surface level than falling for any ol’ smile that any con man could manufacture. I think it’s a bit insulting to Our Lord, or at least the children, to think they were drawn to Him just because of smiles. Why would Jesus make such a spiritual point about them if it was only just a matter of smiles which any ol’ chump could manufacture? Ever see an admonition for “blessed are the smiley people”? Nope, “blessed are the sorrowful”.

Think of the text, though it’s vague to me right now. Just where did Jesus smile? The children were already there, remember? It was mr. radical Peter, wasn’t it, that wanted them swooshed away. So did Jesus smile at that point when He insists they stay? It’s not like one has to smile and laugh to draw people, as some of the most phoney people behave that way (though anything Jesus would do would be genuine) and so you can’t rely on it. Were these children ignorant of Christ? Had they not heard He was the Messiah and therfore more inclined towards Him? Had the woman touched His garment because he was a smiley person, and surely smiley persons heal you? Do smiley persons forgive your sins as in the case of Mary Magdalene (IOW, it was a LOT more than smiles that drew MM)? I mean if Jesus won complete strangers over with smiles, then where’s His teaching on it if it’s so important? You would think if it were, He would had been recorded smiling even just once wouldn’t you? And since “Man of Sorrows” so abruptly contradicts that, you would think there would at least be a smile recorded all the more wouldn’t you? But, no, there isn’t. I say something isn’t recorded, was because it wasn’t too important and certainly two cryings isn’t exactly overwhelming either, but then we have Man of Sorrows to get around don’t we?

Why, there could just as well be a case that Jesus cried when Peter was wanting to take the children away. If crying is such a bad thing that can’t possibly draw people, then I would presume had Jesus done it then, then the children would run away, right? I was drawn to my mother in the hospital, not the least of which because she was a walking smilefest; quite the opposite.

To reduce Christ to people being drawn to Him was because he was a walking smilefest, is to have no idea what spirituality is about, even if He did manage to smile every once in a while (I don’t think He “didn’t” smile, just that He wasn’t a walking billboard of smiles, and more sorrowful than smiley anyway), And still we have this Man of Sorrows hangup. I don’t recall the crucifixion being a “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” Monty Phython smilefest either. What does that tell you about your bad times, since you guys seem to think Jesus was all smiles? Do you think the Art Linkletters of the world care about your sorrows, other than to write books about how wrong you are being that way? And then there’s Jesus, a guy who has been through the sorrows…a guy who knows what it’s like. How can the sorrowed trust a man who knew it not? How can the poor trust a man who knew it not? How can the lowly trust a man who knew it not? Maybe, just maybe, sorrow would draw the children more than smiles, afterall, it would show He was one of them, wouldn’t it? Who were the smilers? The Romans. Now is it starting to sink in? I’m just speculating of course, but I still think the way He used His lip position was of very very secondary importance, but I think I’ve made strong enough case for the lip movement perhaps being quite the opposite than you guys think, but, we will never know for sure anyway. I’m just inviting you to get off the Art Linkletter school of thought for a minute, okay?

Besides guys, I wouldn’t knock sorrows so much. God’s proving He existed to me, started with the happiest moments of my life, that is, the saddest time of my life. The happiness that followed, would had been meaningless without that sorrow, for my soul had to be emptied in order to be completely filled thereafter. It’s a basic christian tenet. How sweet is the sorrow, that bringeth the sunshine thereafter. Isn’t that part of the whole purpose of this earthly existence (valley of tears), to partake in sorrow so that we too can arise in the happy splendor of Heaven? This culture has really got you guys thinking that sorrow is a very bad thing and that Jesus would have no part of it, haven’t they?

 

[LilyM]

Charles, why are you associating being happy or smiley with somehow being fake or not genuinely caring for people? Or with having no substance as a person or teacher? John Paul II - and John XXIII before him - both smiled PLENTY and laughed PLENTY. So did Mother Teresa.

Sure, they (especially JP2 and Mother Teresa) had plenty of sorrows and difficulties in their lives, but it wasn’t their defining emotional state. Neither, in all these cases, did it prevent them from having plenty of substance and spiritual ‘oomph’, and genuine concern for people along with the joyfulness.

 

[Darryl1958]

There is the ancient Catholic belief that Jesus tricked the Devil into setting up the sequence of events that would lead to His Passion, and the ultimate defeat of Satan.

Violence against the lowly in society was a cathartic means in the ancient world to restore a sense of community, as all of societies members partook in a murder which gave them common cause and a renewed sense of comraderie. It is in the scaep-goating murders that the Devil extends his reign over people. There must always be the common belief, the big Lie, that the outcast, the cripple, the leper or the poor is somehow guilty, somehow responsible for the societies ills.

Jesus, being revealed as God through his resurrection, smashes the lie. by being born lowly, but choosing the lowly position of scapegoat, Jesus in effect tricked the Devil into killing God. The Lie was exposed, and with the the death of the lie, the Devil no longer has any power to rule over us through this system of scrapegoating and cathartic murder.

 

[Th0t]

I think the part in the Passion of Christ movie where he plays with Mother Mary and they laugh together could have been true. It moves me seeing that our Lord could have lived in that matter also. I believe God has a sense of humor. My parochial vicar once said in a homily “If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans.” and i believe that is true to a sense.

 

[kellie]

I agree with Lily who said if you have spent time with children then you know you have to laugh and joke around with them

How many people look at a baby and don’t make some sort of funny face or funny noise to get a giggle from it?

And I can’t see how Jesus pulling a funny face is unholy at all

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think he had a great sense of humor. Some of his parables are very graphic - pull the plank out of your own eye before you remove the speck from your brother’s eye, or the camel trying to get through an eye of the needle.

When some people asked if he paid his temple tax, he told Peter to go catch a fish without bait and if he found a coin in it’s mouth to go pay the tax.

He nicknamed a lot of his disciples - Simon, he called Rock, and James and John he called sons of thunder.

He enjoyed eating and drinking and teaching and healing. He was a real people person, very charismatic and no doubt humorous, along with being compassionate and wise.

 

[LilyM]

I think he had a great sense of humor. Some of his parables are very graphic - pull the plank out of your own eye before you remove the speck from your brother’s eye, or the camel trying to get through an eye of the needle.

I have heard that the ‘camel through the eye of a needle’ comes from one of the gates into Jerusalem being nicknamed ‘Eye of the Needle’. It was so called because it was very small - and to get a camel through this gate, apparently, you had to unload its baggage off of it

When some people asked if he paid his temple tax, he told Peter to go catch a fish without bait and if he found a coin in it’s mouth to go pay the tax.

That’s just the episode that I was thinking of - does it not sound like some cheezy Vegas magician pulling a coin from behind someone’s ear! Not that I’d dream of seriously comparing Our Lord to such - but it would have had the same amusing/entertaining effect on Peter and those around who saw it.

 

[Charles_22]

Also… I do not think that anyone is suggesting that Jesus was “Mr. Partytime”. There seems to be a propensity for people on this site to posit extremes when it is not necessary and to put words in other people’s posts when such was clearly not the intention or outright statements of the poster tehmselves.

I posit that extreme to get them to think a little bit more, because it doesn’t take much to get from He was a constant smiler and ‘that’s’ why the children were drawn to Him, to He was a party dude. Maybe if you saw the Protestant production of this sort of thinking, maybe you would be more convinced. Jesus, as far as I can tell, was anything but a walking Art Linkletter, and I cannot begin to tell you how many times I saw JPII and Mother Teresa in anything but a smile. It’s not the whole of their existence, any more than it was probably not all of the Man of Sorrow’s.

 

[Charles_22]

Yes, you did. So? That was one aspect of Him because of the passion.

That’s your interpretation. I say it was more widespread.

Do you honestly believe that this characteristic of him “sums him up”?

I think it sums Him up better than just the Passion, but I think I made that clear.

You didn’t answer any of my questions I put forth to you. I’d like an answer.

I don’t dirctly answer every question point-blank that was given to me, nor do I expect it of anybody else. I ‘may’ had answered some of questions elsewhere and you just hadn’t ran into them at this point. I often will summarize many posters attitudes with an overall response. I’m just not capable of doing it otherwise. Frankly, you came across as the most lippy, so part of my seeming lack of response may had been do to that as well.

The average joe I see nowadays is a man and woman of sorrows.

I did and think your narrow interpretation of the Savior is quite…narrow.

No, it’s less narrow than you think, but then I don’t subscribe to the Jesus Seminar train of thought either. I plainly stated what I believe and it seems you’re painting me to say that Jesus was depressed all the time or something. If i had, then you would have a case, but you have to get more of an overall view of what i have been saying, and not focus so much on a sentence meant to bring emphasis alone. Come on dude, you can do it. uh-oh, I just put a smilie, therefore compromising my position. Oh dear oh dear

This is really absurd. I believe He experienced all of the emotions that we do today. Some days I’m smiling all day. Some days I’m a pretty glum person. Some days there’s a mixture of both ups and downs. Talking about percentages is a really illogical and absurd statement.

It’s statements like this this that might had kept me from responding as you wish. I have no disagreement with this whatsoever, in fact the smiley supporters seem to run contrary to this paragraph. So what you basically describe is a 50% smiley ratio, or at least 50% lack of glum ratio. If you want to know how glum you are, you have to measure it don’t you? I guess the little children wouldn’t had flocked to you then would they ? Because at least one poster seems to believe that’s why they did.

You can believe what you like. You can put Jesus in a cute little sorrowful box if you want to. I choose to use the logic that says that if I experience emotions, and Scripture talks Jesus having emotions, then it’s a pretty fair bet that He sometimes smiled and have fun - just like I do.

As I said just as much at one point, however, I also made the distinction that Man of Sorrows could be very indicative of a whole life of suffering beyond the Passion I don’t really know. I just don’t see the need to build Him up as a Man of Happy Happy either, which apparently you are coming around to understand, if in fact you were all that much in the happy-hapy camp.

So, are you saying that Jesus as a baby never “cooed” or laughed, that as a young boy he sat at home with a glum face all the time, and spent his entire life dejected and never smiled or laughed? Hopefully you’ll get around to answering at least one of my questions.

MW

I’ve covered those basic questions in other statements already.

 

[Charles_22]

In his humanity he had a sense of humour but not like mine. he was not a sinner

 

[Charles_22]

Charles, why are you associating being happy or smiley with somehow being fake or not genuinely caring for people?

Because human beings have been known to do that. Think of it, what did somebody say, that the children were drawn to Him because He smiled? Recall the talk of how Jesus was living amidst a bunch of frowny people and surely a smiler like Jesus would then draw them? I’ve the feeling I am answering way too many people, and then they’re not following my conversation with the others, therefore making me look like a rat squeak-squeak

Or with having no substance as a person or teacher? John Paul II - and John XXIII before him - both smiled PLENTY and laughed PLENTY. So did Mother Teresa.

I covered this train of thought in a post or two before this.

Sure, they (especially JP2 and Mother Teresa) had plenty of sorrows and difficulties in their lives, but it wasn’t their defining emotional state. Neither, in all these cases, did it prevent them from having plenty of substance and spiritual ‘oomph’, and genuine concern for people along with the joyfulness.

Reread your last sentence again. Now apply that to the basic premise that Jesus was followed by the children because He was smiley. That’s the whole point I was making, that the turn of the lip wasn’t all that important, one way or the other, and as such that the children, who could had followed a con man just as easily with such logic, were following most likely for much more profound reasons than that. Even if Jesus were smiling and we knew that, I still would say the children weren’t following for that primary reason, let alone the entire reason. Perhaps just a bad choice of words on whoever said that?

 

[Charles_22]

I think the part in the Passion of Christ movie where he plays with Mother Mary and they laugh together could have been true. It moves me seeing that our Lord could have lived in that matter also. I believe God has a sense of humor. My parochial vicar once said in a homily “If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans.” and i believe that is true to a sense.

I don’t disagree with that. I said how I thouht that the incident at the Tomb with Mary Magdalene might had been Jesus being coy.

I think the scene of the poor child Jesus falling was MUCH more moving though, but the water thing was a pleasant surprise. It was even more of a surprise, because we all went in knowing how violent a movie we would see.

Here is The Scene. It’s probably best started around 3:30 to get enough atmosphere. I don’t think I ever saw the scene entirely because I couldn’t see past the tears too well.
youtube.com/watch?v=5KCtZywlYi8&feature=related

I thought the tear at the end was very moving too.

 

[Charles_22]

I agree with Lily who said if you have spent time with children then you know you have to laugh and joke around with them

How many people look at a baby and don’t make some sort of funny face or funny noise to get a giggle from it?

And I can’t see how Jesus pulling a funny face is unholy at all

I never said it was impossible, just that it wasn’t the cause of them following Jesus.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

That’s your interpretation. I say it was more widespread.

That’s fine. I don’t think either of us have hit the nail on the head yet.

I don’t dirctly answer every question point-blank that was given to me, nor do I expect it of anybody else. I ‘may’ had answered some of questions elsewhere and you just hadn’t ran into them at this point. I often will summarize many posters attitudes with an overall response. I’m just not capable of doing it otherwise.

Avoidance of answering seems like dodging to most people. If you would have answered some of them I could have gotten more of an idea of where you’re coming from to facilitate dialogue. As it is, I have only the initial impressions I was given.

Frankly, you came across as the most lippy, so part of my seeming lack of response may had been do to that as well.No, it’s less narrow than you think, but then I don’t subscribe to the Jesus Seminar train of thought either. I plainly stated what I believe and it seems you’re painting me to say that Jesus was depressed all the time or something. If i had, then you would have a case, but you have to get more of an overall view of what i have been saying, and not focus so much on a sentence meant to bring emphasis alone.

LOL. Lippy. I suppose. I’ve been called lots of things, but not “lippy”. I find that very humorous. I recommend balance. I believed my view was more balanced while yours just doesn’t seem to be that way.

I don’t subscribe to the “Jesus Seminar train”, but neither do I subscribe to a sorely vexed, depressed, all serious Jesus either. There’s a balance somewhere. Because He was human as we are, I posit that his emotions were varied. Your view seems to be that it was only glum. Just my observation.

Come on dude, you can do it. uh-oh, I just put a smilie, therefore compromising my position.

Ah yes, how mature of you.

Oh dear oh dear It’s statements like this this that might had kept me from responding as you wish.

I call a spade a spade. To do otherwise would be dishonest.

I have no disagreement with this whatsoever, in fact the smiley supporters seem to run contrary to this paragraph. So what you basically describe is a 50% smiley ratio, or at least 50% lack of glum ratio. If you want to know how glum you are, you have to measure it don’t you?

I don’t describe ratios because that’s not what a human is. Humans and their emotions aren’t ratios any more than we are a mathematical equation. To posit a percentage seems really impossible and a bit ridiculous. But that’s just me.

I guess the little children wouldn’t had flocked to you then would they ? Because at least one poster seems to believe that’s why they did. As I said just as much at one point, however, I also made the distinction that Man of Sorrows could be very indicative of a whole life of suffering beyond the Passion I don’t really know.

Well, I wasn’t the one who supported that position. I don’t know why they did except I imagine it is similar to children who come to me and feel comfortable. I have children and I believe other children sense this. It’s a bit of speculation as to why they came to Him.

I just don’t see the need to build Him up as a Man of Happy Happy either, which apparently you are coming around to understand, if in fact you were all that much in the happy-hapy camp.I’ve covered those basic questions in other statements already.

I just don’t see the need to build Him up as a Man of Glumness either. Again, I’m not in a “happy camp”. I’m not in the “glumness camp”. I’m in the range of emotions camp. It’s all about balance.

Peace…

MW

 

[Charles_22]

That’s fine. I don’t think either of us have hit the nail on the head yet.

Avoidance of answering seems like dodging to most people. If you would have answered some of them I could have gotten more of an idea of where you’re coming from to facilitate dialogue. As it is, I have only the initial impressions I was given.

LOL. Lippy. I suppose. I’ve been called lots of things, but not “lippy”. I find that very humorous. I recommend balance. I believed my view was more balanced while yours just doesn’t seem to be that way.

I don’t subscribe to the “Jesus Seminar train”, but neither do I subscribe to a sorely vexed, depressed, all serious Jesus either. There’s a balance somewhere. Because He was human as we are, I posit that his emotions were varied. Your view seems to be that it was only glum. Just my observation.

Ah yes, how mature of you.

I call a spade a spade. To do otherwise would be dishonest.

I don’t describe ratios because that’s not what a human is. Humans and their emotions aren’t ratios any more than we are a mathematical equation. To posit a percentage seems really impossible and a bit ridiculous. But that’s just me.

Well, I wasn’t the one who supported that position. I don’t know why they did except I imagine it is similar to children who come to me and feel comfortable. I have children and I believe other children sense this. It’s a bit of speculation as to why they came to Him.

I just don’t see the need to build Him up as a Man of Glumness either. Again, I’m not in a “happy camp”. I’m not in the “glumness camp”. I’m in the range of emotions camp. It’s all about balance.

Peace…

MW

Okay, but it is hard to distinguish one comment from another at times, and usually when someone gets lippy with me, I tend to lump them in with the most extreme of the position countering my own. But, as I said before, though I didn’t do a lot of it this thread, if I’m confronted with many opposing posters, I will at some point lump almost the entire case together, so as to make assailing it not such a burden.

As far as my possibly dodging questions, or less importantly what people think of that, I don’t really care. If I get flooded with opposition I am going to make an adjustment and condense. I also might entirely ignore something if it gets disrespectful. Let people think what they want. Take kellie’s last post for example. It’s not lippy, but then I don’t know what to do with that either. I think my other posts cover that sort of thing easily enough. Kids aren’t exactly limpid pools of joy all the time either. I’m getting pretty shell shocked basically. And, no, this summary is the best you’re going to get for this last post of yours. It’s too laborious to keep commenting on every excerpt everyone makes, because I know, I was doing it for quite a while and my point doesn’t appear to be taking hold any. http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn...pics/Radio_TV/1960s_Network_TV/Linkletter.jpg

I recall somebody posted on here a quote that stated that Jesus was “acquainted” with suffering, and I knew acquainted could mean just about anything, but now that I think about it, the way I had always heard that phrase was that He was “accustomed” to suffering.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Okay, but it is hard to distinguish one comment from another at times, and usually when someone gets lippy with me, I tend to lump them in with the most extreme of the position countering my own. But, as I said before, though I didn’t do a lot of it this thread, if I’m confronted with many opposing posters, I will at some point lump almost the entire case together, so as to make assailing it not such a burden.

As far as my possibly dodging questions, or less importantly what people think of that, I don’t really care. If I get flooded with opposition I am going to make an adjustment and condense. I also might entirely ignore something if it gets disrespectful. Let people think what they want. Take kellie’s last post for example. It’s not lippy, but then I don’t know what to do with that either. I think my other posts cover that sort of thing easily enough. Kids aren’t exactly limpid pools of joy all the time either. I’m getting pretty shell shocked basically. And, no, this summary is the best you’re going to get for this last post of yours. It’s too laborious to keep commenting on every excerpt everyone makes, because I know, I was doing it for quite a while and my point doesn’t appear to be taking hold any. http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn...pics/Radio_TV/1960s_Network_TV/Linkletter.jpg

I recall somebody posted on here a quote that stated that Jesus was “acquainted” with suffering, and I knew acquainted could mean just about anything, but now that I think about it, the way I had always heard that phrase was that He was “accustomed” to suffering.

Since so many people disagree with your assertions, might you consider that you could be wrong? Appeal to majority might be a weak argument, but should give you the opportunity to pause and consider what others are saying.

 

[Charles_22]

Since so many people disagree with your assertions, might you consider that you could be wrong? Appeal to majority might be a weak argument, but should give you the opportunity to pause and consider what others are saying.

Oh, but I have. You’re no more convinced of it than I am, though I’m more able to accept that a Man of Sorrows and being accustomed to suffering was a far cry from being a billboard for the man’s picture I just had up. You already said how your life basically is, but that’s not what I’m hearing here. I’m hearing that He was jubilant or some such, and that’s what drew the children. As I also stated before, take that premise and you’re soon enough explaining why other people came to Him in that manner, such as Mary Magdalene and the Apostles; and I’ve seen that very thing done in a movie. True, the children had probably less reason to follow Him, but I think it all derived from the same reasoning and it wasn’t something as surface level as whether He smiled or not. I give up.

 

[LittleBits]

I think Jesus did and still does have a sense of humor, and I also think he did laugh, joke, and pull pranks while he was on Earth. There is nothing at all sinful about that. I can clearly imagine Jesus laughing his heart out while he walked the Earth.
I think it was Fatima, Medjugorge, or Garabandal (I know the latter two aren’t apporoved) where the girls said when they where telling the Virgin about how the worked with the animals, she laughed. I know the Blessed Virgin isn’t God, but if she has a sense of humor, I am sure He does.