I came across a blog today and this is what was stated:
"As I was reading:
For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' Luke 7:33-34.
Doesn't He sound like a gangsta of 21st century? He seemed religious to the local leaders but He did His own thing: He didn't attend local "church" (synagogue would be the right term for His time) in any regular fashion. He wasn't even a member of one. He was under the radar from the national police (i.e., Romans) but not by the local police (religious leaders like the Pharisees wanted Him dead)."
I go to this gentlelman's blog on occasion...though I know not why. He claims that women have made Jesus in their own image by "feminizing" him...making he seem gentle and caring...yet he seeks to do the same. This is his second or third post that is concerned with Jesus as a "gangsta"...because, in his mind, that is true manhood. First, I need to define the term "gangsta":
"The overly used term of gangster is a general term, though frequently misused, for a career criminal who is, or at some point almost invariably becomes, a member of a violent crime organization, such as a gang.
The term gangster has developed over time. In the WWII era, a gangster one who was a part of a "mafia" or "organized crime group". In current times, gangsters are most commonly known as always evil-intented people. Media has taken a big toll on what a gangster actually is."
Now, I ask you, how much more blasphemous can you be then to equate such an individual with our Savior? Such a person does not embody Biblical masculinity...such a person is a hoodlum with evil on their mind. Now that we have established that Jesus is in no way a ganster...we shall discuss the rest of the post. The Bible states:
After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples; and there they stayed for a few days. The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. {John 2:12-13 RSV}
In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the moneychangers at their business. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers, and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; you shall not make my Father's house a house of trade." {John 2:14-16 RSV
We also note that, according to Luke 2:39, Jesus was raised according to the Law. So, we see that, as a practicing Jew, Jesus sought out the temple so that he could worship his Father in His own house. Those were the words of Jesus himself. The temple was his Father's house. It is true that Jesus was itenerant preacher. But, it seems that he sought out a "church" when he could. For many centuries, Christians had home churches in order to avoid persecution. Yet again, it seems that the Bible had an idea of structure for its body. Different people had certain gifts. They followed the apostles ways...there was a proper way to conduct services. This why Paul became so upset with churches that became roudy dens of shouting and unrulines. The bottom line is...churches are a very real and symbolic representation of the body of Christ. It is not so very easy to have home churches these days when a congregation swells into the hundreds. Jesus was not a radical, law-breaking, bad boy. He came to bring us the Truth. Thinking of him in a humanistic way does not do him justice.
