i am not a biblical scholar, theologian or learned in areas of spirituality.. i am a "literal-minded" person, 67 y-o.. i was raised catholic and attended 4 catholic schools, 1st to 6th grades 1953-1959, and served 5 yrs as an altar boy, and learned the latin.. my "catholicism" is strictly "traditional".. i am looking for help in understanding events of Jesus' life which confuse me.. i have an impression of these events, but i have not discussed this aspect of Jesus' life with anyone, so i dont know.. i would like to be set straight on what i have believed about these events, so far.. my issues are events in Jesus' life which, to me, are contradictory, and i need a better understanding of these events and what they are really trying to tell us..

FIRST: Jesus, at 12, takes leave of his home, without permission or notice to his parents.. he is missing, gone, period.. how would you feel, if your child were missing all-of-a-sudden, without a clue? he is away from home without a word.. how would you feel if your child were gone and no word as to his location, condition, etc.? after 3 days, joseph and mary locate him at a ѕуηαgσgυє, talking with "elders".. when mary asks him why he is here, he answers, "dont you know i must be about my father's business?"

i cant find the words to express my shock at Jesus talking to his parents this way.. there is a latin phrase, in loco parentis.. it means "in place of the parents".. it is used in public schools to describe the responsibility and authority which school officials (faculty, staff, adm.) have over students.. it means parents have placed their children in the custody of the school, and officials there have the right and responsibility to intervene and act for the safety of students and the mission of the school system.. so, God dispatched the holy spirit to impregnate mary.. mary was married to joseph.. presumably, God approved mary's choice of a life partner.. this means God's approval of mary and joseph as parents was total and without exception; they were ordained by God as Jesus' parents and his authority figures.. to paraphrase the quote above, Jesus was placed in the home of joseph and mary in loco deum (in place of God).. Jesus, then, was insulting God by humiliating his parents and demeaning their authority in public.. how outrageous is this? what parents nowadays would allow this to happen without severe disciplinary measures? i dont see any of this as setting an example for children to live with their parents, or parents as to how to deal with children who "smart-mouth" mom and dad in front of figures in thier ѕуηαgσgυє..

SECOND: Jesus and mary visit a home in cana, where a marriage has taken place.. mary notices that there no wine has been served.. she mention this to Jesus, who says, "what would you have me do?" what sort of wise-crack is this? this is how God's rep. on earth talks to his mother, in public? mary summons a servant, and tells him, "do what my son commands of you".. large containers are brought to Jesus, who prays over them and the water is turned to wine.. not bad, but it doesnt make up for Jesus smart-mouthing his mother in public, at a marriage, yet!

THIRD: Jesus expels money-changers from the ѕуηαgσgυє.. this is the most violent and public display by Jesus, and leaves me totally speechless.. Jesus could have handled this better in so many different ways, i cant count them.. again, maybe this is the message Jesus wants to send, but i cant figure out what the message would be, which is why i am posting this.. first, he could have called them all together quietly said, "i realize you all must make a living, but the ѕуηαgσgυє is not the place to do it.. come with me, and i will show you a better, more fitting place for you to do your lending, debt collection, exchanging shekels for talents, etc.." he might then walk them a short distance until he found an unused building, not far from the ѕуηαgσgυє and on a street with much traffic, so the moneylenders would keep the business they had.. or, maybe he should have consulted the "elders".. maybe they didnt know the ѕуηαgσgυє was being used for such purposes; maybe it was a temple that had not been used for sometime, and so was abandoned and in disrepair.. it was still a ѕуηαgσgυє, but perhaps not in current use.. maybe the elders had other uses planned for it, but had not gotten around to making those plans happen yet.. maybe the temple was for sale, and the elders were waiting for an offer.. who knows? Jesus could have responded better, or maybe he should have explained his rage, apologized and given those present a "heads-up" as to why this was the way to handle it..

FOURTH: crucifixion on the cross.. here, Jesus was under the greatest stress and physical punishment anyone could imagine.. considering the tortures he endured, it was amazing he had the strength and motivation to speak out while hanging from the cross.. in fact, he spoke several different times to different presences: to the man hanging on the cross next to him he said: "you will be with me this day in paradise"; to God, he said: a) "father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"; b) "my God, why have you forsaken me?" at the very end, he said (to God): c) " father, into your hands i commend my spirit".. so, he said some important things to his father and a man who was crucified next to him.. in the b) quote, he actually despaired of God's plan for himself.. he lost his cool and challenged God to answer why his (heavenly) father allowed him undergo so much torture, ridicule, etc.. couldnt the point have been made with less pain and in a briefer time frame? then why was Jesus so outraged at the pain the father gave him? he knew it was coming, he knew how it would end.. he knew he would arise three days later.. why was he so upset at the action he accused God taking against him? he had to know: a) it wasnt personal, this was the only way the gates of heaven could be opened; b) this was the freely chosen punishment dictated by the elders and condoned by pontius pilate and chosen by a "crowd vote" when the crowd chose freedom for barrabas and crucifixion for Jesus.. it wasnt a surprise for Jesus, was it? or am i missing something?

these events confuse me.. was it to show that Jesus could be as wrong as ordinary people? was there something else going on (a sub-plot)? was there a subtext that many people (like me) dont get? is there a hidden moral about these acts? im sure hoping someone has the "real deal" on Jesus' behavior and whether his acts were unwarranted, or maybe his responses werent the point.. i think, maybe, Jesus was purposely behaving as an ordinary man on one side, and as a divinely-inspired son of God.. Jesus was perhaps showing his human side to illustrate that although he was a literal "god-send" to humanity, he was also just a man, subject to the same emotions, stresses and flaws as other men.. he was baptized, just like anyone else.. so what were the points he was making? unless i have it on the comment just above, i am clueless.. does someone have the "real deal" on Jesus bouts of failing to manage his "human side"?

Deo Gratias!

i cant find the words to express my shock at Jesus talking to his parents this way.. there is a latin phrase, in loco parentis.. it means "in place of the parents".. it is used in public schools to describe the responsibility and authority which school officials (faculty, staff, adm.) have over students.. it means parents have placed their children in the custody of the school, and officials there have the right and responsibility to intervene and act for the safety of students and the mission of the school system.. so, God dispatched the holy spirit to impregnate mary.. mary was married to joseph.. presumably, God approved mary's choice of a life partner.. this means God's approval of mary and joseph as parents was total and without exception; they were ordained by God as Jesus' parents and his authority figures.. to paraphrase the quote above, Jesus was placed in the home of joseph and mary in loco deum (in place of God).. Jesus, then, was insulting God by humiliating his parents and demeaning their authority in public.. how outrageous is this? what parents nowadays would allow this to happen without severe disciplinary measures? i dont see any of this as setting an example for children to live with their parents, or parents as to how to deal with children who "smart-mouth" mom and dad in front of figures in thier ѕуηαgσgυє..

Jesus answered their question and he answered it truthfully. He did no insult to them. In fact he could have stayed with the doctors of the law and taught them some more. As son of God he knew more than all of tehm combined. However he obeyed Joseph and Mary and went home with them. The Gospel states that he was obedient to them.  

He's been banned!  :judge:

SECOND: Jesus and mary visit a home in cana, where a marriage has taken place.. mary notices that there no wine has been served.. she mention this to Jesus, who says, "what would you have me do?" what sort of wise-crack is this? this is how God's rep. on earth talks to his mother, in public? mary summons a servant, and tells him, "do what my son commands of you".. large containers are brought to Jesus, who prays over them and the water is turned to wine.. not bad, but it doesnt make up for Jesus smart-mouthing his mother in public, at a marriage, yet!

"What would you have me do?"
This is not "smart mouthing. This is a very good question. This demonstrates the charity, goodness and prudence of the Blessed Virgin. She could have replied, "I want you to take me home." or "Since there's no wine, lets get out of here." Instead she really didn't answer him directly. She spoke to the servants and said, "Do what he tells you to do."
Actually I don't think she is just saying that to the servants at the wedding. She is also saying that to us. "So as he tells you to do." A good question for us right now might be, "Are we doing what Jesus is telling us to do?"

SECOND: Jesus and mary visit a home in cana, where a marriage has taken place.. mary notices that there no wine has been served.. she mention this to Jesus, who says, "what would you have me do?" what sort of wise-crack is this? this is how God's rep. on earth talks to his mother, in public? mary summons a servant, and tells him, "do what my son commands of you".. large containers are brought to Jesus, who prays over them and the water is turned to wine.. not bad, but it doesnt make up for Jesus smart-mouthing his mother in public, at a marriage, yet!

You are mistaken. Jesus didn't pray over the water. He instructed the servants to bring the large containers over to the major domo. This change of the water into wine is actually a prefiguration of teh transubstantiation which would happen when he changed the bread and wine into his body, blood, soul, and divinity at the last supper. This miracle continues to this day every time we assist at Holy Mass.  

THIRD: Jesus expels money-changers from the ѕуηαgσgυє.. this is the most violent and public display by Jesus, and leaves me totally speechless.. Jesus could have handled this better in so many different ways, i cant count them.. again, maybe this is the message Jesus wants to send, but i cant figure out what the message would be, which is why i am posting this.. first, he could have called them all together quietly said, "i realize you all must make a living, but the ѕуηαgσgυє is not the place to do it.. come with me, and i will show you a better, more fitting place for you to do your lending, debt collection, exchanging shekels for talents, etc.." he might then walk them a short distance until he found an unused building, not far from the ѕуηαgσgυє and on a street with much traffic, so the moneylenders would keep the business they had.. or, maybe he should have consulted the "elders".. maybe they didnt know the ѕуηαgσgυє was being used for such purposes; maybe it was a temple that had not been used for sometime, and so was abandoned and in disrepair.. it was still a ѕуηαgσgυє, but perhaps not in current use.. maybe the elders had other uses planned for it, but had not gotten around to making those plans happen yet.. maybe the temple was for sale, and the elders were waiting for an offer.. who knows? Jesus could have responded better, or maybe he should have explained his rage, apologized and given those present a "heads-up" as to why this was the way to handle it

Jesus didn't expel the moneychangers form the synagog. He expelled them from the Temple. There is a difference. The moneychangers had a racket going on where they made a profit selling animals for the sacrifice and changing money. They didn't do this as a charity. They did this so that somebody could get rich off of the worship of God. Jesus could have called them aside. However as God in His infinite wisdom knew that this would have been useless. He did the right thing. After all, the Temple was supposed to be a house of prayer.    

 when the crowd chose freedom for barrabas and crucifixion for Jesus.. it wasnt a surprise for Jesus, was it? or am i missing something?

It wasn't a surprise for Jesus. the Gospel of John records another time when the crowd wanted to put Jesus to death. But Jesus walked through their midst because "it was not his time."  

these events confuse me.. was it to show that Jesus could be as wrong as ordinary people?

No, Jesus was never "wrong." He is both God and Man. Many of the things that confuse you are because there was a deeper signification to what was going on than what you realize. This is why when we read the sacred scriptures we must accept that it is the magisterium that correctly interprets them. We must realize that when we are confused it is because there is sometimes a deeper mystery that God wants to convey through the scriptures and it may not be up to us to understand everything.