My answers

How would you explain these events in the life of Jesus?  Did He do wrong?

Not sure if this is meant as a question but I think it needs an answer. As if He did this invalidates the cross as He would not have been an acceptable sacrifice. But the bible makes the following comments

Hebrews 4:15

For we do not have a high priest (Christ) who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 7:26

For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.

2 Corinthians 5:21

For our sake he(God) made him(Jesus) to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Peter 2:22

He(Jesus) committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.

1 John 3:5

You know that he(Christ) appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

Isaiah 53:9

I will appoint evil men for His burial and rich men for His death, because He committed no lawlessness, nor was deceit found in His mouth.

Romans 5:18-19

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's (Christ's) obedience the many will be made righteous.

And we have the confessions of two men who carried out the judgment, one before and another the death of the cross

John 18:38

Pilate said to him, “What is truth?”

After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him.

Luke 23:47

Now when the centurion saw what had taken place, he praised God, saying, “Certainly this man was innocent!”

But let’s just say for the sake of argument that none of the following explanations are persuasive (and we ignore the fact that Jesus, being fully God, a priori could not sin). Here’s the better question: If the Bible, God’s Word, tells us that Jesus did not sin (as I think it clearly does) who are we to say that he actually did sin? The question is this: Is God the judge of what is sin, or are we? Clearly, God is the judge of what is sinful. So if God claims Jesus did not sin I will take his word for it. 

In conclusion, I don’t think that if any of the “sins” listed qualify as sin for the reasons I will give I don't think they do, and even if we thought they did, we should trust what God considers to be sin more than our own personal preferences or culturally shaped perceptions.

(from last week . . .)

a. In the way He spoke to His mother (John 2:4)

It was normal for Jews, speaking to women, to call them by the name of their sex. Mt 15:28, Lk 13:12, Jn 4:21. Saying that in saying 'woman' not 'mother', was to signify to her that in this instance He did not own her as his mother, one with authority over Him. Hence the next words, 'what does this have to do with me?', showing both displeasure, but more that she had no right upon Him in this thing. His duty is not to His mother but to His Father. Also she was not to prescribe the timing of His public ministry, 'My hour has not yet come.', for in this life she, and we, bend to His will not Him to hers/ours. 

b. When He destroyed swine not belonging to Him (Matthew 8:28-34)

One, this was the demon's request, not His decision. Two, what is a herd of pigs doing in Isreal. Also (Ps 24:1) if 'the earth is the Lord's and everything in it' then it's His property as well, so it's not wanton damage if that's what you thought. 

To me it shows His power to heal and His power to destroy. 

c. When He told His brothers He was not going the Feast, but then went (John 7:1-9)

There is a disputed word, yet, in verse 8. It tells me that He wanted to go up to it to teach, not to show Himself to the world. Again it is a case of, it's in line with My will not yours (like a).

d. Did He actually deny being God? (Mark10:17-18)

He was not denying that He was God, He was trying to get the young man to realise that He was more than merely good or a teacher, but was far more, namely God. 

Also He openly told the woman at the well, and the blind man of John 9, who He was, not to mention the disciples, or those who would arrest and try Him, amoung others. Also throw in the I AMs and the opportunities were plentiful for people to know who He is. 

(some additional issues to consider . ., .

e) He called Gentiles “dogs” (Matthew 15:26,27)

Again a Jewish term of phrase at the time, unfortunate as it may be, also doesn't the woman use the term right back at Him. 

Jesus was saying the gospel and its benefits were for the Jew first and then the Gentile, and this lady went on to add that she would be happy with the smallest blessing whilst the Jews got to hear about it, the crumb as it were falling from the child's lap. 

f) He started a violent incident with a whip in the temple. (John 2:14,15) 

He drove them out yes, but no account that they were struck. Also a single obscure man with a bunch of small cords, could with little trouble clear a whole temple court of merchants and their animals. Maybe he was fulfilling the prophecy 

Malachi 3:1-3

Chapter 3

 “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers 'soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the Lord.

g) He taught parents to ‘hate’ their children. (John 14:26)

Sorry it's Luke, and is a hyperbole I think, you are to love Me in a way that in comparison that your love for your relatives can seem like hatred in comparison. 

h) He hung out in the temple knowing his parents would be worried about him, and didn’t care. (Luke 2:42-52)

He is 12 by the way, an adult in Jewish culture, so can act independently, and once they come He submits to them. 

(Notice that He sits with them teaching them, not sat at their feet learning from them, who taught the Law. So who do you think knew the law in this case? Just a thought)

i) He was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard. (Matthew 11:19) 

Being accused of something is not the same as having done it. I think this is a fallacy of guilt by association. 

j) Not washing hands before eating (Matthew 15:2)

This is ceremonial washing, an addition of the Talmud, not found in the 613 laws of the pentetuch, as pointed out by the following verse, which stated it was 'the traditions of the elders'.