Jesus Preached Violence?

[idirtify]

No man. Jesus was definitely angry with theft. He said the money changers had turned his Father's house into a "den of thieves".

The temple money changers would change the people's money into "temple currency" which was mostly animals used for sacrfices. They would often cheat the people using uneven scales and standards, and Jesus called them out on their practice of debasement.

Debaesement is theft. Unequal measures is evil. It is condemned many times in Scripture.

Yes, I know what Jesus said, but there’s nothing that justifies it; at least nothing in the passages. Now you appear to have come up with a whole bunch of evidence that there was actual theft and deception going on in that situation. Where did you get it? It’s certainly not in the passages I read.

 

[oyarde]

I tend to be a bit suspicious of animal sacrifice

 

[acptulsa]

No. I’m afraid “checking with people who are more experienced with scripture” to show that Jesus wasn’t anti-capitalist or anti-market would be YOUR burden.

And never mind my personal state of mind. Unless I have demonstrated it clearly, it’s not relevant. If you want to think my disagreements imply I am “so angry about it”, fine; but spare me the attempt to cast a special darkness on my disagreement, when it’s nothing beyond the most common activity on RPF.

How else but by trying to understand your mindset can we understand why you're contradicting the hell out of yourself? I mean, one minute you're bashing organized religion for using dogma to prey on people and rip them off, and the next minute you're railing against Jesus because he didn't like it when organized religion used dogma to prey on people and rip them off.

Make up your mind already. We're too smart to let you use arguments on both sides of the fence in practically the same breath. Either religious charlatains have the right to a free market for dogmatic ripoffs or they don't.

I know you hate to admit it, but Jesus was that day arguing your usual point against the abuses of some organized religions. You may hate to recognize that you're on the side He was on in those days, but it's true so you might as well deal with it. Otherwise you're just another Pharisee wallowing in your own hypocracy.

Deny it all you want, if you want. But the truth of it is as plain to us as the nose on your face.

In fact, I'm inclined to say that the major difference between you and Jesus is that He worked to divorce them from abusive dogma and offered them a useful philosophy to replace it that they could actually use to improve their lot in life. You, meanwhile seem to have no ready substitute but Italian food.

 

[amy31416]

No. I’m afraid “checking with people who are more experienced with scripture” to show that Jesus wasn’t anti-capitalist or anti-market would be YOUR burden.

And never mind my personal state of mind. Unless I have demonstrated it clearly, it’s not relevant. If you want to think my disagreements imply I am “so angry about it”, fine; but spare me the attempt to cast a special darkness on my disagreement, when it’s nothing beyond the most common activity on RPF.

You asked the question, dumbass.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, I know what Jesus said, but there’s nothing that justifies it; at least nothing in the passages. Now you appear to have come up with a whole bunch of evidence that there was actual theft and deception going on in that situation. Where did you get it? It’s certainly not in the passages I read.

Have you ever studied about the money changers at the temple? I have multiple commentaries that give a picture of what it was like in that time. It certainly was the den of thieves that Jesus declared it to be. And because it dealt with currency (temple currency), it is directly applicable today. I don't know what else to tell you but pick up some historical commentaries or Google it or something bro. I'm sure it will surprise you. I am kind of busy right now or I could provide you with many links if you want them.

 

[Sola_Fide]

There is tons of information about the thievery of the money changers online. Study up bro. Here is the first link I googled:

The word "moneychanger" means money-banker or money-broker. They would make large profits at the expense of the pilgrims. Every Israelite, rich or poor, who had reached the age of twenty was obligated to pay a half shekel as an offering to Jehovah into the sacred treasury. This tribute was in every case to be paid in the exact Hebrew half shekel.

At Passover everyone in the world who was an adult male and wished to worship at the Temple would bring his "offering" or purchase a sacrificial animal at the Temple. Since there was no acceptance of foreign money with any foreign image the money changers would sell "Temple coinage" at a very high rate of exchange and assess a fixed charge for their services.

The judges, who sat to inspect the offerings that were brought by the pilgrims, were quick to detect any blemish in them. This was expensive for the wealthy pilgrims, not to say how ruinous this was for the poor who could only offer their turtle-doves and pigeons.There was no defense for them or court of appeal, seeing that the priestly authorities took a large percentage on every transaction.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Why is it funny that I am saying that the market in the temple was practicing 'free market capitalism', when that is the activity described in the passages? Regarding “proof”, since we are all dealing with the same few bible passages, my evidence is the same as yours. If you truly have more (whether “the earliest commentaries” would qualify is questionable), let’s see it. But until then, the simplest reading of the passages shows no cheating or stealing. IOW I don’t have to embellish the texts to claim there wasn’t, but you DO have to embellish them to claim there was. While the evidence shows that Jesus called them “thieves”, the evidence doesn’t show that there was theft.

Regarding your second paragraph, again you have not supported your claim that the vendors within the temple were cheating and stealing. The best you can do is claim that there was an environment that may have possibly included cheating and stealing and greed and deceit; or “the same human passions any other human practice suffers from”. The problem is: If Jesus went around getting violent on every human practice where there was the possibility of such things (cheating and stealing and “breeding grounds for treachery and deceit”), he would have certainly destroyed all churches and religion and wherever people were praying; because there is probably MORE of those kinds of deceitful human passions occurring within the environment of religion THAN within business.

And in case you are implying that Jesus had the right to enforce with violence some kind of separation of activities, upon what do you base the justification? Did he own all those temples, or something?

Jesus had every right to be angry about His law against theft being broken. He is the King to which all kings must bow. By him and through Him all things came into being. He is God, he created everything and owns everything.....he has that right.

Now if you are positing the idea that "free market capitalism" is synonymous with "theft and debasement" then I guess you are one of those people who think Keyensianism is free market capitalism.

But you know that is wrong, don't you Idrtfy?

 

[idirtify]

You asked the question, dumbass.

Stop the flagrant insulting. You’re flagged. (Once again, we see a religious advocate being the first one to resort to insulting, and clearly demonstrating the source of religious aggression.)

 

[idirtify]

How else but by trying to understand your mindset can we understand why you're contradicting the hell out of yourself? I mean, one minute you're bashing organized religion for using dogma to prey on people and rip them off, and the next minute you're railing against Jesus because he didn't like it when organized religion used dogma to prey on people and rip them off.

Make up your mind already. We're too smart to let you use arguments on both sides of the fence in practically the same breath. Either religious charlatains have the right to a free market for dogmatic ripoffs or they don't.

I know you hate to admit it, but Jesus was that day arguing your usual point against the abuses of some organized religions. You may hate to recognize that you're on the side He was on in those days, but it's true so you might as well deal with it. Otherwise you're just another Pharisee wallowing in your own hypocracy.

Deny it all you want, if you want. But the truth of it is as plain to us as the nose on your face.

In fact, I'm inclined to say that the major difference between you and Jesus is that He worked to divorce them from abusive dogma and offered them a useful philosophy to replace it that they could actually use to improve their lot in life. You, meanwhile seem to have no ready substitute but Italian food.

I think the contradiction you are talking about depends on the premise that theft was actually taking place in the temple. Since I reject that premise (there’s nothing in the passages indicating theft), I don’t think I’m making a contradiction. IOW I was never “railing against Jesus because he didn't like it when organized religion used dogma to prey on people and rip them off”; because it is my contention no one was getting preyed upon or getting ripped off. Or to use another sample of your wording: there’s nothing indicating the businesspeople were “charlatans” doing “ripoffs”. All that’s indicated from the passages is that there were people selling stuff and making change (doing business).

 

[idirtify]

There is tons of information about the thievery of the money changers online. Study up bro. Here is the first link I googled:

Thanks for the info about “money changers”. While I was not up on those exact details, I’m afraid the label/activity/profession still falls short of “theft” or “deceit”, etc. As I understand the service, it was for converting the many foreign currencies circulating in the area; a service for which a fee was charged. So far, I see no coercion. While I do see coercion in the law that obligated every Israelite who had reached the age of twenty to pay a half shekel, the money changers didn’t create that law; only profited from it. Lots of people profit from laws, and we don’t blame on them for creating the laws. Right?

 

[idirtify]

Jesus had every right to be angry about His law against theft being broken. He is the King to which all kings must bow. By him and through Him all things came into being. He is God, he created everything and owns everything.....he has that right.

Now if you are positing the idea that "free market capitalism" is synonymous with "theft and debasement" then I guess you are one of those people who think Keyensianism is free market capitalism.

But you know that is wrong, don't you Idrtfy?

So if Jesus rightfully owned and controlled everything, why are you arguing that there was theft? I mean there would not have to be theft to justify his behavior. It it’s only a property rights issue, he had every right to prohibit all free-market enterprise from anywhere he wanted. Right?

 

[amy31416]

Stop the flagrant insulting. You’re flagged. (Once again, we see a religious advocate being the first one to resort to insulting, and clearly demonstrating the source of religious aggression.)

I'm gonna go run off and cry now. This is, quite possibly, the worst thing that's ever happened to me in my entire life. Not sure how I'll recover.

I'm agnostic, supergenius. But that doesn't mean that I haven't read it several times, which is exactly what you should do to try to understand it, and if you don't, then you shouldn't antagonistically ask the question.

 

[Working Poor]

The battles Jesus referred to are about the spiritual plane using spiritual weaponry: Light, salt, truth,and love Here is a link:

http://www.battlefocused.org/spiritual-warfare/weapons/christian-weapons.php

 

[ProIndividual]

LoL. What on earth are you talking about? You reprised just about every heresy in one post and claimed it as "truth" lol.

I know this is the internet and anyone with an opinion can chime in, but have you ever considered trying to understand the historical Protestant position on these things?

Someone missed the bottom of the post:

(I already know, the old "you clearly taking this out of context" fallacy is coming. Anyone ever notice when you find a quote that conflicts, like every Holy book, the faithful (factless) always decry misinterpretation? If any interpretation you don't like is a "misinterpretation", please ignore my comment as "uninformed nonsense" and move along faith unphased...I don't want to debate the facts, please. I'm simply stating a few facts to help the OP understand why folks say this stuff, and moving on my way.)

But thx for playing.

 

[ProIndividual]

Many scholars interpret that as a warning to his disciples that by spreading his message they can expect conflict. If Jesus did mean to bring war to spread his cause he would have raised an army, not a group of disciples.

It's a passage either figuratively about conflict coming...or he is encouraging self defense. He mentions buying swords in other passgaes as well.

I never said he wanted to bring war. That would be a strawman.

But again, I'm not here to argue facts...Jesus says conflicting things, this is why Jefferson edited out anything in the 4 gospels...he knew those folks likely didn't write those books, and it was man made hooey. In fact, we know now it is impossible that any of the NT was written before Jesus was dead for already 30 years! Only 2 authors in the NT seem to be real...the rest are forgeries, or more likely, ghostwriters decades after the death of the named authors (oral traditions carried on until someone wrote it down).

Ever see a witness in court? They change stories, not to lie, but memories change. This is why police take statements from witnesses immediately, and b4 court will "refresh" the witnesses memeory via their original statement. The Bible's NT is largely a 30 year old (at the earliest) witness statement, and therefore just as accurate (not very).

Care to explain the other quote? The one where he calls for you to slay people beforew him that aren't Christian? This was often quoted in the Crusades for the reason today most Christians will call "misinterpretation". It's either Jesus advocated murder, like God does in the OT (David was genocidal maniac, women, children, men, even babies cut from wombs and "dashed upon the rocks"), or the words in the Bible are man made BS. It can be both (a corrupted text), but it can't be simultaneous for the same verses. I tend to take Jefferson's opinion:

Reason dictates men in power put in and took out what fit their means...and it was big bucks to ghostwrite Bible books that would lead people to act as sheep.

The Bible also advocates following government blindly, and does so through what came to be known as "the Divine Right of Kings"...a BS story modern free societies have shed. Either America is a sinner for not allowing themselves to be ruled by Kings, or we are simply acting correctly, and the book is full of it there. Facing facts sux, I know.

BTW, the 12 discples thing was done by many "messiahs" before Jesus, as was the virgin birth, the resurrection, and a lot of other major themes used to claim his Divinity. He wasn't the first, and wasn't the last either. All the miracles too. He was voted a deity, we have to face up to that at some point (despite our votes now).

 

[MelissaWV]

This thread brings only one thing to mind...

ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς

Additionally, it might be modified to "Jesus facepalmed" if He ever got spare time to read this drivel.

 

[ProIndividual]

This thread brings only one thing to mind...

ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς

Additionally, it might be modified to "Jesus facepalmed" if He ever got spare time to read this drivel.

Nice to see facts retorted with a faithful facepalm...

No intelligent retorts? LOl.

 

[TER]

This thread brings only one thing to mind...

ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς

Additionally, it might be modified to "Jesus facepalmed" if He ever got spare time to read this drivel.

lol Did you know that that is the shortest verse in the whole of Holy Scriptures and probably the most profound one to boot?!

 

[idirtify]

I'm gonna go run off and cry now. This is, quite possibly, the worst thing that's ever happened to me in my entire life. Not sure how I'll recover.

I'm agnostic, supergenius. But that doesn't mean that I haven't read it several times, which is exactly what you should do to try to understand it, and if you don't, then you shouldn't antagonistically ask the question.

Let me get this straight. I need to read the whole bible several times in order to better understand the few short passages that refer to the “money changers in the temple” scene (and search for my own rebuttal because you are unable to make it). Right? And in order for you to not insult me, I should not ask you questions “antagonistically”. Right?

Are these the kinds of standards you require of people who disagree with any of your beliefs, or just the religious ones?

 

[TER]

Let me get this straight. I need to read the whole bible several times in order to better understand the few short passages that refer to the “money changers in the temple” scene (and search for my own rebuttal because you are unable to make it). Right? And in order for you to not insult me, I should not ask you questions “antagonistically”. Right?

Are these the kinds of standards you require of people who disagree with any of your beliefs, or just the religious ones?

It is because you refuse to believe, plain and simple.

What I find curious is what exactly is your goal in life and why does it include challenging Christians? Are you on a crusade? What exactly is your motivation? Perhaps, it would better be asked, who or for whom are your motivations?