Jesus Preached Violence?

[amy31416]

What a stupid question.

Anyway... Your ridiculous rejection of the infallibility of Scripture means that you can't verify any other part of Scripture that you cite.

You have just been shown how an atheist can easily defeat your argument when you hold the ridiculous position of the fallibility of Scripture.

A bunch of human beings wrote it. Then a bunch of human beings translated it. Then a bunch of human beings interpreted it.

How is scripture infallible if human beings are fallible? I mean even if a human being heard the direct words of God, how could they, as flawed human beings, possibly transcribe it 100% accurately?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Infallibility of men vs. Infallibility of God

A bunch of human beings wrote it. Then a bunch of human beings translated it. Then a bunch of human beings interpreted it.

I grant you all those three things. The Christian view of inspiration is not that men are infallible, but that God is infallible. Rather, God used fallible men to convey His truth in a way that we could depend on. The idea that men are infallible is an unbiblical Roman view. The Biblical view of inspiration is:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The Greek word for "inspired" there literally means "God-breathed".

At the time following the crucifixion, Jesus said He would send the Spirit to remind the disciples "of all things":

John 14:26

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

So the Spirit of Truth is the basis for the infallibility of Scripture, not the infallibility of men. During the first century, there was an outpouring of the Spirit on the Church like what we read in the book of Acts. The spirit inspired the writers at that time to give us God's Word. Peter says it like this:

2 Peter 1:20-21 NASB

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

So you can see the doctrine of infallibility and inspiration coming out now. It's not that men are infallible, but God inspired fallible men to convey His infallible truth. Even in the first century this doctrine was understood...Peter called Paul's letters Scripture itself:

2 Peter 3:15-16 NASB

...and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

It's interesting that Peter says that unstable people distort the Scripture that came by Paul, we see this many times on this forum and many times today. But anyway, the teaching of the inspiration of Scripture can be summed up by saying this:

1 Peter 1:24-25 NASB

For,
"All flesh is like grass,
And all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
And the flower falls off,

But the word of the Lord endures forever."

It's not men who are infallible, but God. God is able to preserve His Word and communicate to man by His Word. It will never pass away.

 

[YumYum]

If God wrote the Bible, as AB insists, then why did Luke have to go out and "investigate" and talk to "eyewitnesses" to make sure everything he copied from Mark was true? In fact, if God told Luke what to write down, why did Luke copy from Mark at all. And yet, both Luke and Matthew copied from Mark, not only sentences, but whole paragraphs.

If God told Luke what to write down, and yet Luke still went out and "investigated", to make sure that what God had told him to write down was correct, that would be a blasphemous insult to God. If God told Luke what to write down, wouldn't have Luke told the recipient of his gospel, Theophilus, "God told me what to write down"? No, instead, Luke reassured Theophilus that he "investigated everything thoroughly" to make sure they were true. If God told Luke what to write down it sounds like Luke didn't trust God's eyewitness testimony. Here is what Luke says at Luke 1:1-4:

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So, if we look to Luke's example, it appears that for God's Word (which according to the Bible is "Jesus", not a book) to be infallible, the authors of the books of the Bible should "investigate" that the information that God dictated to them is accurate.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Poor YumYum....

 

[YumYum]

Poor YumYum....

Is that the best you can do? Refute my observation with scriptures. You can't. Your infallible "word" has failed you!

 

[Sola_Fide]

Is that the best you can do? Refute my observation with scriptures. You can't. Your infallible "word" has failed you!

Why would you quote the Scripture as something that is true when you say it is fallible?

You see now how your position refutes itself.

Peter 1:24-25 NASB For,"All flesh is like grass, And all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, And the flower falls off, But the word of the Lord endures forever."

His Word endures forever. And oh how I shudder for people like you YumYum who fight against His Word...

 

[YumYum]

Why would you quote the Scripture as something that is true when you say it is fallible?

You see now how your position refutes itself.

His Word endures forever. And oh how I shudder for people like you YumYum who fight against His Word...

As amy said, the Bible was written by man, and the Bible has thousands of inconsistencies. Scholars, who have forgotten more than you will ever know, have written an abundance of information on this subject. I don't want to stumble any potential sheep on this forum who may turn to Jesus, but here is a little example of a discrepancy in the Bible. It is in the gospels.

Do you remember the evil-doer (criminal) who was next to Jesus on the cross? Luke tells us that one of the evil-doers was kind to Jesus, rebuking his fellow evil-doer for insulting Jesus: Here is what Luke says at Luke 23:39-43:

39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[a]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

So, according to Luke, you have one criminal making mockery of Jesus, insulting Him, and the other evildoer showing love and humility towards Jesus.

Is this the same account in Matthew? No, Matthew clearly states that both criminals were abusive to Jesus. We can read this at Matthew 27:44:

In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

So, in Luke, we have one robber showing love, and the other rebuking Jesus, and in Matthew, we have both robbers being hateful to Jesus. That is what is called a "literary inconstancy", or a "literary discrepancy". If God wrote both Matthew and Luke, how can He contradict Himself?

That is why the Bible, and especially the gospels, serve as an "instrument", or a "vehicle" for Jesus' chosen ones to initially accept Jesus into their lives, and do as He says, and that is "Come to me!" Once you have Jesus in your life, He will guide you; not a book. Read what Jesus told the Jewish leaders at John 5:39. This scripture applies to you as well, since you worship the Bible:

39 You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Do not feel sorry for me, AB. Jesus healed me miraculously and saved my life. I should be dead, but I am alive by His loving grace, and I am sitting here, full of Holy Spirit, refuting the nonsense that you and billions of others have misguided His sheep with over the last 1900 years. We are very close to what Jesus called the "time of judgement", and He commanded His apostles to "Stop judging!". He is the Judge, and He will judge us with the same judgement that we judge others. So, keeping that in mind, prayfully consider the words that Jesus said at Matthew the 7th chapter, verses 21-23:

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

And read what He also says at Matthew 7:13-15:

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Also, you should read Psalm 146:3, which says:

Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.

So, AB, who are you going to put your trust in? Calvin, or Jesus?

 

[Sola_Fide]

.......

I'm dumbfounded here....

Why do you keep using Scriptures as your basis for truth while you are simultaneously saying they are full of errors?

Talk about a self-refuting argument.....WOW....

I don't think I've ever seen such a self-refuting argument...ever....


Anyway....It's just another reason not to take anything you say seriously. Your fight against God's Word will only cause you to be illogical and will result in your downfall. I say this as your forum friend YumYum...you will NEVER win against God's invincible Word.

 

[YumYum]

.......

I'm dumbfounded here....

Why do you keep using Scriptures as your basis for truth while you are simultaneously saying they are full of errors?

Talk about a self-refuting argument.....WOW....

I don't think I've ever seen such a self-refuting argument...ever....


Anyway....It's just another reason not to take anything you say seriously. Your fight against God's Word will only cause you to be illogical and will result in your downfall. I say this as your forum friend YumYum...you will NEVER win against God's invincible Word.

I use your Bible to refute your arguments in the same way that Jesus refuted the Pharisees by referring to "their" law. Jesus would refute them by saying "your law says..." In the same way, I refute you by saying "your Bible says...".

 

[Sola_Fide]

I use your Bible to refute your arguments in the same way that Jesus refuted the Pharisees by referring to "their" law. Jesus would refute them by saying "your law says..." In the same way, I refute you by saying "your Bible says...".

No. You are completely wrong.

Jesus didn't say "your law says", He said "you've HEARD it said". An example:

Matthew 5:27-28 NASB

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they DIDN'T know or follow God's law, instead they followed the traditions of men, like you YumYum do today:

Mark 7:7-8

'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE TRADITION OF MEN.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."

Far from downgrading the commandments of God, Jesus taught what the commandments truly meant, in contradistinction to the traditions of men that the Pharisees taught.

YumYum, you know nothing of Jesus. Your exegesis is horrible, and you contradict the Scripture and logic itself (by using texts from a source you say is full of errors).

Please refrain in the future from misrepresenting Jesus.

Thanks,

AB

 

[YumYum]

Give it up, AquaBuddha. Holy Spirit told me to quote this scripture to you.

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?

John 10:34

No. You are completely wrong.

Jesus didn't say "your law says", He said "you've HEARD it said". An example:



Jesus condemned the Pharisees because they DIDN'T know or follow God's law, instead they followed the traditions of men, like you YumYum do today:



Far from downgrading the commandments of God, Jesus taught what the commandments truly meant, in contradistinction to the traditions of men that the Pharisees taught.

YumYum, you know nothing of Jesus. Your exegesis is horrible, and you contradict the Scripture and logic itself (by using texts from a source you say is full of errors).

Please refrain in the future from misrepresenting Jesus.

Thanks,

AB

 

[idirtify]

Your ridiculous rejection of the infallibility of Scripture means that you can't verify any other part of Scripture that you cite.

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. Since “Scripture” is a book (a large collection of texts / “the bible”), it’s not the slightest bit ridiculous to claim it’s fallible WHILE verifying parts of it. A book can easily be “fallible” while still containing valid parts. In fact, a book can contain a single error and a thousand truths, and be “fallible” in every sense of the word. So as soon as ONE error has been shown, the book is proven “fallible”; yet there can still be many truths. Please refer to your dictionary; “fallible” does not mean “wholly incorrect” as you imply.

.......
Why do you keep using Scriptures as your basis for truth while you are simultaneously saying they are full of errors?

Talk about a self-refuting argument.....WOW....

I don't think I've ever seen such a self-refuting argument...ever....

As I’m sure you NOW see (since you’ve a better comprehension of “fallible”), yumyum’s position is not self-refuting.

Now I would like to see you reply directly to yumyum’s excellent point and example regarding the contradicting versions of what was said while on the cross. Apparently you missed it last time.

 

[robert68]

According to the father of modern Protestant Christianity:

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God. ~ Martin Luther

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. ~ Martin Luther

There is on earth among all dangers no more dangerous thing than a richly endowed and adroit reason... Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. ~ Martin Luther

To be a Christian, you must 'pluck out the eye of reason'. ~ Martin Luther

 

[Sola_Fide]

According to the father of modern Protestant Christianity:

Awesome quotes! Thanks for posting. Some of those may be my new sig lines.

 

[jmdrake]

Good point, but didn’t Jesus damage the businesspeople’s property and remove them by force? I believe the wording indicates that the sellers and moneychangers, who were only conducting business, owned the tables. I suppose it depends on what standard you use for an act to be “violent”. I think property thrown around and persons forcefully removed from a building would be regarded by most as “violent”. If not overt “violence”, it’s at least a physical violation of rights.

Beyond that is whether he truly owned the building. I doubt it. Are you saying he built it or had it built or bought it, or just CLAIMED that it was his (his “father’s)? Wasn’t the temple a lot older than him? I mean how could he REALLY have “owned” it?

Hello idirtify. Before going any further I need to point out a couple of things that you seem to be ignoring or not understanding. This is more about the nature of debate than it is about the Bible.

1) A good debater gives alternative arguments.

I see in some of your responses you saying to others "If X is true then why did you also argue Y"? Well that's not a logical question to even ask. I'll prove it to you. Say if you were arguing with someone who claimed Obama hasn't brought the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan because "the republicans won't let him". (Typical hardcore Obama supporter argument). You could argue that he has the commander-in-chief power to remove troops. You could also argue that for the first 2 years of his presidency he had a majority in both houses including a filibuster proof majority in the senate until the election of Scot Brown. Now using your "logic" your opponent could say "Well if he has the commander-in-chief power, why did you bring up the democratic majority in both houses"? The obvious rebuttal to that "logic" is that having independent reasons why you are right in no way diminishes any of those reasons.

2) A good debater understands his audience and tailors his message accordingly.

I was making a direct response to someone who claimed to be a Christian. (At least that's what I picked up from the post). Someone who claims to be a Christian accepts the sovereignty of God, the messiahship of Jesus, and the pre-existence of Jesus as a member of the Trinity and involved in creation. Jesus, according to the Bible (which I believe) Himself made that claim when He said:

John 8:58 King James Version (KJV)
58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The Jews understood what was being asserted because the very next verse says:

John 8:59 King James Version (KJV)
59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Now I know you don't believe Jesus existed before Abraham, but my post was not directed toward you. And that gets back to point #1. The reason you argue in the alternative is because you might have different people in your audience. So yes. I literally believe that Jesus was older than the temple and that it was literally His house. And I was directing my statement to a fellow believer.

Something else I need to point out before we continue. I am not a libertarian largely because I believe libertarians err in the doctrine of property uber alles. I think property rights are important, but I do not believe that is where all other rights come from nor do I believe they are equal to human rights. Why is that distinction important when talking about non violence? Well most people believe, and I agree with them, that the civil rights movement was non violent. But (some) libertarian purists disagree and point at people doing non-violent sit ins at segregated lunch counters as being "violent". I say that's a crock of bovine scat. (And Ron Paul apparently agrees because while he didn't agree with the civil rights act he did agree with the civil rights tactics.) So I don't even consider turning over tables to be an act of "violence". Further what do you define as "force"? Yelling at someone and saying they'd better get out? I do not consider that force. Nor do I believe that someone holding a few pieces of rope in His hand can use "force" to drive out people who have guards armed with swords on their side. (I pointed that out in my previous post, but maybe you missed that.) I mean really, do you think this guy is using "force" to stop a column of tanks?

Now I'll address a few points you raised with others.

Money changers = theives

That should be easy for anyone in the Ron Paul movement to understand. The Federal Reserve are the modern day money changers. Think about it. Why did they even need money changers? There was no such thing as fiat currency back then. Gold coins were literally worth their weight in gold. The same went for silver or copper coins. And Archimedes principle was well known so people had an easy test to make sure that a 1 ounce silver coin was really worth 1 ounce of silver. Jewish law forbade usury. So this was another way for the "banksters" of Jesus day to get money for nothing. The problem was compounded by the fact that there was a monopoly on the Jewish faith. Everyone had to go to the temple so many times per year. It wasn't like today where if you were certain that one church was ripping you off and/or teaching error you could go down the street and join another or start your own. Not if you wanted to be a devout Jew. That's what Jesus was getting at in this passage.

19The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

So Jesus was in effect challenging the abuse of spiritual monopoly power. As TodaysEpistleReading pointed out, the animals themselves were also defiling the temple. The priests seemed oblivious to that. Yet they complained about people praising God. (See Matthew:21:12-17 and Luke 19:37-48). This reminds me of the incident with the government responding to Adam Kokesh dancing at the Lincoln memorial by sending in mounted police who's horses crapped on it.

 

[erowe1]

Hello idirtify. Before going any further I need to point out a couple of things that you seem to be ignoring or not understanding. This is more about the nature of debate than it is about the Bible.

1) A good debater gives alternative arguments.

I see in some of your responses you saying to others "If X is true then why did you also argue Y"? Well that's not a logical question to even ask. I'll prove it to you. Say if you were arguing with someone who claimed Obama hasn't brought the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan because "the republicans won't let him". (Typical hardcore Obama supporter argument). You could argue that he has the commander-in-chief power to remove troops. You could also argue that for the first 2 years of his presidency he had a majority in both houses including a filibuster proof majority in the senate until the election of Scot Brown. Now using your "logic" your opponent could say "Well if he has the commander-in-chief power, why did you bring up the democratic majority in both houses"? The obvious rebuttal to that "logic" is that having independent reasons why you are right in no way diminishes any of those reasons.

2) A good debater understands his audience and tailors his message accordingly.

I was making a direct response to someone who claimed to be a Christian. (At least that's what I picked up from the post). Someone who claims to be a Christian accepts the sovereignty of God, the messiahship of Jesus, and the pre-existence of Jesus as a member of the Trinity and involved in creation. Jesus, according to the Bible (which I believe) Himself made that claim when He said:

John 8:58 King James Version (KJV)
58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The Jews understood what was being asserted because the very next verse says:

John 8:59 King James Version (KJV)
59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Now I know you don't believe Jesus existed before Abraham, but my post was not directed toward you. And that gets back to point #1. The reason you argue in the alternative is because you might have different people in your audience. So yes. I literally believe that Jesus was older than the temple and that it was literally His house. And I was directing my statement to a fellow believer.

Something else I need to point out before we continue. I am not a libertarian largely because I believe libertarians err in the doctrine of property uber alles. I think property rights are important, but I do not believe that is where all other rights come from nor do I believe they are equal to human rights. Why is that distinction important when talking about non violence? Well most people believe, and I agree with them, that the civil rights movement was non violent. But (some) libertarian purists disagree and point at people doing non-violent sit ins at segregated lunch counters as being "violent". I say that's a crock of bovine scat. (And Ron Paul apparently agrees because while he didn't agree with the civil rights act he did agree with the civil rights tactics.) So I don't even consider turning over tables to be an act of "violence". Further what do you define as "force"? Yelling at someone and saying they'd better get out? I do not consider that force. Nor do I believe that someone holding a few pieces of rope in His hand can use "force" to drive out people who have guards armed with swords on their side. (I pointed that out in my previous post, but maybe you missed that.) I mean really, do you think this guy is using "force" to stop a column of tanks?

Now I'll address a few points you raised with others.

Money changers = theives

That should be easy for anyone in the Ron Paul movement to understand. The Federal Reserve are the modern day money changers. Think about it. Why did they even need money changers? There was no such thing as fiat currency back then. Gold coins were literally worth their weight in gold. The same went for silver or copper coins. And Archimedes principle was well known so people had an easy test to make sure that a 1 ounce silver coin was really worth 1 ounce of silver. Jewish law forbade usury. So this was another way for the "banksters" of Jesus day to get money for nothing. The problem was compounded by the fact that there was a monopoly on the Jewish faith. Everyone had to go to the temple so many times per year. It wasn't like today where if you were certain that one church was ripping you off and/or teaching error you could go down the street and join another or start your own. Not if you wanted to be a devout Jew. That's what Jesus was getting at in this passage.

19The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

So Jesus was in effect challenging the abuse of spiritual monopoly power. As TodaysEpistleReading pointed out, the animals themselves were also defiling the temple. The priests seemed oblivious to that. Yet they complained about people praising God. (See Matthew:21:12-17 and Luke 19:37-48). This reminds me of the incident with the government responding to Adam Kokesh dancing at the Lincoln memorial by sending in mounted police who's horses crapped on it.

Good answers.

I agree with you about not making property rights the basic law from which all ethics derives.

But in the case of the cleansing of the Temple, I think part of the point Jesus was making was that the Temple was his property, not as one citizen of Israel among many, but as the very son of God whose house it was they were visiting as guests (John 2:16).

 

[idirtify]

Awesome quotes! Thanks for posting. Some of those may be my new sig lines.

Are you kidding or do you actually reject reason like Martin Luther?

(BTW, do you realize you dropped in without replying to yumyum and me? Our rebuttals are still waiting on your replies.)

 

[idirtify]

Hello idirtify. Before going any further I need to point out a couple of things that you seem to be ignoring or not understanding. This is more about the nature of debate than it is about the Bible.

1) A good debater gives alternative arguments.

I see in some of your responses you saying to others "If X is true then why did you also argue Y"? Well that's not a logical question to even ask. I'll prove it to you. Say if you were arguing with someone who claimed Obama hasn't brought the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan because "the republicans won't let him". (Typical hardcore Obama supporter argument). You could argue that he has the commander-in-chief power to remove troops. You could also argue that for the first 2 years of his presidency he had a majority in both houses including a filibuster proof majority in the senate until the election of Scot Brown. Now using your "logic" your opponent could say "Well if he has the commander-in-chief power, why did you bring up the democratic majority in both houses"? The obvious rebuttal to that "logic" is that having independent reasons why you are right in no way diminishes any of those reasons.

2) A good debater understands his audience and tailors his message accordingly.

I was making a direct response to someone who claimed to be a Christian. (At least that's what I picked up from the post). Someone who claims to be a Christian accepts the sovereignty of God, the messiahship of Jesus, and the pre-existence of Jesus as a member of the Trinity and involved in creation. Jesus, according to the Bible (which I believe) Himself made that claim when He said:

John 8:58 King James Version (KJV)
58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The Jews understood what was being asserted because the very next verse says:

John 8:59 King James Version (KJV)
59Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Now I know you don't believe Jesus existed before Abraham, but my post was not directed toward you. And that gets back to point #1. The reason you argue in the alternative is because you might have different people in your audience. So yes. I literally believe that Jesus was older than the temple and that it was literally His house. And I was directing my statement to a fellow believer.

Something else I need to point out before we continue. I am not a libertarian largely because I believe libertarians err in the doctrine of property uber alles. I think property rights are important, but I do not believe that is where all other rights come from nor do I believe they are equal to human rights. Why is that distinction important when talking about non violence? Well most people believe, and I agree with them, that the civil rights movement was non violent. But (some) libertarian purists disagree and point at people doing non-violent sit ins at segregated lunch counters as being "violent". I say that's a crock of bovine scat. (And Ron Paul apparently agrees because while he didn't agree with the civil rights act he did agree with the civil rights tactics.) So I don't even consider turning over tables to be an act of "violence". Further what do you define as "force"? Yelling at someone and saying they'd better get out? I do not consider that force. Nor do I believe that someone holding a few pieces of rope in His hand can use "force" to drive out people who have guards armed with swords on their side. (I pointed that out in my previous post, but maybe you missed that.) I mean really, do you think this guy is using "force" to stop a column of tanks?

Now I'll address a few points you raised with others.

Money changers = theives

That should be easy for anyone in the Ron Paul movement to understand. The Federal Reserve are the modern day money changers. Think about it. Why did they even need money changers? There was no such thing as fiat currency back then. Gold coins were literally worth their weight in gold. The same went for silver or copper coins. And Archimedes principle was well known so people had an easy test to make sure that a 1 ounce silver coin was really worth 1 ounce of silver. Jewish law forbade usury. So this was another way for the "banksters" of Jesus day to get money for nothing. The problem was compounded by the fact that there was a monopoly on the Jewish faith. Everyone had to go to the temple so many times per year. It wasn't like today where if you were certain that one church was ripping you off and/or teaching error you could go down the street and join another or start your own. Not if you wanted to be a devout Jew. That's what Jesus was getting at in this passage.

19The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.

21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.

22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

So Jesus was in effect challenging the abuse of spiritual monopoly power. As TodaysEpistleReading pointed out, the animals themselves were also defiling the temple. The priests seemed oblivious to that. Yet they complained about people praising God. (See Matthew:21:12-17 and Luke 19:37-48). This reminds me of the incident with the government responding to Adam Kokesh dancing at the Lincoln memorial by sending in mounted police who's horses crapped on it.

I found something on “money changers”:

“Become trusty money changers who reject the false coins and accept only the good ones.”

Clem. Hom. II.51; III.50; XVIII.20; Didascalia IX (see also Connolly, p.101);
Apostolic Constitutions II.36; Clem. Alex., Misc. I.28.177.

This would rebut your characterization and support mine, which is that they were merely fee based currency converters. Of course that is not to say that there was no opportunity in the service for deceit, since every enterprise carries such opportunity.

Now as far as your “alternative-arguments” argument theory, and your definitions of “violence” and “property rights”, they would not seem to be as valid as the conventionally accepted ones. IOW, you are stretching, dude. And as far as your claim that Jesus had property rights because he owned the temple (because he was older and actually the same as the creator god), doesn’t it contradict your criticism of property rights above?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Are you kidding or do you actually reject reason like Martin Luther?

(BTW, do you realize you dropped in without replying to yumyum and me? Our rebuttals are still waiting on your replies.)

Haha! It seems like of you think reason is a valid way of knowing then the burden is on you to prove it.

Secondly, I'm not going to respond to every stupid and groundless "contradiction" that YumYum reads from his atheist troll websites and reposts here. Do a Google search man. The answers to the consistency of God's Word are everywhere man. Check out AOmin.org for some good resources. I promise, the answers are everywhere and I'm not going to respond if others already have responded in depth.


So anyway. I'll wait for you to prove that reason is a valid way to know things.

 

[YumYum]

Haha! It seems like of you think reason is a valid way of knowing then the burden is on you to prove it.

Secondly, I'm not going to respond to every stupid and groundless "contradiction" that YumYum reads from his atheist troll websites and reposts here. Do a Google search man. The answers to the consistency of God's Word are everywhere man. Check out AOmin.org for some good resources. I promise, the answers are everywhere and I'm not going to respond if others already have responded in depth.


So anyway. I'll wait for you to prove that reason is a valid way to know things.

You can't respond because you got pawned. You are looking bad, AB.