Jesus Preached Violence?

[TER]

The original text was written in hebrew. Greek is a translation just as the KJV is. Its called the Calvin version. It has not changed in its original translation like the new international versions. Another thing you might want to consider is, some hebrew words, there is no english translation for. So, if you want to read the original unedited New testament, you need to learn hebrew. It's the only way to get the whole story. I would also point out, there are several Books of the Gospel the church deemed unnecessary to be published. The Apocalypse of Peter was in consideration for being for being published as the Book of Revelations.
Just another example of men judging God's wisdom. I try not to sin, abide the 10 commandments, treat others as I would like, know Jesus died so I may see Heaven and pray for forgiveness because men threw away half the literature on what I was meant to know, and hope it's enough.

Actually, no. The original writings of the majority of the New Testament where written in Greek. This is the historical truth, and no serious scholar would deny this.

What was also written in Greek was the Septuagint, the version of the Old Testament most often referred to in the writings of the New Testament writers. This was the most widely accepted and read version immediately before His Incarnation and even more strongly after His Resurrection.

Greek, at that time, was the lingua franca of that region and the most widely known language in the known world.

These writings are the original writings, and as such, more authoritative then the version you mentioned. In fact, the oldest manuscripts we have archaeologically are the Septuagint (Old Testament) which is in Greek and the Gospels and other earliest Christian writings (both canonical and not) which were also written in Greek.

Of course, this is not to try to elevate the Greek language or anything. I'm just trying to express the notion that if one wishes to read the Scriptures as they were written by the writers of the New Testament, then it is most helpful to read it in Greek.

 

[TER]

Jesus is all about peace, and love. Don't you guys read any books?

The problem is that reading books doesn't automatically mean one understands what they are reading.

 

[acptulsa]

The Bible says you know a person by their fruit. That's why the integrity is the key to convincing a Christian that dr. Paul is the strongest Christian around. He may have a bit of a different political philosophy, but he has the WALK to go with the Christian talk (actually he doesn't talk much Christian b/c his walk speaks for him.) Honesty, consistency--does their "Christian" candidate compare?

Compare with what? Compare with Jesus' actions? Or compare with their own concept of what it means to them to be a Christian, which (sadly) in some cases means sinning all you want and hollering 'Jaesusuh' every third word out of your mouth.

Christians do tend to be impressed with Ron Paul. Pharisees, not so much.

 

[radiofriendly]

This might be helpful for some of us. I really urge the non-Christians here to tread carefully. If you twist things (or appear that way) just to sell Ron Paul a Christian will be very turned off by that and you'll do more harm than good. We need those of us who are Christians to work this field...or become a Christian, ha, if you want to reach them! Anyways, this is really fascinating...watch it.

I've found reformed baptists/presbyterians to be more open to true limited government. Anyone else?
They (we) have their own problems (sinning so grace may abound!), but they are usually less caught up with the
America is always right=Israel=War is cool stuff.

 

[Southron]

I've found reformed baptists/presbyterians to be more open to true limited government. Anyone else?
They (we) have their own problems (sinning so grace may abound!), but they are usually less caught up with the
America is always right=Israel=War is cool stuff.

That is an interesting thought because we have several Reformed Baptists on the forum, myself included. Theology has an enormous effect on politics so it makes sense to me that those espousing more liberal theology may be less inclined to support limited government.

It would be interesting to see a study comparing conservative and liberal theology and the politics associated with the adherents.

 

[JJonesMBA]

...

 

[acptulsa]

...but surely there must be a blog or book somewhere picking apart Christian marketing tactics - not only for activists and politicians, but also preachers and Christian outreach...

The Book of Revelations does a bit of that.

 

[Suzu]

You sure? I recall from a religion course that the original New Testament was written is some version of Greek. I'm almost 100% sure it wasn't Hebrew.

The original language of the Bible is Aramaic.

 

[CaseyJones]

moved to religion

 

[amy31416]

The original language of the Bible is Aramaic.

The Old Testament and the New Testament were written in different languages. The OT was partially written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the NT was written in Greek.

 

[idirtify]

The temple scene is the only exception I know of. And, you know, corporatists like the ones in that temple piss me off, too. I think it's a great precedent, and one hell of a good selling point for our man Ron Paul. He gets a little testy with moneychangers, too. And even testier with counterfeiters like Bernanke...

So the sellers and moneychangers were committing “corporatism”? How so? I thought they were only selling and trading stuff and conducting small business. Are you sure Jesus wasn’t against capitalism and the free market (the right of the individual to buy and/or sell or trade any of his/her property)? It kinda looks like it, since all I see are entrepreneurs selling doves, yet Jesus calls them “thieves” and gets physically aggressive with them.

 

[amy31416]

So the sellers and moneychangers were committing “corporatism”? How so? I thought they were only selling and trading stuff and conducting small business. Are you sure Jesus wasn’t against capitalism and the free market (the right of the individual to buy and/or sell or trade any of his/her property)? It kinda looks like it, since all I see are entrepreneurs selling doves, yet Jesus calls them “thieves” and gets physically aggressive with them.

If I recall correctly, Jesus' anger was, in part, due to people turning a holy site into a market place. Some of them may not have been "evil" per se, but most of them were there to rip off religious folks.

I don't see any issue with Jesus wanting to keep a market separate from a place for reflection. Doesn't have anything to do with capitalism.

 

[TER]

So the sellers and moneychangers were committing “corporatism”? How so? I thought they were only selling and trading stuff and conducting small business. Are you sure Jesus wasn’t against capitalism and the free market (the right of the individual to buy and/or sell or trade any of his/her property)? It kinda looks like it, since all I see are entrepreneurs selling doves, yet Jesus calls them “thieves” and gets physically aggressive with them.

The free markets then (and now) produces cheating and stealing. Though it may be the best economic theory and philosophy we ascribe to, it still produces its fair share of suffering. These are an abomination to God and the presence of the market there was defiling the sacred space of the temple. They should have been outside of the temple.

Edit: I see Amy beat me to it!

 

[idirtify]

If I recall correctly, Jesus' anger was, in part, due to people turning a holy site into a market place. Some of them may not have been "evil" per se, but most of them were there to rip off religious folks.

I don't see any issue with Jesus wanting to keep a market separate from a place for reflection. Doesn't have anything to do with capitalism.

What’s with the “holy” status? Is that something that makes a market place evil or illegal?

Oh, but now you say it was more than just a market place; that it was because most of the businesspeople “were there to rip off religious folks”. Where do you get that? While it’s true that Jesus called the businesspeople thieves, there’s nothing about them stealing anything or ripping anybody off.

But then you try a third possible excuse for Jesus’ aggression: that he wanted “to keep a market separate from a place for reflection”. While “reflection” may technically be related to “holy” above, both fall pretty short as a reason to destroy other people’s property. I think you are reading things into it that aren’t there. I can’t see how you can credibly label the actions of Jesus as anything but anti-capitalist prejudice and initiated aggression.

 

[idirtify]

The free markets then (and now) produces cheating and stealing. Though it may be the best economic theory and philosophy we ascribe to, it still produces its fair share of suffering. These are an abomination to God and the presence of the market there was defiling the sacred space of the temple. They should have been outside of the temple.

Edit: I see Amy beat me to it!

“Free markets produce cheating and stealing.” What a perfectly false conclusion! What a perfect 180-degree spin! What absolute anti-capitalist prejudice! What will you claim next; that “freedom produces tyranny”?

But I suppose I should thank you for adding to my point that Jesus was demonstrating anti-capitalist bias, since you are speaking for him and all. You see, I agree that free-trade was “an abomination to God” and Jesus, who thought it “was defiling the sacred space”. In fact, the anti-capitalism bias of the Christian god is precisely my point.

 

[TER]

“Free markets produce cheating and stealing.” What a perfectly false conclusion! What a perfect 180-degree spin! What absolute anti-capitalist prejudice! What will you claim next; that “freedom produces tyranny”?

But I suppose I should thank you for adding to my point that Jesus was demonstrating anti-capitalist bias, since you are speaking for him and all. You see, I agree that free-trade was “an abomination to God” and Jesus, who thought it “was defiling the sacred space”. In fact, the anti-capitalism bias of the Christian god is precisely my point.

First of all, it is funny that you are convinced that the market in the temple was practicing 'free market capitalism'. Do you have any proof for this? In fact, I would suggest the complete opposite. That what was occurring in the temple was a racket perpetrated by certain wealthy Jews (likely with the blessing of the Sanhedrin) in order to make a profit at the expense of those who had come for spiritual nourishment. I am certain I have read this in the earliest commentaries of the Gospels. If this is not enough proof for you, then perhaps one day we will find out the truth. What I would like to know is, if you found out that it was not free market capitalism practiced in the temple markets but rather a scam and racket devised by the ruling elite, would you then ask for forgiveness and repent?

Nevertheless, I believe you have misunderstood my point. Jesus was not against free market capitalism. Jesus was against the cheating and stealing that was occurring by the vendors within the temple, which for the Jews was held and believed to be sacred space. While free market capitalism may be a good economic policy and practice, (maybe the best there is), it is still a human practice plagued with the same human passions any other human practice suffers from in this fallen world - most particularly in this case, greedy people doing deceitful things. THIS is why it should have been down OUTSIDE the temple. Jesus didn't overturn the markets in the city of Jerusalem which were outside the temple walls. From these markets He once sold His woodworkings and from these markets His disciples bought their goods. However, in reverence to God and to His Holy Temple, these markets, which are often breeding grounds for treachery and deceit, should have been separated from the divine space of the temple. As He said, His is a house of prayer.

Now, for someone who has no appreciation or respect or belief in the divine, then this may make no sense.

To the rest of us, it does.

 

[amy31416]

What’s with the “holy” status? Is that something that makes a market place evil or illegal?

Oh, but now you say it was more than just a market place; that it was because most of the businesspeople “were there to rip off religious folks”. Where do you get that? While it’s true that Jesus called the businesspeople thieves, there’s nothing about them stealing anything or ripping anybody off.

But then you try a third possible excuse for Jesus’ aggression: that he wanted “to keep a market separate from a place for reflection”. While “reflection” may technically be related to “holy” above, both fall pretty short as a reason to destroy other people’s property. I think you are reading things into it that aren’t there. I can’t see how you can credibly label the actions of Jesus as anything but anti-capitalist prejudice and initiated aggression.

You might want to check in with people who are more experienced with scripture, but I never once took it as being anti-capitalist or anti-market when I read it years ago.

Why are you so angry about it anyways? Jesus ain't running for president.

 

[Sola_Fide]

So the sellers and moneychangers were committing “corporatism”? How so? I thought they were only selling and trading stuff and conducting small business. Are you sure Jesus wasn’t against capitalism and the free market (the right of the individual to buy and/or sell or trade any of his/her property)? It kinda looks like it, since all I see are entrepreneurs selling doves, yet Jesus calls them “thieves” and gets physically aggressive with them.

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.

 

[idirtify]

First of all, it is funny that you are convinced that the market in the temple was practicing 'free market capitalism'. Do you have any proof for this? In fact, I would suggest the complete opposite. That what was occurring in the temple was a racket perpetrated by certain wealthy Jews (likely with the blessing of the Sanhedrin) in order to make a profit at the expense of those who had come for spiritual nourishment. I am certain I have read this in the earliest commentaries of the Gospels. If this is not enough proof for you, then perhaps one day we will find out the truth. What I would like to know is, if you found out that it was not free market capitalism practiced in the temple markets but rather a scam and racket devised by the ruling elite, would you then ask for forgiveness and repent?

Nevertheless, I believe you have misunderstood my point. Jesus was not against free market capitalism. Jesus was against the cheating and stealing that was occurring by the vendors within the temple, which for the Jews was held and believed to be sacred space. While free market capitalism may be a good economic policy and practice, (maybe the best there is), it is still a human practice plagued with the same human passions any other human practice suffers from in this fallen world - most particularly in this case, greedy people doing deceitful things. THIS is why it should have been down OUTSIDE the temple. Jesus didn't overturn the markets in the city of Jerusalem which were outside the temple walls. From these markets He once sold His woodworkings and from these markets His disciples bought their goods. However, in reverence to God and to His Holy Temple, these markets, which are often breeding grounds for treachery and deceit, should have been separated from the divine space of the temple. As He said, His is a house of prayer.

Now, for someone who has no appreciation or respect or belief in the divine, then this may make no sense.

To the rest of us, it does.

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?

 

[idirtify]

You might want to check in with people who are more experienced with scripture, but I never once took it as being anti-capitalist or anti-market when I read it years ago.

Why are you so angry about it anyways? Jesus ain't running for president.

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.