Jesus Preached Violence?

[jmdrake]

Didn't he use violence to cleanse the Temple of gamblers?

There is no record of Jesus striking anyone. And technically that was His house. He overturned the tables and chased the large animals out with a rope whip. But he used no physical violence against any person. Remember the temple guards had swords. Jesus wasn't Jackie Chan.

Didn't he say "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"?

1) You've taken this out of context.
2) You're ignoring the fact that the Bible calls the Word of God a "sword".

Here's how the message Bible puts the passage.


Matthew 10:33-36

The Message (MSG)

32-33"Stand up for me against world opinion and I'll stand up for you before my Father in heaven. If you turn tail and run, do you think I'll cover for you?

34-37"Don't think I've come to make life cozy. I've come to cut—make a sharp knife-cut between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-law—cut through these cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. If you prefer father or mother over me, you don't deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don't deserve me.


The point (pardon the pun) is that Christ's message is/was divisive because it upset the traditional order.

Didn't he also say "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

You're aware that He was giving a parable right? Are you that ignorant of the Bible? That was talking about the final day of judgement, and not what should happen day to day. Ask yourself this. Why didn't Jesus have his enemies slain when they came to kill Him? Here's the answer.

John 18:36 Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Sure he said many conflicting things also, that promoted peace...but Jesus was not the pascifist we are taught he was in Church or school. He was in favor of self defense (precisely why he "died for us", as a pascifist, so we wouldn't have to do so). Many theologians (not necessarily non-Christian either) believe he wasn't even a New Covenant theologian himslef, and they point out, he wasn't a Christian (somewhat obvious, but often overlooked).

Sure. Jesus believed in self defense. That's why He told His disciples to get swords before His arrest. But notice that He said that two swords were "enough". Two swords for 12 men facing a horde of armed thugs? And when one of His disciples actually used the sword, Jesus healed the wounded enemy and added "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword."

Matthew 26:50-54

50 Jesus replied, “Do what you came for, friend.”[d]

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51 With that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

If people read the entire Old and New Testament from back to front they'd see several things:

Please read with understanding. You have not done that.

 

[idirtify]

There is no record of Jesus striking anyone. And technically that was His house. He overturned the tables and chased the large animals out with a rope whip. But he used no physical violence against any person.

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?

 

[Sola_Fide]

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?

Because He is the sovereign Lord, Creator, and King of this universe. He owns everything.

 

[TER]

Aside from the deceitful and fraudulent practices being done by the money handlers in the temple, another point of contention of Christ's was the fact that animals were being bought and sold in the market place which undoubtedly soiled the temple grounds with urine and feces. This was a place of holy ground, by which the most faithful removed their sandals. A place of solemn devotion and prayerful attention in the presence of God. And now, it had become a zoo, filled with the din and haggling of a street market and riddled with the excrement of wild beasts.

From the earliest days of the temple, when the people of Israel held more reverence and respect to the sacred space of the temple, the normal and appropriate area for buying/selling/and holding the animals were outside the temple, in the courts just outside of it's walls. Thus, the presence of the beasts soiling the temple grounds along with the fraudulent business practices being done there defiled the temple and those are the reasons Jesus 'cleansed' it by removing them with a lash of reeds. Had He wanted to, He could have opened the ground beneath them and swallowed them into the earth. But here again we see how merciful He is.

 

[idirtify]

Because He is the sovereign Lord, Creator, and King of this universe. He owns everything.

If you claim he truly owned “everything”, why did you need to claim in posts 58 and 65 and 66 and 67 that the selling and money changing was theft and cheating and debasement – when there is no such evidence in the passages. I mean if he owned “everything”, it’s all his property and he can rightfully prohibit anything he wants - anywhere and anytime. IOW, if he owned everything, he had the right to prohibit the most honest business dealings in the temple.

 

[idirtify]

Aside from the deceitful and fraudulent practices being done by the money handlers in the temple, another point of contention of Christ's was the fact that animals were being bought and sold in the market place which undoubtedly soiled the temple grounds with urine and feces. This was a place of holy ground, by which the most faithful removed their sandals. A place of solemn devotion and prayerful attention in the presence of God. And now, it had become a zoo, filled with the din and haggling of a street market and riddled with the excrement of wild beasts.

From the earliest days of the temple, when the people of Israel held more reverence and respect to the sacred space of the temple, the normal and appropriate area for buying/selling/and holding the animals were outside the temple, in the courts just outside of it's walls. Thus, the presence of the beasts soiling the temple grounds along with the fraudulent business practices being done there defiled the temple and those are the reasons Jesus 'cleansed' it by removing them with a lash of reeds. Had He wanted to, He could have opened the ground beneath them and swallowed them into the earth. But here again we see how merciful He is.

And now you add a third defense for the actions of Jesus: soiling animal urine and feces. But why? If he had property rights, as you claim, he could rightfully prohibit anything he wants – no matter how clean. Don’t you have enough FAITH in your property rights defense? If you really BELIEVE it, you would not need to make two extra defenses for which you have no evidence.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If you claim he truly owned “everything”, why did you need to claim in posts 58 and 65 and 66 and 67 that the selling and money changing was theft and cheating and debasement – when there is no such evidence in the passages. I mean if he owned “everything”, it’s all his property and he can rightfully prohibit anything he wants - anywhere and anytime. IOW, if he owned everything, he had the right to prohibit the most honest business dealings in the temple.

1. The only evidence in the passage you need that the money changers were engaging in theft is the sovereign lord of the universe called them thieves.

2. There are some things God CAN'T do. He can't deny Himself. He can't engage in breaking a law of logic. And He can't sin. So it is impossible that Jesus could have called honest exchanges theft as you said. God can only do something which is in accord with His nature, which is truth itself.

3. Exegesis often involves understanding passages in their historical or textual context.

 

[idirtify]

1. The only evidence in the passage you need that the money changers were engaging in theft is the sovereign lord of the universe called them thieves.

2. There are some things God CAN'T do. He can't deny Himself. He can't engage in breaking a law of logic. And He can't sin. So it is impossible that Jesus could have called honest exchanges theft as you said. God can only do something which is in accord with His nature, which is truth itself.

3. Exegesis often involves understanding passages in their historical or textual context.

I’m afraid your kind of exegesis renders the term meaningless. But even if your preposterous claim (that Jesus owned everything) is true, it defeats your own case. While you contend that Jesus could not have been wrong about whether there was theft going on in the temple and could not have been prejudiced against free-enterprise, your contention that he owned everything makes him the grand dictator – and by definition opposed to individual liberty (including free-enterprise).

 

[Sola_Fide]

I’m afraid your kind of exegesis renders the term meaningless. But even if your preposterous claim (that Jesus owned everything) is true, it defeats your own case. While you contend that Jesus could not have been wrong about whether there was theft going on in the temple and could not have been prejudiced against free-enterprise, your contention that he owned everything makes him the grand dictator – and by definition opposed to individual liberty (including free-enterprise).

This just goes to show how far post-modern man has strayed from even understanding the fundamental propositions of the Christian faith. You can disagree, great....but to not understand where we are coming from is just laziness on your part. I go out of my way to try to understand exactly where the post-modern man is coming from intellectually.

Let's deal with the first bone of contention. The basics of Christian theology is that Jesus is the mighty God, Lord over all:

John 1:1-4 NASB

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

Everything that has come into being, came through Him. This eternal Word put on flesh like men:

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So, as far as your claim that it is "preposterous" that Jesus is creator and owner of all is simply an accusation that is groundless.

As far as your contention that because Jesus is creator and owner of all, that makes Him a "dictator that is opposed to liberty"...um...let's just see how that has played out in history.

Has the idea from the Reformation that men are unique and individuals who are made in God's image been beneficial to freedom? Or has the belief that man is an amoral bag of random chemicals been beneficial to freedom?

Would you prefer the early Christian American society? Or the atheistic society of Mao's China?

 

[oyarde]

I am a bit suspicious of the practice of requiring purchase of an animal to sacrifice and the fact religious leaders were probably profiting from that , consider that the entire region was previously worshiping a god that children were sacrificed to before the newer religion came ...

 

[Theocrat]

To What End Did Jesus Endorse Violence?

I was trying to convince some Christians about Ron Paul and their main concerns were stances on social issues. One example: I explained to them that Jesus was the prince of peace. While he might not have approved of drug use, he would have never supported the use of violence against peaceful individuals just because he didn't agree with their lifestyle. They told me I was wrong and that Jesus stated numerous times throughout the bible that he supported the use of violence. Ive given up on using logic with these people.

A major problem Christians have in interpreting the Bible is understanding context. When confronting your Christian friends about "Jesus supporting violence," ask them in what context was He prescribing its use. Even if they appeal to the wars of the Old Testament, you should ask them why those wars were started and how does the reason(s) for those wars apply to us in the 21st Century today. Just because God told His people to destroy an entire nation of rebellious unbelievers thousands of years ago, it does not mean that applies to how we treat rebellious unbelievers today, having the New Covenant instituted with the full revelation of Christ.

 

[YumYum]

A major problem Christians have in interpreting the Bible is understanding context. When confronting your Christian friends about "Jesus supporting violence," ask them in what context was He prescribing its use. Even if they appeal to the wars of the Old Testament, you should ask them why those wars were started and how does the reason(s) for those wars apply to us in the 21st Century today. Just because God told His people to destroy an entire nation of rebellious unbelievers thousands of years ago, it does not mean that applies to how we treat rebellious unbelievers today, having the New Covenant instituted with the full revelation of Christ.

Or better yet, maybe God didn't tell "His people" to destroy an entire nation. Maybe "His people" made that up to justify murder.

 

[idirtify]

This just goes to show how far post-modern man has strayed from even understanding the fundamental propositions of the Christian faith. You can disagree, great....but to not understand where we are coming from is just laziness on your part. I go out of my way to try to understand exactly where the post-modern man is coming from intellectually.

Let's deal with the first bone of contention. The basics of Christian theology is that Jesus is the mighty God, Lord over all:



Everything that has come into being, came through Him. This eternal Word put on flesh like men:



So, as far as your claim that it is "preposterous" that Jesus is creator and owner of all is simply an accusation that is groundless.

As far as your contention that because Jesus is creator and owner of all, that makes Him a "dictator that is opposed to liberty"...um...let's just see how that has played out in history.

Has the idea from the Reformation that men are unique and individuals who are made in God's image been beneficial to freedom? Or has the belief that man is an amoral bag of random chemicals been beneficial to freedom?

Would you prefer the early Christian American society? Or the atheistic society of Mao's China?

I’m afraid YOU made Jesus a dictator. I just supplied the most common definition.

And what could the Reformation possible have to do with this discussion?

Anyway…Are we still talking about the temple incident? Is it your claim that “Jesus was right no matter what because he owned the temple and had property rights to allow or prohibit anything he wanted”? Or is yours a MORE GENERAL claim that “Jesus was never wrong because Jesus is always right because the bible says so” – even though the wording of the bible passages gives no evidence of theft or property rights?

 

[idirtify]

I am a bit suspicious of the practice of requiring purchase of an animal to sacrifice and the fact religious leaders were probably profiting from that , consider that the entire region was previously worshiping a god that children were sacrificed to before the newer religion came ...

Good point. And I wonder which religion originally built (owned) that temple.

 

[idirtify]

A major problem Christians have in interpreting the Bible is understanding context. When confronting your Christian friends about "Jesus supporting violence," ask them in what context was He prescribing its use. Even if they appeal to the wars of the Old Testament, you should ask them why those wars were started and how does the reason(s) for those wars apply to us in the 21st Century today. Just because God told His people to destroy an entire nation of rebellious unbelievers thousands of years ago, it does not mean that applies to how we treat rebellious unbelievers today, having the New Covenant instituted with the full revelation of Christ.

OK, but our present context is the temple incident and what Jesus was role-modeling there.

 

[idirtify]

Or better yet, maybe God didn't tell "His people" to destroy an entire nation. Maybe "His people" made that up to justify murder.

So if people occasionally “make things up”, do you suppose anything in the bible is made up?

 

[Sola_Fide]

So if people occasionally “make things up”, do you suppose anything in the bible is made up?

Good question. Which is why you shouldn't listen to anything YumYum says in regards to the Bible.

 

[Anti Federalist]

gg, the most extreme performance artist in history. He makes marilyn manson look like a spice girl...lol.

nh ftw!

 

[YumYum]

Good question. Which is why you shouldn't listen to anything YumYum says in regards to the Bible.

What do you mean? He was predestined to ask me that question. Who is he supposed to listen to? You??

 

[Sola_Fide]

What do you mean? He was predestined to ask me that question. Who is he supposed to listen to? You??

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.