Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What strikes me odd, is that people who talk about wanting to be in God's Kingdom, and in heaven, can justify the use of violence to maintain earthly power and possessions.
Your red herring doesn't work any more, Jesus displayed non peaceful traits which contradicts your whole "love is sufficient" stance based on what you believe love is.
When confronted with that, you try to say that in comparison to humans engaging in killing innocent people Jesus was peaceful but that only shows that your position is not reconciled properly to Jesus words and actions or the words of anyone who Jesus taught directly.
If Love is sufficient, why did Jesus feel the need to get violent in the temple?
Your red herring doesn't work any more, Jesus displayed non peaceful traits which contradicts your whole "love is sufficient" stance based on what you believe love is.
When confronted with that, you try to say that in comparison to humans engaging in killing innocent people Jesus was peaceful but that only shows that your position is not reconciled properly to Jesus words and actions or the words of anyone who Jesus taught directly.
If Love is sufficient, why did Jesus feel the need to get violent in the temple?
Well, there may be other ways to interpret Jesus' act of casting people out of the temple.
Personally, I think that He was not violent. I think He was angry, and that He took whatever He found nearby Him to cast the people out. (I imagine that if He asked them, "excuse Me, would you please leave??" that they would not have gone out willingly.) That's why He used "force," as the Father may use "force" to cast one out of His Kingdom. Lastly, it is also, imo, symbolic of the "cleansing of the temple," or what Jesus does when He lives within us. We are now the Temple of God.
So this might be a way of getting someone out of your temple; but it is not something that Jesus told His disciples to do. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus tells us to "buy a whip" or to "kill our enemies."
Like I've told others here, if you think it's right and Christ-like to kill other people, you're free to do it.
Personally, I don't agree. I think such acts are against Jesus' teachings, and more like something satan would tell you to do, rather than Jesus. In fact, satan comes for 3 reasons: to steal, to kill and to destroy.
Just my opinion.
Blessings,
brian
Last edited by ahigherway; 05-11-2011 at 08:09 AM..
Actually, the more I think about this incident in the Temple, the more it seems that it proves my point.
The scriptures do not say that He even touched, let alone harmed any of the moneychangers with His "whip." All we know is that He "drove them out."
If you have ever worked with a group of children in a school, you would know that sometimes it is necessary to "drive out" the kids from an area which might be dangerous or off-limits. This obviously does not entail the use of violence.
The use of force is not the same thing as the use of violence.
It's interesting to note, that anyone who used violence within the Temple would be punished:
"9 And I will punish on that day all who leap on the temple threshold, who fill the house of their lord with violence and deceit." Zephaniah 1
I believe Jesus used force to drive the moneychangers out of the Temple, but not violence. If He had used violence, then He would have sinned.
The word "violence" in the Bible (KJV) always has a negative connotation, not a positive one. Violence is never considered a good thing. Never.
Lastly, food for thought: "And I sent the hornet before you, which drave them out from before you, even the two kings of the Amorites; but not with thy sword, nor with thy bow." Joshua 24.12
Blessings,
brian
Last edited by ahigherway; 05-11-2011 at 08:09 AM..
Well, there may be other ways to interpret Jesus' act of casting people out of the temple.
Didn't say there was not, that is not the point.
Lk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Jesus says to go buy a sword. There is only one practical use for a sword in a biblical context and it isn't to walk about loving everyone in peace.
The problem is that your having trouble distinguishing people who take a biblical reality to stopping evil and people who may use scripture to justify the spirit of glory in killing others.
There is a difference and scripture simply upholds the idea of defense and killing if it comes down to that when no other choice may be seen in the defense of yourself and others.
Jesus did not show that peter would have sinned if he'd faught the gaurds that were coming to get him, he just knew peter would be killed and his efforts would have been in vain. So the problem is that you would say that if peter had faught the gaurds and killed them he would have been sinning, he would not have.
Jesus just did not want him to do that for him, you certainly have the right to allow yourself to be killed for your beliefs, but you impose your personal conviction as sin upon others if they do not agree with you, that is where you go wrong and where your heart is violent.
Lk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Jesus says to go buy a sword. There is only one practical use for a sword in a biblical context and it isn't to walk about loving everyone in peace.
The problem is that your having trouble distinguishing people who take a biblical reality to stopping evil and people who may use scripture to justify the spirit of glory in killing others.
There is a difference and scripture simply upholds the idea of defense and killing if it comes down to that when no other choice may be seen in the defense of yourself and others.
Jesus did not show that peter would have sinned if he'd faught the gaurds that were coming to get him, he just knew peter would be killed and his efforts would have been in vain. So the problem is that you would say that if peter had faught the gaurds and killed them he would have been sinning, he would not have.
Jesus just did not want him to do that for him, you certainly have the right to allow yourself to be killed for your beliefs, but you impose your personal conviction as sin upon others if they do not agree with you, that is where you go wrong and where your heart is violent.
Phaze,
How do you interpret "he that lives by the sword shall die by the sword"?
Also, please show me a scripture where it tells us that we can use the sword and violence if necessary.
Please don't play the "show me a scripture that says this or that" you know better.
I have already shown the scriptural context that is applied in that manner.
Jesus said that to peter just as I explain in another post. It had nothing to do with sin.
Well, you showed me two scriptures, one about Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the Temple, and one about buying a sword. (And perhaps a third about "trying to live with others in peace as much as possible.) And from these verses, you want to tell me that man is justified in using violence in order to overcome evil, if necessary.
But I don't buy it. The verse that comes to my mind about overcoming evil, tells me to "overcome evil with good." (Rom. 12.21) That pretty much excludes violence, aisi.
(Our debate aside, please know, however, that I don't consider you a "non-Christian" just because we disagree on this issue, even if I consider it a very important one. You have your POV, and I have mine. And that's ok by me.)
Well, you showed me two scriptures, one about Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the Temple, and one about buying a sword. (And perhaps a third about "trying to live with others in peace as much as possible.) And from these verses, you want to tell me that man is justified in using violence in order to overcome evil, if necessary.
But I don't buy it. The verse that comes to my mind about overcoming evil, tells me to "overcome evil with good." (Rom. 12.21) That pretty much excludes violence, aisi.
I understand that you do not buy it. that was never my point, my point was to show that the interpretive nature of scripture disproves the idea that even Jesus was this passive non aggressive person towards others.
You can make of that what you will of course.
Quote:
(Our debate aside, please know, however, that I don't consider you a "non-Christian" just because we disagree on this issue, even if I consider it a very important one. You have your POV, and I have mine. And that's ok by me.)
Fair enough
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
