Topic: Sticks and Stones | |
---|---|
Once again, Stop putting words in my mouth. I clearly stated the type of material they had probably would not be damaged. Take my books and a couple of sturdy tables and toss them out. That is a whole lot better analogy than tossing my computer out the door. And I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where it states He physically threw anything. "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves." Turning over tables is hardly damage in anyone's book, well except maybe for yours. And that is very far from throwing anything out any door. Please note it does not mention the doves. It talks about the benches and benches ONLY of those selling doves. Also note He didn't touch anything that was Temple property or took a swing at anyone. Driving out can easily be done by talking sternly to them and given how He behaved throughout His life, much more likely. I have said a few times before that they knew they really shouldn't be there but it was an accepted custom at the time. wow..."mylifetoday" ...I see you are still making excuses for the violence people do...I guess "to turn the other cheek" is christian slang for "resort to violence" |
|
|
|
And before you ask - Yes, Jesus regularly chastised the people entrusted to watch over His Father's House. the temple did not belong to Jesus so he didn't have the right to entrust it to anyone....he was only a teacher there not the owner or a share holder... Are you listening to anything???? and don't you read the bible....according to the bible Jesus was a carpenter not a temple owner |
|
|
|
I know, you are now going to question why He didn't go after the Pharisees and leave the money changers alone. A couple reasons. He wasn't going to wait for a debate to be settled before fixing something that was disrespectful to God. He would need to trust the pharisees would actually agree and carry out His desire to have them removed. Remember the pharisees were constantly questioning whether or not Jesus was following the law appropriately. They are the ones that eventually had him crucified. the Pharisees did not crucifiy Jesus, Rome crucified him....since being found innocent of a crime would not get one crucified, therefore Jesus were accused of breaking a law or laws that made him a criminal under Roman Jurisdiction and he were found guilty ...and that is what got him crucified The Pharisees DID crucify Him. They turned Him over to be crucified. Pilot said, "I find no fault in this Man." yeah, that is an obvious violation of the law. Pilot decided to use a custom where he would release one prisoner. He took out Barabbas and asked if they wanted Barabbas or Jesus released. Obviously Barabbas was chosen. Pilot then asked what they wanted done with Jesus. They YELLED CRUCIFY HIM!!! Clearly this was a terrible criminal that Rome had a real problem with and chose to execute Him regardless of what the Jews thought. If the crowd wasn't there demanding His Crucifixion He would have been released. Pilot even said He committed no crime. The Jews said, "He claimed to be our King, we have no King but Caesar." They also said, "He calls Himself the Son of God. By OUR law He must be put to death." Pilot told them to take Him and Crucify Him themselves. They said, "We cannot, it is the start of our Passover. By our law we cannot do anything to Him right now." Finally Pilot handed Him over to be crucified. He literally washed his hands to show he had no guilt in the Crucifixion. if you still think Rome killed Him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate "mylifetoday"...the fact that you are trying to provide a link to Pontius Pilate only proves that it was Pontius Pilate under the Jurisdiction of Rome that got Jesus crucified ... of course some believed Jesus to be innocent and some believed Jesus to be guilty and Pontius Pilate was the tie breaker...so perhaps you should blame the one that ultimately gave the order for Jesus to be crucified |
|
|
|
Once again - Do you read anything I write??? "mylifetoday"...yes of course I read everything ....pretty funny stuff....you should think about writing comedy for Jesus and then the disciples asked Jesus why should we turn the other cheek and Jesus said I'll tell you when I get back...I have to go toss some people out of the temple first |
|
|
|
Once again, Stop putting words in my mouth. I clearly stated the type of material they had probably would not be damaged. Take my books and a couple of sturdy tables and toss them out. That is a whole lot better analogy than tossing my computer out the door. And I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where it states He physically threw anything. "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves." Turning over tables is hardly damage in anyone's book, well except maybe for yours. And that is very far from throwing anything out any door. Please note it does not mention the doves. It talks about the benches and benches ONLY of those selling doves. Also note He didn't touch anything that was Temple property or took a swing at anyone. Driving out can easily be done by talking sternly to them and given how He behaved throughout His life, much more likely. I have said a few times before that they knew they really shouldn't be there but it was an accepted custom at the time. wow..."mylifetoday" ...I see you are still making excuses for the violence people do...I guess "to turn the other cheek" is christian slang for "resort to violence" I am not making an excuse for violence. I am explaining why your claim of violence in this instance is incorrect - at least the way I see it. I define violence as the deliberate attack on a person or property to cause physical harm or damage. I already told you a few times that I seriously doubt anything was damaged. I also said that there is a VERY HIGH probability that He never laid a hand on anyone. I know you could interpret "drove out" as a physical attack, but that would be so far outside His character that it is a laughable statement. Unfortunately it does not specify how He drove them out of the Temple. I have no doubt He did it without resorting to violence. You can continue to claim He did but there is nothing you can say that will ever make me question it. |
|
|
|
And before you ask - Yes, Jesus regularly chastised the people entrusted to watch over His Father's House. the temple did not belong to Jesus so he didn't have the right to entrust it to anyone....he was only a teacher there not the owner or a share holder... Are you listening to anything???? and don't you read the bible....according to the bible Jesus was a carpenter not a temple owner According to the Bible Jesus was the Son of God as well. The Temple is God's House. Has always been referred to that way. Once again in the Bible and you can ask any Christian or Jew and they will agree with that statement. I say Jew because there were no Christians at that time, so the Jewish concept is the only one that applies. You are ignoring a very big piece of information trying to claim He had no jurisdiction in the Temple. God's House - Jesus, Son of God - Therefore, He has a right to say what should and should not happen in His Father's house. But I laughed because this has been said a few times in this thread. You are once again disregarding previous information that was presented. |
|
|
|
I know, you are now going to question why He didn't go after the Pharisees and leave the money changers alone. A couple reasons. He wasn't going to wait for a debate to be settled before fixing something that was disrespectful to God. He would need to trust the pharisees would actually agree and carry out His desire to have them removed. Remember the pharisees were constantly questioning whether or not Jesus was following the law appropriately. They are the ones that eventually had him crucified. the Pharisees did not crucifiy Jesus, Rome crucified him....since being found innocent of a crime would not get one crucified, therefore Jesus were accused of breaking a law or laws that made him a criminal under Roman Jurisdiction and he were found guilty ...and that is what got him crucified The Pharisees DID crucify Him. They turned Him over to be crucified. Pilot said, "I find no fault in this Man." yeah, that is an obvious violation of the law. Pilot decided to use a custom where he would release one prisoner. He took out Barabbas and asked if they wanted Barabbas or Jesus released. Obviously Barabbas was chosen. Pilot then asked what they wanted done with Jesus. They YELLED CRUCIFY HIM!!! Clearly this was a terrible criminal that Rome had a real problem with and chose to execute Him regardless of what the Jews thought. If the crowd wasn't there demanding His Crucifixion He would have been released. Pilot even said He committed no crime. The Jews said, "He claimed to be our King, we have no King but Caesar." They also said, "He calls Himself the Son of God. By OUR law He must be put to death." Pilot told them to take Him and Crucify Him themselves. They said, "We cannot, it is the start of our Passover. By our law we cannot do anything to Him right now." Finally Pilot handed Him over to be crucified. He literally washed his hands to show he had no guilt in the Crucifixion. if you still think Rome killed Him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate "mylifetoday"...the fact that you are trying to provide a link to Pontius Pilate only proves that it was Pontius Pilate under the Jurisdiction of Rome that got Jesus crucified ... of course some believed Jesus to be innocent and some believed Jesus to be guilty and Pontius Pilate was the tie breaker...so perhaps you should blame the one that ultimately gave the order for Jesus to be crucified Did you read the link? The main reason I attached it was to show that he was the representative of the Roman Government and he washed his hands of the crucifixion. How does that equate to: 1) Jesus being a criminal as you have so often claimed 2) show that Rome executed Him for crimes against the state 3) Pilate ordered His execution Pilate handed Him over to be Crucified. Did not do it through Roman law. the only law He would have broken is the Jewish law. Claiming to be the Son of God. But that law ONLY applies to someone saying that who is not in fact the Son of God. And since He was the Son of God, was not in violation of the law. The Jews were wrong to sentence Him to death on these grounds. He was innocent of ALL charges levied against Him. |
|
|
|
Once again - Do you read anything I write??? "mylifetoday"...yes of course I read everything ....pretty funny stuff....you should think about writing comedy for Jesus and then the disciples asked Jesus why should we turn the other cheek and Jesus said I'll tell you when I get back...I have to go toss some people out of the temple first That is really funny! |
|
|
|
Once again - Do you read anything I write??? "mylifetoday"...yes of course I read everything ....pretty funny stuff....you should think about writing comedy for Jesus and then the disciples asked Jesus why should we turn the other cheek and Jesus said I'll tell you when I get back...I have to go toss some people out of the temple first did he toss people out of a temple, or just overturn desks? |
|
|
|
Once again - Do you read anything I write??? "mylifetoday"...yes of course I read everything ....pretty funny stuff....you should think about writing comedy for Jesus and then the disciples asked Jesus why should we turn the other cheek and Jesus said I'll tell you when I get back...I have to go toss some people out of the temple first did he toss people out of a temple, or just overturn desks? The Bible says "Drove Out" and turned over "Tables and Benches of the money changers and those that sold doves." I believe He drove them out by being stern with them and reminding them that they should not be there. They already knew they shouldn't. It would be like a church today asking a store that sells church related products to come and set up shop inside the church itself where people gather in the vestibule. Anyone attend church today would know that is wrong. So, when Jesus reminded them of this in a stern manner (drove out) they left rather hastily. |
|
|
|
mylifetoday wrote:
I am not making an excuse for violence. I am explaining why your claim of violence in this instance is incorrect - at least the way I see it. I define violence as the deliberate attack on a person or property to cause physical harm or damage. I already told you a few times that I seriously doubt anything was damaged. I also said that there is a VERY HIGH probability that He never laid a hand on anyone. I know you could interpret "drove out" as a physical attack, but that would be so far outside His character that it is a laughable statement. Unfortunately it does not specify how He drove them out of the Temple. I have no doubt He did it without resorting to violence. You can continue to claim He did but there is nothing you can say that will ever make me question it. Doesn't the description in the Bible of this scene have Jesus "overturning" the tables? To me that would be, at the very least, a display of immaturity and loss of temper. |
|
|
|
When he returns it says he will Rule an army. He's not going to play nice the next time.
Mitch |
|
|
|
You are ignoring a very big piece of information trying to claim He had no jurisdiction in the Temple. God's House - Jesus, Son of God - Therefore, He has a right to say what should and should not happen in His Father's house. But I laughed because this has been said a few times in this thread. You are once again disregarding previous information that was presented. This still wouldn't excuse Jesus from acting immaturely and violently in a temple of God. I don't care if God is his daddy, that doesn't excuse immature or violent behavior. These "excuses" simply don't wash. |
|
|
|
When he returns it says he will Rule an army. He's not going to play nice the next time. Mitch So much for a "benevolent" God. So in other words, we are to believe that even an all-powerful all-wise God must resort to WAR using an ARMY in order to FORCE things to be done his way? I'm not the slightest bit impressed with this God's "capabilities". Sounds like a pretty mundane limited God to me. He has to resort to war just like humans do. That a pretty lame God right there. |
|
|
|
Edited by
TallandSlender
on
Fri 04/15/11 08:08 PM
|
|
When he returns it says he will Rule an army. He's not going to play nice the next time. Mitch So much for a "benevolent" God. So in other words, we are to believe that even an all-powerful all-wise God must resort to WAR using an ARMY in order to FORCE things to be done his way? I'm not the slightest bit impressed with this God's "capabilities". Sounds like a pretty mundane limited God to me. He has to resort to war just like humans do. That a pretty lame God right there. |
|
|
|
mylifetoday wrote:
I am not making an excuse for violence. I am explaining why your claim of violence in this instance is incorrect - at least the way I see it. I define violence as the deliberate attack on a person or property to cause physical harm or damage. I already told you a few times that I seriously doubt anything was damaged. I also said that there is a VERY HIGH probability that He never laid a hand on anyone. I know you could interpret "drove out" as a physical attack, but that would be so far outside His character that it is a laughable statement. Unfortunately it does not specify how He drove them out of the Temple. I have no doubt He did it without resorting to violence. You can continue to claim He did but there is nothing you can say that will ever make me question it. Doesn't the description in the Bible of this scene have Jesus "overturning" the tables? To me that would be, at the very least, a display of immaturity and loss of temper. He was overturning tables. As for whether or not He lost His temper. Ask Him. I don't know. He could have. It doesn't say He didn't. |
|
|
|
When he returns it says he will Rule an army. He's not going to play nice the next time. Mitch Absolutely correct. He will come to judge the world at that time. It is the end of the world when He comes again. |
|
|
|
mylifetoday wrote:
I am not making an excuse for violence. I am explaining why your claim of violence in this instance is incorrect - at least the way I see it. I define violence as the deliberate attack on a person or property to cause physical harm or damage. I already told you a few times that I seriously doubt anything was damaged. I also said that there is a VERY HIGH probability that He never laid a hand on anyone. I know you could interpret "drove out" as a physical attack, but that would be so far outside His character that it is a laughable statement. Unfortunately it does not specify how He drove them out of the Temple. I have no doubt He did it without resorting to violence. You can continue to claim He did but there is nothing you can say that will ever make me question it. Doesn't the description in the Bible of this scene have Jesus "overturning" the tables? To me that would be, at the very least, a display of immaturity and loss of temper. He was overturning tables. As for whether or not He lost His temper. Ask Him. I don't know. He could have. It doesn't say He didn't. |
|
|
|
You are ignoring a very big piece of information trying to claim He had no jurisdiction in the Temple. God's House - Jesus, Son of God - Therefore, He has a right to say what should and should not happen in His Father's house. But I laughed because this has been said a few times in this thread. You are once again disregarding previous information that was presented. This still wouldn't excuse Jesus from acting immaturely and violently in a temple of God. I don't care if God is his daddy, that doesn't excuse immature or violent behavior. These "excuses" simply don't wash. Not "excuses" - explanations. He is asking questions and I am answering him. When I first started talking about this I was going from my memory of what the Bible said. To begin with, I was overstating how Jesus threw them out. I don't see how you can claim He was acting immature or violent. Please see my previous post where I talk about violence. Think of it this way. You walk in your home, you find someone there you didn't expect. They brought their own table and chairs and were having a grand time. How would you feel? If you decided to throw them out would you call your behavior immature? As far as how you throw them out, it could be violent or not. Depends on what you do. The Bible does not specify how He threw them out. Just says "drove out" There is no evidence of violence in that statement. |
|
|
|
mylifetoday wrote:
I am not making an excuse for violence. I am explaining why your claim of violence in this instance is incorrect - at least the way I see it. I define violence as the deliberate attack on a person or property to cause physical harm or damage. I already told you a few times that I seriously doubt anything was damaged. I also said that there is a VERY HIGH probability that He never laid a hand on anyone. I know you could interpret "drove out" as a physical attack, but that would be so far outside His character that it is a laughable statement. Unfortunately it does not specify how He drove them out of the Temple. I have no doubt He did it without resorting to violence. You can continue to claim He did but there is nothing you can say that will ever make me question it. Doesn't the description in the Bible of this scene have Jesus "overturning" the tables? To me that would be, at the very least, a display of immaturity and loss of temper. He was overturning tables. As for whether or not He lost His temper. Ask Him. I don't know. He could have. It doesn't say He didn't. |
|
|