It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Scourge That Cleansed the Temple

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
Actually, violence as an answer to your own vengeance, then not justified. That is why the Bible says "Vengeance belongs to God". Therefore, He would still be within His rights.


In other words, violence is NEVER acceptable, except when I (God) do it. Same old same old do as I say and not as I do nonsense...


But really, Jesus was saying that violence should not be your first choice, diplomacy is. And if diplomacy fails, walk away, but after you have given them your cloak and your cheek, then what else can you do? But defense for someone else, violence is justified for that, as long as the defenseless are being harmed or exploited at that moment.


Was he? I haven't seen that particular passage in the Bible.

Matthew 5:38-42
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

That looks pretty clear to me that it is saying NOT to take the law into your own hands...


There was no duplicitous message if you read the whole passage and the Bible. I am Quakerish and believe peaceful measures, but I am also a realist, there are times when violence is justified and this is the message that I get from this passage.


I am a realist too and know that violence is sometimes necessary to solve a problem. I'm not speaking about my personal beliefs on violence though. I'm speaking on Jesus' beliefs along with the pedestal that humans have place Jesus on while hypocritically doing the opposite of what he preached.

Again, if Jesus was divine and TRULY without sin, he should have been able to magic up a miracle to get rid of these guys.




posted on May, 7 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'd think that the true "Son of God, that is without sin" would be able to miracle up a non-violent solution to the problem. Instead we have a largely human answer to a problem of abuse. More violence. So if Jesus was merely just a human, then yea I can totally sympathize with him using violence to defend the weak. However, Christians claim he is without sin and can perform miracles. So therefore, he should be able to carry out some sort of divine plan to get rid of them.


Your argument rests on the assumption that Jesus was actually being violent. Perhaps it was more akin to a Zen Master shaking his cane at some blatant stupidity to clearly make his point. Anyway, we don't really know, so your argument is only as strong as your unfounded presumption.

And for him to be angry? There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. Sometimes anger is required - it depends on the circumstance. Amongst these "robbers" (those who were violent and killed), it was likely the only way he could be heard and his lesson best remembered.

Many people have a naive view of what being without sin actually means, and it usually is associated with white robes, a beatific smile, and non-action. That passive approach may have worked even relatively recently in India with Gandhi and the alpha culture there, but not likely in the West where action was and still is generally required to make an in-life direct point.

I look at Jesus as a brilliant spiritual Master who did whatever was necessary to instruct others in right life practices and love. That he was intense with a bunch of violent animal killers is not really surprising, given how much he loved all creatures. They all ended up killing him anyway to preserve their way of life - but to this day it is still thought by many that Jesus freely expressed himself at all costs (his life) for his principles, and specifically, for what was going on in that Temple.

edit on 5/7/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: bb23108
Your argument rests on the assumption that Jesus was actually being violent. Perhaps it was more akin to a Zen Master shaking his cane at some blatant stupidity to clearly make his point. Anyway, we don't really know, so your argument is only as strong as your unfounded presumption.


Possibly, but I doubt it. Someone shaking a cane at people isn't effective if everyone knows you aren't going to use it.


And for him to be angry? There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. Sometimes anger is required - it depends on the circumstance. Amongst these "robbers" (those who were violent and killed), it was likely the only way he could be heard.


I already said that anger is only a sin according to Catholics who mistakenly think that the Divine Comedy is Christian dogma.


Many people have a naive view of what being without sin actually means, and it usually is associated with white robes, a beatific smile, and non-action. That passive approach may have worked even relatively recently in India with Gandhi and the alpha culture there, but not likely in the West where action was and still is generally required to make an in-life direct point.


Bullcrap. Being without sin is just that. You don't sin. Not that you sin sometimes when it is necessary and "justified". You just don't sin. Ever. I refuse to accept any other definition of "being without sin" as valid. Especially if you want to maintain the idea that Jesus was the son of God. Surely, the son of God should be able to think of a solution to a problem that doesn't require violence.


I look at Jesus as a brilliant spiritual Master who did whatever was necessary to instruct others in right life practices and love. That he was intense with a bunch of violent animal killers is not really surprising, given how much he loved all creatures. They all ended up killing him anyway to preserve their way of life - but to this day it is still thought by many that Jesus freely expressed himself at all costs (his life) for his principles, and specifically, for what was going on in that Temple.


Then I hope you consider Jesus 100% human.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Possibly, but I doubt it. Someone shaking a cane at people isn't effective if everyone knows you aren't going to use it.


Do you really think people would know that or not?


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I already said that anger is only a sin according to Catholics who mistakenly think that the Divine Comedy is Christian dogma.

Okay, but given it is not established that Jesus was whipping people, what's your argument? Jesus was free to be angry and apparently it worked.



originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Being without sin is just that. You don't sin.

And what does that look like?


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Then I hope you consider Jesus 100% human.

Yes, and he also realized the Divine, and then instructed his followers in the truth of life - always being in communion with God, regardless of what may test you.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: bb23108
Do you really think people would know that or not?


Guess that depends on how well the money changers knew Jesus.


Okay, but given it is not established that Jesus was whipping people, what's your argument? Jesus was free to be angry and apparently it worked.


Not really an argument from me on these parts. I'd just expect that Jesus wouldn't be angry at something like this. To me, I'd expect Jesus to remain calm and solve the problem that way. Just seems kind of anti-Jesus to picture him angry.



And what does that look like?


Think of all sin. Jesus would do none of them. Ever.


Yes, and he also realized the Divine, and then instructed his followers in the truth of life - always being in communion with God, regardless of what may test you.



This implies that Jesus isn't the son of god though. So if you believe this then there isn't much of a problem because then the claim that "Jesus is without sin" is obviously a lie since he was human. So if you believe this, then I have no argument. Humans are hypocritical all the time.
edit on 7-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't you think that could be a fairly diplomatic response?

Why do you presume He should have done a miracle? Do you expect miracles on demand?

So we are hypocrites if we DON'T become violent? And since when are we never permitted to get angry? Anger is a very human emotion, why deny that?

BTW, I'm NOT Catholic. Please refer to MY faith system.

edit on 5/7/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/7/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't you think that could be a fairly diplomatic response?


What is diplomatic about violence?


Why do you presume He should have done a miracle? Do you expect miracles on demand?


Because he's supposed to be the Son of God. Why wouldn't he be able to do a miracle here? Does he have a power bar like a video game and at the time it was empty or something?


So we are hypocrites if we DON'T become violent? And since when are we never permitted to get angry? Anger is a very human emotion, why deny that?


The only hypocrite is a supposed "Son of God that is without sin" that preaches non-violence being violent. If you admit that Jesus was 100% human (which is reality, provided that the man even existed) then there is no problem here. He is just another human with failings just like the rest of us. However, if you hold him up on a pedestal as the Son of God and all that other divine crap (which isn't reality, but whatever) then he is a hypocrite.


BTW, I'm NOT Catholic. Please refer to MY faith system.


I didn't say you were.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'd just expect that Jesus wouldn't be angry at something like this. To me, I'd expect Jesus to remain calm and solve the problem that way. Just seems kind of anti-Jesus to picture him angry.


Okay, that may be your expectation, but as I said before, this sounds like the common myth about Divine Beings in white robes, beatific smiles, and basically actionless.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Think of all sin. Jesus would do none of them. Ever.


I have no problem with Jesus getting pissed off in the temple. I don't figure that as a sin.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This implies that Jesus isn't the son of god though. So if you believe this then there isn't much of a problem because then the claim that "Jesus is without sin" is obviously a lie since he was human. So if you believe this, then I have no argument. Humans are hypocritical all the time.

Assuming Jesus existed (which I believe, given his Teachings are too brilliant to have been fabricated by a bunch of ordinary people), he was clearly a human! But he also appeared here with his message of spirituality from, about, in, and as a manifestation of, the Divine.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

edit on 5/7/2015 by bb23108 because:



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bb23108
Okay, that may be your expectation, but as I said before, this sounds like the common myth about Divine Beings in white robes, beatific smiles, and basically actionless.


That's the thing. The way the Bible describes sin, to be sinless DOES require inaction.



Assuming Jesus existed (which I believe, given his Teachings are too brilliant to have been fabricated by a bunch of ordinary people), he was clearly a human! But he also appeared here with his message of spirituality from, about, in, and as a manifestation of, the Divine.


I can only accept Jesus as 100% human if he existed (and his teachings aren't proof of his existence, for instance the Golden Rule existed before it was attributed to Jesus and has actually been attributed to a Greek). Everything else is hypocritical and contradictory.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So He doesn't have to do it just to prove anything, if you want a miracle then just ask.

How come He can't be God? Does God have a requirement from you that you feel dictates what God should be? OK, so you don't believe in God like that, but still, is there a requirement?

He was without sin. Anger is not a sin and if you say it is, then there's a lot of sinful people around right now, only they are flipping off other drivers or having temper tantrums in the grocery store lines.

Again, please look at the passage. Who did He scourge? Where did He scourge them? Why did He scourge them?

They deserved it and no one else was doing anything about it. That's why we have the law here, someone is doing something but there still are a lot of angry and violent people. You don't say the police are violent when they have to chase down a crack head who just shot up a house full of kids. But maybe that is unjustifiable to you?

You keep referring to Catholics, that is why I said that.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I can only accept Jesus as 100% human if he existed (and his teachings aren't proof of his existence, for instance the Golden Rule existed before it was attributed to Jesus and has actually been attributed to a Greek). Everything else is hypocritical and contradictory.

Well then, you cannot accept Jesus as human then, since there is no such definitive proof.

I think he existed because of his teachings (yes, I know about the Golden Rule), his demonstrations, and his brilliance relative to giving both exoteric and esoteric instructions, his obvious references to initiations into spiritual (esoteric) states corroborated in other traditions, and his relationship of love with his followers.

So I have no problem defending his actions in the temple.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So He doesn't have to do it just to prove anything, if you want a miracle then just ask.


It's not about proving if he can do it or not. It's about finding a solution that doesn't require the usage of violence. Again, Jesus preached non-violence at all times.


How come He can't be God? Does God have a requirement from you that you feel dictates what God should be? OK, so you don't believe in God like that, but still, is there a requirement?


Because then he is a hypocrite and being hypocritical is another form of lying, which IS a sin.


He was without sin. Anger is not a sin and if you say it is, then there's a lot of sinful people around right now, only they are flipping off other drivers or having temper tantrums in the grocery store lines.


Anger is only a sin to idiotic Catholics who think that the Divine Comedy is Christian dogma. I thought I already said that?


Again, please look at the passage. Who did He scourge? Where did He scourge them? Why did He scourge them?


You aren't getting what I'm saying. The "why" nor the "where" is important. Just that he did. Adding the why, the where, and the who just allows you to justify the actions. Justification is a form of rationalization which is a human way to cope with making a bad and/or immoral decision.


They deserved it and no one else was doing anything about it. That's why we have the law here, someone is doing something but there still are a lot of angry and violent people. You don't say the police are violent when they have to chase down a crack head who just shot up a house full of kids. But maybe that is unjustifiable to you?


The police aren't held up to a standard of "being without sin". Stop trying to compare Jesus to literally ANYONE else. We are talking about Jesus here and what he is claimed to be. No other human on earth can be described as not having sin, therefore those people acting sinful AREN'T a good example when talking about Jesus being hypocritical.


You keep referring to Catholics, that is why I said that.


I keep referring to the Divine Comedy when discussing anger. I have not ever ascribed anger as a sin outside of it being said it was one in the Divine Comedy, which only Catholics tend to believe is Christian dogma.
edit on 7-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I can only accept Jesus as 100% human if he existed (and his teachings aren't proof of his existence, for instance the Golden Rule existed before it was attributed to Jesus and has actually been attributed to a Greek). Everything else is hypocritical and contradictory.

Well then, you cannot accept Jesus as human then, since there is no such definitive proof.


I already told you that I'm not entirely sure that he existed.


I think he existed because of his teachings (yes, I know about the Golden Rule), his demonstrations, and his brilliance relative to giving both exoteric and esoteric instructions, his obvious references to initiations into spiritual (esoteric) states corroborated in other traditions, and his relationship of love with his followers.

So I have no problem defending his actions in the temple.



Naturally, that is the way people blinded by charisma act when confronted by the immoral actions of the charismatic person they are blinded by.
edit on 7-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I don't necessarily have any problem with the moneylenders being driven out, violently or otherwise. My interest is in who was driving them out. Jesus Christ. Maybe other denominations teach it differently, but I was always taught that Jesus was a man without sin. The perfect lamb without blemish. I also wouldn't necessarily argue that driving out the moneylenders was a sin. Depending on whether or not he actually used the scourge on people, which can't be established. Brandishing a weapon around in anger to get your point across isn't necessarily a sin either, nor is being angry in general. I would argue that a line was crossed. Jesus let his anger get the better of him, in my opinion.

What happened in the temple is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the traditional view of Jesus and many of his teachings. Sure, his reaction may have been the only way to get his point across. Or was it? Why not put the fear of God into them by proving to them who you are? I know some will argue, who are we to demand miracles on site. Well extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I understand it's a little silly to expect Jesus to do a miracle or two for every person or town he came across. But the way I look at it is like this. Back in the Old Testament God was very directly active in the lives of his chosen people. He spoke to them, made deals with them, revealed his power for all to see. Apparently he then goes quiet for who knows how long until Jesus comes.

Is it any wonder people kept up the rules and habits of Yahweh? One poster on here said God doesn't like killing his creatures. But sacrificing creatures was the norm back in the day. Not to mention all the animals wiped out in the flood, which had nothing to do with why he sent a deluge. Or all those he will kill upon his return. Is it any wonder people didn't take him seriously as the son of God? Why not play a more active role?

On one hand this scene is inconsistent with how many of us view Jesus and what he's supposed to represent. Jesus does have a violent, angry side. Like I said, not necessarily sinful traits. But there, nonetheless. The cleansing of the temple is not the only time in the Bible he gets angry. I recall one scene where he simply uses his magic to kill a fig tree in his way. And if you are one who considers that Yahweh and Jesus are one in the same then he is no longer one step removed from all those atrocities. Either way, they are both still in on the same game plan.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The question of Jesus divinity can be controversial in Christian thought.Sometimes individuals lose track of Jesus serving as a instrument for his heavenly father's power flowing through him.I guess it comes down to how someone feels about the message he brought us.

Do you think The Most High would break his own rules to deliver us?I don't,so I believe that Jesus was very human. It's easy to forget our higher nature.My post about the his own scourging was meant to show that as the Lord gives, he takes away.It's a good question to ponder, if only for one to examine when looking at other lines of thought...
edit on 7-5-2015 by dffrntkndfnml because: grammer



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

And we aren't God.

Just because God does what God chooses to do, that's left up to God.

We are made in the image and likeness of God and if we can be tempted, we can also turn away from temptation. We can also get angry. We can also scourge those who are wicked and evil, doing terrible, terrible things to the defenseless.

That is why we have jails and courts, we are scourging them. The legal system IS a scourging weapon, but necessary at times.

The other person who commented about not killing little creatures, every ancient culture did that. Maybe that poster would not do it, that is their conscience and right to feel that way.

I do not think this was a case of wrongdoing on the part of Jesus.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
If Christians can't get their own story straight, how is anyone supposed to take them and their claims seriously?....



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
If Christians can't get their own story straight, how is anyone supposed to take them and their claims seriously?....


Which is the beauty of Christianity. We don't have to agree on every point of any gray area. Some things are not just black and white.

Would you rather we be like Muslims and behead you if you didn't agree?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Which is the beauty of Christianity. We don't have to agree on every point of any gray area. Some things are not just black and white. 


There's not a single element of the christian faith that all christians agree on....


Would you rather we be like Muslims and behead you if you didn't agree?


Again with the Islamophobia, why even bring up another religion? Is it because you're unable to defend your own?



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Does it need defending?

If someone is genuinely interested in a religion or spiritual path, they should look and see for themselves.True religion is supposed to cultivate a personal relationship to the Divine.Do think the Divine is going to hold back on that?

The church doesn't own your soul.Use your own heart and think for yourself.If the principles that stand behind a religion hold water, they should work for you too.If they don't look somewhere else, and use your discretion to separate the wheat from chaff.
edit on 7-5-2015 by dffrntkndfnml because: grammer



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join