|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 28, 2017 11:29:21 GMT
This is circular. I don't think Jesus was standing around whipping people because free people aren't that stupid. However, if some people were in a place disrespecting my dad I would want them and their stuff to leave. If my dad was the most powerful force in the universe I would probably leave him to his own battles. If I thought I was my own dad of course, or even just a third of him, then I would be too confused to proceed. What can I tell you...You ain't Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 28, 2017 11:36:42 GMT
If my dad was the most powerful force in the universe I would probably leave him to his own battles. If I thought I was my own dad of course, or even just a third of him, then I would be too confused to proceed. What can I tell you...You ain't Jesus. You just need to have faith, my son. Accept me and then you will be happy.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 28, 2017 13:37:14 GMT
What can I tell you...You ain't Jesus. You just need to have faith, my son. Accept me and then you will be happy. In order to have faith, you need to make me a cheeseburger and then I'll think about it...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 28, 2017 13:47:53 GMT
You just need to have faith, my son. Accept me and then you will be happy. In order to have faith, you need to make me a cheeseburger and then I'll think about it... Well when I said blessed are the cheesemakers back in the day, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Mar 28, 2017 20:13:51 GMT
Soooooo, if someone perpetuated fraud against you, do you feel the appropriate (reasonable) reaction would be to whip them? Just checking. This is circular. I don't think Jesus was standing around whipping people because free people aren't that stupid. However, if some people were in a place disrespecting my dad I would want them and their stuff to leave. Fair enough on the rest of your response. I don't get the connection to it being circular, however.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 28, 2017 20:44:59 GMT
Only because I didn't believe in the first place that he was whipping people.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 29, 2017 9:09:39 GMT
Only because I didn't believe in the first place that he was whipping people. Why would Christ fashion a scourge, drive people forcefully before him and necessarily be assumed not to have used it in the process?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 29, 2017 9:21:53 GMT
Only because I didn't believe in the first place that he was whipping people. Why would Christ fashion a scourge, drive people forcefully before him and necessarily be assumed not to have used it in the process? He could have snapped it without touching them to get the sorry bastards moving. I don't know if He actually whipped them, and it wouldn't bother me if he had whipped them. I'm just saying that perhaps the threat was enough.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 29, 2017 9:24:17 GMT
Why would Christ fashion a scourge, drive people forcefully before him and necessarily be assumed not to have used it in the process? He could have snapped it without touching them to get the sorry bastards moving. I don't know if He actually whipped them, and it wouldn't bother me if he had whipped them. I'm just saying that perhaps the threat was enough. Indeed, but then the Bible doesn't say or imply that, does it? I agree that a threat could have been enough, but even then intimidation of this sort sits oddly with the idea of the 'Prince of Peace'.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 29, 2017 9:32:32 GMT
He could have snapped it without touching them to get the sorry bastards moving. I don't know if He actually whipped them, and it wouldn't bother me if he had whipped them. I'm just saying that perhaps the threat was enough. Indeed, but then the Bible doesn't say or imply that, does it? I agree that a threat could have been enough, but even then intimidation of this sort sits oddly with the idea of the 'Prince of Peace'. What would you have used? Flowers and candy?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 29, 2017 9:42:24 GMT
Indeed, but then the Bible doesn't say or imply that, does it? I agree that a threat could have been enough, but even then intimidation of this sort sits oddly with the idea of the 'Prince of Peace'. What would you have used? Flowers and candy? Nah, I would stick with the scourge. After all Jesus, er God, or whatever is always right, and that was the choice of weapon he made. This is the man, er deity don't forget, who so easily lost his temper with a fig tree and swine, so he was probably on a hair trigger at times. Who am I to argue in favour of firm non-violent means in the light of such a informed personality?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 29, 2017 9:50:21 GMT
What would you have used? Flowers and candy? Nah, I would stick with the scourge. After all Jesus, er God, or whatever is always right, and that was the choice of weapon he made. This is the man, don't forget, who so easily lost his temper with a fig tree and swine, so he was probably on a hair trigger at times. Who am I to argue in favour of firm non-violent means in the light of such a informed personality? Essentially, yes.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 29, 2017 11:19:06 GMT
Only because I didn't believe in the first place that he was whipping people. Why would Christ fashion a scourge, drive people forcefully before him and necessarily be assumed not to have used it in the process? The scripture speaks for itself. I guess it's possible that Jesus was allowed to beat people in the temple with a bathc of small ropes, but I'm not sure why anyone would jumpy to that conclusion considering all the stuff that was in the market that Jesus was getting out. Anyway, I've discussed this numerous times at this point ad so without verification that people were mercilessly beaten by small chords, I'm going to assume he was using them to herd everything out. Is that OK with you?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 29, 2017 11:26:25 GMT
He could have snapped it without touching them to get the sorry bastards moving. I don't know if He actually whipped them, and it wouldn't bother me if he had whipped them. I'm just saying that perhaps the threat was enough. Indeed, but then the Bible doesn't say or imply that, does it? I agree that a threat could have been enough, but even then intimidation of this sort sits oddly with the idea of the 'Prince of Peace'. A threat wouldn't be enough. Jesus had no legal authority to tell them to leave. He was acting purely on the notion that they weren't supposed to be there and especially to defraud people. Jesus being Prince of Peace simply means that he is going to usher in peace for the righteous. There's going to be tons of wicked people that die in order to accomplish that. Hippy Jesus is a concept not supported by Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 29, 2017 11:30:48 GMT
Why would Christ fashion a scourge, drive people forcefully before him and necessarily be assumed not to have used it in the process? The scripture speaks for itself. Indeed it does; and this is probably why you here have to further assume things to explain matters away. Well maybe since Jesus was carrying a scourge? As previously said if Jesus - God - was always right, then He would be presumably right in carrying a weapon. But then again perhaps he was just a lover of, er, rope and knotting. Yes, an a-minor chord can certainly beat a person down, especially as part of an organ pedal point I guess. Jesus, er God, would have known that of course as he knew everything.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 29, 2017 11:36:22 GMT
Indeed; and let us not forget that JC said explicitly that we were 'not to consider he came to bring peace' - and, come to that, he came with 'a sword' (although admittedly a metaphorical one it is still not an olive branch).
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 29, 2017 11:45:55 GMT
FilmFlaneurIt's more that you are explaining it toward you assumptions. All you have to say is that the scripture is saying Jesus is beating up people with a bundle of small cords. We aren;t required to agree with each other on this. If you want to argue about it to completion, show me more proof. ILacking that prof, I prefer to use logic and reading comprehension. Let me know if I should be using something else to deduce things as you do! Jesus carrying a scourge/whip of small cords to herd people and animals out of an area he didn't want them in would be a logical thing to have. If he wanted to hurt them, he could have used a sword or a stick or an actual Indiana Jones whip or a myriad angels at his disposal. Again, ou do you and I'll do me until further proof is shown to exaggerate the story beyond what is clearly written. Curse my spelling ability! Anyway, Jesus, even if he were God which he's not (Something else spelled out in the verses), would not be mandated to foreknow anything which is why the theophobiac's version of omniscience is silly.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 29, 2017 12:07:47 GMT
I have not said this so it is a strawman, I merely note that Jesus, who is always right, deliberately brought a scourge to a set-to. The Bible does not say he used it. But it is a reasonable assertion that this might have been the case, given the tumult that ensued, and that at the very least one can think he was prepared to.
I am not arguing my friend. The proof of what your Christ brought, ready, to a physical occasion is in the verse. If he didn't think he needed it, then he would have left it at home, along with his carpentry set.
Indeed, but of course that would have you assuming things again. Jesus might also have brought toffees and balloons for all we know. I can only comment on what scripture tells us he actually had, and on the basis that Jesus, er God, would have always done the right thing and so, knowing what was to ensue, was appropriately prepared. If we assume that Jesus was unable to know what was right and so brought the scourge in error then that is whole different discussion, not least since we can ask: in connection with what other things can Jesus possibly also be wrong about?
The only exaggeration is from those who assume and then introduce new elements on that basis.
I don't hold a view either way, it is not my mythology. But others will, and have, insisted that JC was indeed God on earth.
Since it is commonly accepted that Jesus foreknew the circumstances of his own early demise at the very least, this is an odd thing to say. And it is unlikely, since no one (1 Cor 2:11) apparently knows the mind of God, and that the deity apparently works in mysterious ways, that you can tell what was 'mandated' or not.
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
|
Post by filmfan95 on Mar 30, 2017 3:51:21 GMT
I would suppose that Jesus made the whip specifically for driving out the animals. The text never mentions him whipping anybody, so we don't really know if he whipped the humans or even threatened them with it. All we have to go on is that he made a whip for some reason. My interpretation is that it was for driving out the animals, as the text is ambiguous on this point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 12:54:07 GMT
I would suppose that Jesus made the whip specifically for driving out the animals. The text never mentions him whipping anybody, so we don't really know if he whipped the humans or even threatened them with it. All we have to go on is that he made a whip for some reason. My interpretation is that it was for driving out the animals, as the text is ambiguous on this point. The historical context dictates that he was driving out the animals. They were kept under the tables, so he turned them over and cracked a whip to get them to get out of the temple. And, as you said, the text never said that he whipped anybody.
|
|