Did Jesus bring a message of peace?

[Desert Snake]

Did Jesus bring a message of peace?
Difficult to tell, as more often than not He is portrayed
as a man who 'fought ' the Pharisees & Romans...
So, man of peace?...

 

[sun rise]

I would not say a message of peace as such. To me, his essential message is contained in the Sermon on the Mount and identifying the law of love as the two greatest commandments. One part of the Sermon is, of course, a statement blessing peacemakers but there are other messages in that sermon.

 

[JayJayDee]

Did Jesus bring a message of peace?
Difficult to tell, as more often than not He is portrayed
as a man who 'fought ' the Pharisees & Romans...
So, man of peace?...

Ever hear of righteous indignation? Jesus did not 'fight 'anything but man-made traditions, false teachings and misrepresentation concerning his Father. That makes him a defender of truth.

He never physically 'fought' anyone. When he drove the money changers out of the temple, he used a whip of ropes, but not on the people. He drove out the animals that merchants had brought into his Father's house to sell to their Jewish brothers at inflated prices.

 

[BSM1]

Ever hear of righteous indignation? Jesus did not 'fight 'anything but man-made traditions, false teachings and misrepresentation concerning his Father. That makes him a defender of truth.

He never physically 'fought' anyone. When he drove the money changers out of the temple, he used a whip of ropes, but not on the people. He drove out the animals that merchants had brought into his Father's house to sell to their Jewish brothers at inflated prices.

Actually the moneychangers were exchanging 'coin of the realm' into temple coin at an exaggerated fee, not selling animals...but be that as it may, why did Yeshua tell his disciples to sell their packs and buy swords?

 

[Huey09]

Actually the moneychangers were exchanging 'coin of the realm' into temple coin at an exaggerated fee, not selling animals...but be that as it may, why did Yeshua tell his disciples to sell their packs and buy swords?

Sorry for butting in the conversation but I'll throw in my two cents.

I believe that is summed up in ecclesiastes(3:17) "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven."

While jesus preached peace and love I don't think he was against defending your life or family. Also I think jesus told his disciples be innocent as doves but wise like snakes. He knew that the desert was often dangerous and that sometimes you have to fight the wolves to save the sheep.

 

[metis]

Do any of you believe, as many in the "peace churches" do, that Jesus taught against the use of deadly violence?

 

[Desert Snake]

Do any of you believe, as many in the "peace churches" do, that Jesus taught against the use of deadly violence?

How familiar are you with Christian ideas regarding this? Just curious, I can answer your question, in part.

Anyways I believe your wording is a bit off there.

 

[4consideration]

Do any of you believe, as many in the "peace churches" do, that Jesus taught against the use of deadly violence?

I'm not sure what you mean by "peace churches", so my comment is mostly on the second part of your question, and what I think you might be referring to in the first part.

I think that Jesus presented a message of peaceful resolution, and that much of his message was addressed to the individual, and internal processes -- that would eventually result in peaceful external actions.

I think he taught that violence was not the solution to life's problems, but I don't think he taught (like a prohibition in all cases) against the use of deadly violence in the protection of one's life, or the life of an innocence.

I think the teaching of "turning the other cheek" is sometimes used as an argument against defending oneself. I disagree with that interpretation, if it is taken to the extreme that one should apply it to a person initiating life threatening action -- like with a weapon.

I think his teachings allow for personal prudence regarding degrees of potential harm. What I mean is that I think that teaching was about not being the one to escalate an insult or a "slap in the face" (something painful, insulting, but not life threatening) into a situation involving bloodshed. By turning the other cheek, on does not pull a weapon as a reaction to an insult.

Additionally, I see that teaching as informing his followers that one can hold firm and not allow another to control one's actions and behavior by "having to" react in the predictable (and possibly socially acceptable/expected way) of returning an attack with an attack.

 

[metis]

How familiar are you with Christian ideas regarding this? Just curious, I can answer your question, in part.

Anyways I believe your wording is a bit off there.

I taught Christian theology to adults for 14 years, including studying both the Amish and Mennonite in northern Indiana, so I'm quite familiar with the various arguments.

Anyhow, since this is in the Christian DIR forum, which I do respect, I'll leave it up to you to reword what I had asked so as to make more sense to you and maybe some others.

 

[metis]

I'm not sure what you mean by "peace churches", so my comment is mostly on the second part of your question, and what I think you might be referring to in the first part.

I think that Jesus presented a message of peaceful resolution, and that much of his message was addressed to the individual, and internal processes -- that would eventually result in peaceful external actions.

I think he taught that violence was not the solution to life's problems, but I don't think he taught (like a prohibition in all cases) against the use of deadly violence in the protection of one's life, or the life of an innocence.

I think the teaching of "turning the other cheek" is sometimes used as an argument against defending oneself. I disagree with that interpretation, if it is taken to the extreme that one should apply it to a person initiating life threatening action -- like with a weapon.

I think his teachings allow for personal prudence regarding degrees of potential harm. What I mean is that I think that teaching was about not being the one to escalate an insult or a "slap in the face" (something painful, insulting, but not life threatening) into a situation involving bloodshed. By turning the other cheek, on does not pull a weapon as a reaction to an insult.

Additionally, I see that teaching as informing his followers that one can hold firm and not allow another to control one's actions and behavior by "having to" react in the predictable (and possibly socially acceptable/expected way) of returning an attack with an attack.

Points of clarification:

"Peace churches" would be the Mennonite, Amish, Society of Friends (Quakers), J.W.'s, and some others, which believe that deadly force should not be used even in self-defense, which is what they believe Jesus taught.

My second point of clarification is that what you say above has long been what Judaism taught both then and now (only a prophet or God directly could authorize a war of offense), and yet it seems that Jesus went beyond that in the direction of not using deadly force, therefore do you catch that change in tone as well? What does "turn the other cheek" and "be as harmless as doves" mean if not that?

 

[Desert Snake]

I taught Christian theology to adults for 14 years, including studying both the Amish and Mennonite in northern Indiana, so I'm quite familiar with the various arguments.

Anyhow, since this is in the Christian DIR forum, which I do respect, I'll leave it up to you to reword what I had asked so as to make more sense to you and maybe some others.

This isn't a debate forum though, I'll let the mods decide what to do, I'm not preaching here, clearly you don't follow our religion, that's fine with me.

 

[metis]

This isn't a debate forum though, I'll let the mods decide what to do, I'm not preaching here, clearly you don't follow our religion, that's fine with me.

Why would you ask me questions if you believed that my answering them would violate the DIR? Anyhow, I'm asking questions-- not trying to score points in a debate

 

[Desert Snake]

Why would you ask me questions if you believed that my answering them would violate the DIR? Anyhow, I'm asking questions-- not trying to score points in a debate

You lumped a few 'plus others' churches into the same category, it doesn't make sense. I'm not going to argue it, however, as I said, this isn't a debate forum.

 

[4consideration]

Points of clarification:

"Peace churches" would be the Mennonite, Amish, Society of Friends (Quakers), J.W.'s, and some others, which believe that deadly force should not be used even in self-defense, which is what they believe Jesus taught.

Thanks for the clarification.

My second point of clarification is that what you say above has long been what Judaism taught both then and now (only a prophet or God directly could authorize a war of offense), and yet it seems that Jesus went beyond that in the direction of not using deadly force, therefore do you catch that change in tone as well? What does "turn the other cheek" and "be as harmless as doves" mean if not that?

I think there may a subtle change of tone, but not to the degree of being an instruction against the use of violence for self defense in all situations.

I think of it more like an awareness of a step in understanding being available, beyond an "eye for an eye", since he introduces the concept of turning the other cheek with reference to the their own understanding that they have a right to retaliate, to take what has been taken from them, but that it is not always necessary, nor promoting of peace and well-being to do so -- even if it is recognized that one has the right to it.

Matthew 5:38 "You have heard the commandment, 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But what I say to you is offer no resistance to injury. When a person strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other."

I think this is a message of peace, and of how we as individuals may bring more peaceful resolutions to conflict in our personal lives. The other examples provided in the rest of the section, verses 40-42, I see as examples of things that are minor injuries, bothersome -- but not threats of harm of a serious, or permanent, nature.

I think "be as harmless as doves" may well be a good rule of thumb and considered along the same lines as "turning the other cheek", and I think a person may take that as indication of it being part of "right behavior", but that specific instruction (in Matthew 10) was given to his disciples, as part of his specific instructions to them. I would not accept that verse as evidence that Jesus is telling me not to physically defend myself, or another, in any and all situations today.

I think we ought to keep in mind that this discussion is about whether or not Jesus's message was one of peace, or fighting what may be wrong -- just so we don't take it too far off track with a conversation about whether or not being peaceful means not to defend yourself.

I think his overall message was of peace, and of developing an understanding within oneself -- to apply to oneself -- that contributes to promoting peaceful circumstances in life.

 

[sun rise]

Thanks for the clarification.
...
I think his overall message was of peace, and of developing an understanding within oneself -- to apply to oneself -- that contributes to promoting peaceful circumstances in life.

That also ties in with what he named as the second greatest Commandment - love another as oneself. Sometimes violence can be an expression of love.

There's a great example I once read about how to apply this. If you come across someone who's drowning and struggling you might have to punch that person out in order to save them because of how they struggle. That is violence in a sense but the motive is one of helping another.

Similarly if you see someone being attacked, do you do nothing in the name of peace or do you come to the aid of the person being attacked? Again the motive for violence is the key.

 

[Pegg]

Did Jesus bring a message of peace?
Difficult to tell, as more often than not He is portrayed
as a man who 'fought ' the Pharisees & Romans...
So, man of peace?...

He taught the way to peace with God which is the most important peace we can hope to obtain.

But that in itself tends to divide people into two camps. Those who want peace with God and those who dont.

Thats why Jesus also said "I have come to bring, not peace, but a sword"

the sword he spoke of is the division between those who want peace with God and those who dont.

 

[Bunyip]

Jesus tells us that he came not to bring peace, but the sword. (Mathew 10:34)

 

[metis]

Thanks for the clarification.




I think there may a subtle change of tone, but not to the degree of being an instruction against the use of violence for self defense in all situations.

I think of it more like an awareness of a step in understanding being available, beyond an "eye for an eye", since he introduces the concept of turning the other cheek with reference to the their own understanding that they have a right to retaliate, to take what has been taken from them, but that it is not always necessary, nor promoting of peace and well-being to do so -- even if it is recognized that one has the right to it.

Matthew 5:38 "You have heard the commandment, 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But what I say to you is offer no resistance to injury. When a person strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other."

I think this is a message of peace, and of how we as individuals may bring more peaceful resolutions to conflict in our personal lives. The other examples provided in the rest of the section, verses 40-42, I see as examples of things that are minor injuries, bothersome -- but not threats of harm of a serious, or permanent, nature.

I think "be as harmless as doves" may well be a good rule of thumb and considered along the same lines as "turning the other cheek", and I think a person may take that as indication of it being part of "right behavior", but that specific instruction (in Matthew 10) was given to his disciples, as part of his specific instructions to them. I would not accept that verse as evidence that Jesus is telling me not to physically defend myself, or another, in any and all situations today.

I think we ought to keep in mind that this discussion is about whether or not Jesus's message was one of peace, or fighting what may be wrong -- just so we don't take it too far off track with a conversation about whether or not being peaceful means not to defend yourself.

I think his overall message was of peace, and of developing an understanding within oneself -- to apply to oneself -- that contributes to promoting peaceful circumstances in life.

Thanks for the above, but I wish this was on a different forum than a DIR because I'm very familiar with why the peace churches look at this differently, and a real debate between what you're proposing and they would be interesting to see. However, ...

shalom

 

[Nadia Faiazova]

Jesus taught us that the only relief for us humans can come through God's Kingdom,his ruling government.This is itself a peaceful message,although the respond of people to it's message is not always peaceful.

 

[thepersianpuzzle]

My opinion, ill say read Matthew 10:34.

Also, you need to look at it like this: does christianity make people kinder, because of à fear for god or does it cause wars?. Does it truly turn someone against his father?