Jesus Failed Right?

[PearlSeeker]

... do you see anything in his personal interactions with people that looks to you like a good example to follow?

The gospels don't show a complete picture of his personality but there are some indications of kindness. He talked to, ate with, healed... people who were outcasts, marginalized, despised, hated... He forgives the people who tortured him...

 

[metis]

I'm not an expert in it, but I seem to recall that the Jewish bishops and Ebionites were excluded from the council of Nicea. You don't really hear much more about them after that. They simply died out.

They were splinter groups who claimed that only they had the truth and the "real gospels". The main purpose of the Council at Nicaea was to select which books should be canonized plus what is it that was needed for minimum orthodoxy. They also hoped to bring in those in Arianism through compromise, and it did indeed work even though that left an inconsistency within the creed itself.

 

[metis]

I realize that Paul taught the new covenant had come. It was part of his plan to undermine the law.

I believe it was more that Paul wanted to attract more Gentiles plus take a position that Jesus appears to take, namely that the entire Law is about love of God and neighbor.

However, it's hard to try to figure out what was in a person's mind 2000 years ago.

 

[metis]

But Paul didn't preach that Jewish believers needed to keep the law, did he?

Actually, he did, but did he stay with that provision until the end I don't know.

 

[Niatero]

The gospels don't show a complete picture of his personality but there are some indications of kindness. He talked to, ate with, healed... people who were outcasts, marginalized, despised, hated... He forgives the people who tortured him...

All I can think of is that it wasn't necessary for his purposes for the stories about him to include examples of his warmth and kindness in personal interactions with people..

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Still, if the story be true, it was really dumb of Jesus to assault the money changers and not the people at the Temple in charge of policy.

There are a few passages in the Bible that claim Jesus was sinless, including 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; and 1 John 3:5. However, the scriptures about his bad reaction to the money changers in the temple (Matthew 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; and John 2:13–16) plainly illustrate that he was visibly outraged and in a fit of rage. In my opinion, Jesus was not sinless because he was uncontrollably angry and in a fit of rage as he turned over all the tables and used a whip to force the money changers out of the temple. I've heard Christians argue that his behavior was justified, but is that true in light of Galatians 5:19–21? If you read these verses, you will notice that discord, fits of rage, and dissensions are defined as "works of the flesh" and thus considered sin in the Bible. Furthermore, Jesus did not exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (which is defined as love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control in verses 22–24) when expressing his anger and rage in the temple. Finally, it appears that Jesus also did not practice what he preached during his uncontrollable raging fit, such as "love your neighbor as yourself," "turn the other cheek," "treat others the way you want to be treated," as well as "love your enemies, pray for your enemies, and do good to your enemies." Do you think he was sinless? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

 

[Niatero]

Jesus was a great teacher and a healer.

Thinking about him healing people, I just thought of something I never thought of before. One time or maybe more than once after he heals someone, he says not to tell anyone, but it's no secret that he's healing people. People are continually coming from far and wide to be healed. Why does he tell that one person not to tell anyone. Is it something about the circumstance of that particular healing?

 

[Niatero]

There are a few passages in the Bible that claim Jesus was sinless, including 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; and 1 John 3:5. However, the scriptures about his bad reaction to the money changers in the temple (Matthew 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; and John 2:13–16) plainly illustrate that he was visibly outraged and in a fit of rage. In my opinion, Jesus was not sinless because he was uncontrollably angry and in a fit of rage as he turned over all the tables and used a whip to force the money changers out of the temple. I've heard Christians argue that his behavior was justified, but is that true in light of Galatians 5:19–21? If you read these verses, you will notice that discord, fits of rage, and dissensions are defined as "works of the flesh" and thus considered sin in the Bible. Furthermore, Jesus did not exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (which is defined as love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control in verses 22–24) when expressing his anger and rage in the temple. Finally, it appears that Jesus also did not practice what he preached during his uncontrollable raging fit, such as "love your neighbor as yourself," "turn the other cheek," "treat others the way you want to be treated," as well as "love your enemies, pray for your enemies, and do good to your enemies." Do you think he was sinless? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

It doesn't say anything about him being in a fit of rage. That might be how people often picture it, but I don't see any reason in the text to think that he was in a fit of rage.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

It doesn't say anything about him being in a fit of rage. That might be how people often picture it, but I don't see any reason in the text to think that he was in a fit of rage.

How would you define this kind of behavior?

"15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” (John 2:15-16).

If you saw someone behave like this in a church or elsewhere in public, would you assume that they were extremely angry and in a fit of rage?

 

[Niatero]

How would you define this kind of behavior?

"15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” (John 2:15-16).

If you saw someone behave like this in a church or elsewhere in public, would you assume that they were extremely angry and in a fit of rage?

That would depend on their tone of voice, and the expression on their face and other body language.

(later) Some of what Jesus does in the gospel stories looks to me like a kind of performance, actions that illustrate some lesson he's teaching or point he's making, usually related to passages from the Old Testament. In this case it could be "... mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people" ( Isaiah 56:7) and "Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?" (Jeremiah 7:11).

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

That would depend on their tone of voice, and the expression on their face and other body language.

I'd be seriously concerned and distressed if I saw someone overturning tables, scattering money everywhere, insisting that people get out and stop selling their products, and especially swinging a whip around to force people (and/or animals) out of a church or somewhere else in public. In fact, I'd call the police and report the incident, hoping that they would come and arrest this person. In my opinion, the police would also see the urgency of removing this person from the public before he or she hurts someone. There is no way that I would just stand idly by and not do what I could to stop a person like that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It doesn't say anything about him being in a fit of rage. That might be how people often picture it, but I don't see any reason in the text to think that he was in a fit of rage.

He aggressively attacked people--and innocent cattle--with a weapon. How is that not a fit of rage?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes, I believe the human race needs redemption by God. Thank you. If you don't believe that, that's your right.

Thank you for clarifying that what you stated in your previous post is just your personal belief. Yes, I believe differently.

 

[Spice]

I share this piece I ran across some time, somewhere, that speaks to my idea of the historical, or real, Jesus:

Look into the mirror.

Jesus was not some sweet, neatly-shaven white guy who carried a baby lamb in his arms, picking daisies, patting children on the head and spouting off sappy stories about being nice. That halo around his head in the picture doesn't work either. Jesus was no saint.

Jesus raised hell against the religious establishment, and his life was a middle-finger to the ways religion oppressed, exploited, and divided people. He once drove a bunch of hypocrites out of the temple, wielding a whip. Jesus was not fond of entrenched power structures - political or religious. Whether in the name of God or Caesar, Jesus would have none of it.

There was a Jesus before Christianity. That Jesus was fierce, courageous, and unyielding. He stood for the inherent worth of every human being. He denounced the religious lie that humankind was separated from God and told people to find heaven within themselves. Jesus proclaimed another world was possible. He chastised people for sitting around waiting for God to save the world, and challenged them to wake up and save it themselves.

Jesus rebuked those who tried to make a religion out of him, and insisted that everyone is Jesus. He proclaimed that the hope of the world is not floating up in the sky, but present in our own hearts. The real Jesus of history was a lightning rod. The religious establishment hurriedly condemned him to death for blasphemy, while the political regime executed him for sedition.

The church is fond of asking the WWJD question.

P L E A S E! Let's be honest here. Very few people truly sign up to live as Jesus did. It's much easier to make Jesus into a religion and sing about him on Sundays, and get all dressed up for Christmas and Easter.

Jesus said you have to take up a cross in order to follow him. In other words, to join the revolution Jesus started meant you had to quit playing religion, confront your ego, give up your comforts, speak truth to power, and endure hardship and suffering. No one really wants to do that. The cheap alternative is to wear a cross and sing Jesus songs.”

Jim Palmer, Inner Anarchy

 

[YoursTrue]

I'd be seriously concerned and distressed if I saw someone overturning tables, scattering money everywhere, insisting that people get out and stop selling their products, and especially swinging a whip around to force people (and/or animals) out of a church or somewhere else in public. In fact, I'd call the police and report the incident, hoping that they would come and arrest this person. In my opinion, the police would also see the urgency of removing this person from the public before he or she hurts someone. There is no way that I would just stand idly by and not do what I could to stop a person like that.

In my opinion, Jesus was zealous for God's works. He was eventually "stopped." And that's also when God Almighty stepped in for those who understand, and appreciate what Jesus and his Father did.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

In my opinion, Jesus was zealous for God's works. He was eventually "stopped."

In my opinion, Jesus showed himself to be a hypocrite in this story by not practicing what he preached, losing his temper, and being violent. He made a whip out of cords and swung it around, scattered coins all over the place, overturned tables, and yelled at the people selling doves, demanding that they remove the birds from the temple. He preached about not judging others, loving your neighbor as yourself, and loving your enemies. He preached about forgiveness, turning the other cheek, and treating others the way you would like to be treated. Furthermore, he preached about being meek, merciful, and a peacemaker. He did not, however, demonstrate any of these teachings during his violent reaction to the money changers and merchants in the temple.

And that's also when God Almighty stepped in for those who understand, and appreciate what Jesus and his Father did.

I don't appreciate someone who claims to speak for God being violent (or abusive) toward me or others. I will see this person as nothing more than a sanctimonious hypocrite if they don't practice what they preach. If someone I know goes around instructing others to love their neighbor as themselves and love their enemies, but they behave violently towards people who make them angry and destroy private or public property in a fit of rage, then it's clear to me that they are a hypocrite. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't set well with me. I can't respect someone who doesn't practice what they preach. In conclusion, I'd like to say that maybe Jesus was just a man with nothing divine about him, as I already assumed and discussed in other posts, like this one.

 

[blü 2]

There are a few passages in the Bible that claim Jesus was sinless, including 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:22; and 1 John 3:5. However, the scriptures about his bad reaction to the money changers in the temple (Matthew 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; and John 2:13–16) plainly illustrate that he was visibly outraged and in a fit of rage. In my opinion, Jesus was not sinless because he was uncontrollably angry and in a fit of rage as he turned over all the tables and used a whip to force the money changers out of the temple. I've heard Christians argue that his behavior was justified, but is that true in light of Galatians 5:19–21? If you read these verses, you will notice that discord, fits of rage, and dissensions are defined as "works of the flesh" and thus considered sin in the Bible. Furthermore, Jesus did not exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (which is defined as love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control in verses 22–24) when expressing his anger and rage in the temple. Finally, it appears that Jesus also did not practice what he preached during his uncontrollable raging fit, such as "love your neighbor as yourself," "turn the other cheek," "treat others the way you want to be treated," as well as "love your enemies, pray for your enemies, and do good to your enemies." Do you think he was sinless? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Paul's Jesus has virtually no earthly history, except that he was born of parents descended from David and died by crucifixion, and appeared to 500 of the faithful after his death. (If I've omitted any details here, I doubt they were reports of Jesus' bad form.)

The three synoptic versions of Jesus and John's are all guilty of unjustified and misplaced disturbance of the moneychangers, though John's is a clear notch more violent than the earlier three. (Stories orally transmitted always tend to improve, as the teller, perhaps unconsciously, adjusts parts of the story that he or she isn't comfortable with, or that he or she apprehends might either displease or particularly appeal to the hearer. For example, Jesus' utter misery and abject defeat on the cross make Mark's and Matthew's versions cry out that their God had forsaken them, but by the time we get to John, Jesus is portrayed as wholly in charge of the scene.)

Jesus is nasty, outright aggro, towards his mother in all four gospels (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26).

The question of compensation to the owner of the swine arises in the synoptics, but the story isn't mentioned in Paul or John.

That's all without any particular research ─ I'd be surprised if there weren't more.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.............. No one knows what the future holds or even much about the spiritual/eternal realm. I don’t think humans would know at all except for God’s revelation. I wouldn’t believe anyone, not even me. I think asking God alone for truth and guidance is the best.

Yes, asking God for truth and guidance is best, and best as found in God's Word/ Scripture.
To me Jesus knew what the future holds because Jesus said the meek will inherit the Earth - Matt.5:5; Psalms 37:9-11; 22:26
That future will start with the coming 'final signal', so to speak as found at 1st Thess. 5:2-3 when the powers in charge are saying, "Peace and Security....." but that Rosy saying is the precursor to the coming Great Tribulation of Rev. 7:14
It is then the ' sword-like words from Jesus' mouth ' will rid the Earth of troublemakers - Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-15.
Armageddon survivors are the ones who will beat war weapons into peaceful farm implements - Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3-4.
God will bring an end to war throughout the whole Earth - Psalm 46:9; Psalm 72:8, 12-14
The future of Earth is painted for us by the beautiful word picture as described in Isaiah's 35th chapter.

 

[Niatero]

The three synoptic versions of Jesus and John's are all guilty of unjustified and misplaced disturbance of the moneychangers, though John's is a clear notch more violent than the earlier three. (Stories orally transmitted always tend to improve, as the teller, perhaps unconsciously, adjusts parts of the story that he or she isn't comfortable with, or that he or she apprehends might either displease or particularly appeal to the hearer.

My view of it is in the context of what I think the story is all about. Part of what I think it's all about is that Jesus is a promised king of Israel, with all the authority and power of God. Most or all of his actions in the story are designed to teach a lesson or make a point, and he continually relates what he's doing to passages in the Old Testament. Clearing out the temple is not in an impulsive fit of rage, it's part of what he came here to do, as a part of the story he's telling. He relates it to "... mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people" ( Isaiah 56:7) and "Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?" (Jeremiah 7:11) He has all the authority and power of God, which includes the authority to clear out the temple, no matter if the temple authorities approve of it or not. He is not here to argue with the temple authorities. He's here to clear out the temple, for the next part of his story.

For example, Jesus' utter misery and abject defeat on the cross make Mark's and Matthew's versions cry out that their God had forsaken them, but by the time we get to John, Jesus is portrayed as wholly in charge of the scene.

"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" is not a cry of despair. It's a part of his story. It's from one of the psalms, which begins with those words, and ends with these:

"All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom is the Lord's: and he is the governor among the nations. All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul. A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this."

 

[YoursTrue]

In my opinion, Jesus showed himself to be a hypocrite in this story by not practicing what he preached, losing his temper, and being violent. He made a whip out of cords and swung it around, scattered coins all over the place, overturned tables, and yelled at the people selling doves, demanding that they remove the birds from the temple. He preached about not judging others, loving your neighbor as yourself, and loving your enemies. He preached about forgiveness, turning the other cheek, and treating others the way you would like to be treated. Furthermore, he preached about being meek, merciful, and a peacemaker. He did not, however, demonstrate any of these teachings during his violent reaction to the money changers and merchants in the temple.



I don't appreciate someone who claims to speak for God being violent (or abusive) toward me or others. I will see this person as nothing more than a sanctimonious hypocrite if they don't practice what they preach. If someone I know goes around instructing others to love their neighbor as themselves and love their enemies, but they behave violently towards people who make them angry and destroy private or public property in a fit of rage, then it's clear to me that they are a hypocrite. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't set well with me. I can't respect someone who doesn't practice what they preach. In conclusion, I'd like to say that maybe Jesus was just a man with nothing divine about him, as I already assumed and discussed in other posts, like this one.

That's how you see it. I see it differently and won't argue over it.