Jesus Failed Right?

[Spice]

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.

Jesus even taught: do as the Pharisees say, but not as they do.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.



"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."

Also, I would like to mention in conjunction with your comments that Jesus said all authority had been given to him.
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

 

[Niatero]

Also, I would like to mention in conjunction with your comments that Jesus said all authority had been given to him.
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

I'm wondering if pointing that out has something to do with your views about Trinity doctrines.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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..

Agree. It seems that it wasn't the purpose of the gospels to fully portray him. The story mainly picks memorable teachings (parables, sayings), miracles and events that were interpreted as fulfillment of messianic prophesies. Gospel of John has long theological monologues and "I am..." claims in addition.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm wondering if pointing that out has something to do with your views about Trinity doctrines.

could be... what do you think, and how do you feel about it? When Jesus said all authority had been GIVEN him? And then, of course, the Bible says he will give everything back to the Father after he has accomplished what he needs to in reference to making this earth better. We can talk about this later perhaps -- it's time for my human eyes to close. Thanks for discussion.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

"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.

One lapse doesn't make him a bad man or hypocrite but I agree that the event in the temple is a problem because it contradicts his teachings. It's one of the few events that are included in all four gospels. Why would they include such a problematic event? It has to be included because it was well-known. There were many witnesses. Maybe he used the opportunity tho teach the crowd in a dramatic way (he didn't hurt anyone, just showed rage). The gospels add an appology/explanation for this to make it fit into his peaceful Messiah image.

Jesus of the gospels wasn't teaching without setting an example.

"just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."

"... learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart..."

"I have given you an example to follow."

 

[blü 2]

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.

I agree with your storyteller's view, and I'm conscious that very many parts of the gospels are woven from passages in the Tanakh that their authors thought convenient and employed for justification. Here, though, I was treating the story / stories as I've mostly encountered it/them, as a report/reports of an historical event.

"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."

It's a cry of despair in the narrative contexts of Mark and Matthew. (It's arguable that the accounts in Luke and in John omit them for that reason.) Those words appear in Psalm 22, where the setting and the design of the message are quite different.

 

[Niatero]

Maybe he used the opportunity tho teach the crowd in a dramatic way ...

That's how it looks to me.

"just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."

He says that to the twelve right after he washes their feet. Like he's saying that, metaphorically speaking, they should wash each other's feet.

"... learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart..."

He says that, and it might be true, but I don't see any examples of it in the stories. I don't see any examples of him being gentle and humble in heart, or any other examples for us to follow, in our personal interactions with people.

 

[Niatero]

could be... what do you think, and how do you feel about it? When Jesus said all authority had been GIVEN him? And then, of course, the Bible says he will give everything back to the Father after he has accomplished what he needs to in reference to making this earth better. We can talk about this later perhaps -- it's time for my human eyes to close. Thanks for discussion.

I'll go ahead and say what I think, and you can read it when you come back. It looks to me like Trinity doctrines grew out of the Nicene Creed, which was an agreement between leaders of feuding factions, designed to help stop the feuding, worded in a way that each faction could interpret in their own way, to be able to agree with it. Different churches say it in different ways, but they all say that there is only one God, but he is three distinct persons, and each of them is God. The way that works is that the words "distinct," "person" and "is" are not used in any way that they are ever used in any other context. It's designed to look and feel like it's saying something without actually communicating anything. People can, and do, think whatever they want to think about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and tell themselves that they agree with the Trinity doctrine, if they want to.

It looks to me like the Nicene Creed grew out of a dilemma of early Christian leaders. Jesus taught his followers some practices that looked like worshipping him as a god. In the stories it looks to me like he actually is a god as much as any Greek or Roman god, with more authority and power over us and the world around us than any of them ever had. Jesus also taught them to worship his Father, the God of Abraham. Either they believed that there is only one God to worship or for various reasons wanted people to think that they did. Some Christian leaders saw that as a problem, and different philosophers tried to solve it in different ways using Greek philosophy, which they told themselves was actually inspired by Moses.. Then factions started forming around them, feuding with each other. The Roman emperor saw that as a problem, and called for a meeting of a few of the leaders, to sign an agreement that he mistakenly thought he could use to stop the feuding, by removing Christian leaders from their positions if they openly disagreed with it.

(later) It looks to me like many Christians including the in the clergy don't actually believe everything in their creeds including what they say about the Trinity, but for reasons which aren't clear to me the churches continue to define themselves by them. Just as I wrote that I thought of a possible explanation. They need to have some way to explain the divisions between them, and between Christianity and other religions. The real reasons for the fragmentation are reasons that they don't want to admit, maybe not even to themselves, so they cover them up and divert attention from those reasons by saying that it's because of doctrinal differences.

(later) Maybe you're wondering what I really think about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus teaches us to call the God of Abraham "Father." Jesus is the king that God promised to David, saying "“I will be his father, and he shall be my son." It has nothing to do with the way he was conceived. I don't remember now how to explain what I think about the Holy Spirit, but I don't think it's wrong to think of it as a person. What's wrong is to think that's a requirement for salvation or to stigmatise people for not believing it.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'll go ahead and say what I think, and you can read it when you come back. It looks to me like Trinity doctrines grew out of the Nicene Creed, which was an agreement between leaders of feuding factions, designed to help stop the feuding, worded in a way that each faction could interpret in their own way, to be able to agree with it. Different churches say it in different ways, but they all say that there is only one God, but he is three distinct persons, and each of them is God. The way that works is that the words "distinct," "person" and "is" are not used in any way that they are ever used in any other context. It's designed to look and feel like it's saying something without actually communicating anything. People can, and do, think whatever they want to think about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and tell themselves that they agree with the Trinity doctrine, if they want to.

Hi. Thank you for answering. I take things in bits and pieces, so please excuse if I do not reply to everything at once. I have come to understand that the holy spirit is not a person, but the effective power of God in action. There's more to it, like pronouns and at least one scripture I have come to learn is not in early texts.

 

[YoursTrue]

One lapse doesn't make him a bad man or hypocrite but I agree that the event in the temple is a problem because it contradicts his teachings. It's one of the few events that are included in all four gospels. Why would they include such a problematic event? It has to be included because it was well-known. There were many witnesses. Maybe he used the opportunity tho teach the crowd in a dramatic way (he didn't hurt anyone, just showed rage). The gospels add an appology/explanation for this to make it fit into his peaceful Messiah image.

Jesus of the gospels wasn't teaching without setting an example.

"just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another."

"... learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart..."

"I have given you an example to follow."

Here's how I see it. Jesus did not kill anyone at the temple. He did not hurt anyone. He had righteous indignation and expressed it by cleansing the filthy works of those desecrating it and turning the temple into what he called a den of thieves. John chapter 2 helps to understand this, but frankly I'm pretty sure not will understand or want to understand. But that's ok, because that's how things go.

"And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: 15 and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew their tables; 16 and to them that sold the doves he said, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise.
17 His disciples remembered that it was written, Zeal for thy house shall eat me up."

 

[Niatero]

He had righteous indignation and expressed it by cleansing the filthy works of those desecrating it and turning the temple into what he called a den of thieves.

I have a different view of it, from my understanding of what the gospel stories are all about. I don't think that it's an impulsive reaction at all. I think it's part of what he intended to do when he came to Jerusalem. It's part of his story, as a promised king of Israel, with all the authority and power of God, including the authority to remove commercial activities from the temple. He relates it explicitly to scripture passages about proper and improper uses of the temple. It has some kind of deep significance in relation to his story, but I need to do some more research before I try to explain that.

 

[blü 2]

Jesus did not kill anyone at the temple. He did not hurt anyone.

He apparently struck blows in John's account. In all four versions he violently disrupted their lawful trading.

And of course if he was angry then it was wilful of him to unload on the money-changers, who were a traditional and lawful part of Temple practice. His real argument was with the Temple authorities, since only they had power to change the rules.

He had righteous indignation and expressed it by cleansing the filthy works of those desecrating it and turning the temple into what he called a den of thieves.

That was his view. The adjectives are perhaps his adjectives. But he was, as I said, barking up the wrong tree if he wanted to change things.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have a different view of it, from my understanding of what the gospel stories are all about. I don't think that it's an impulsive reaction at all. I think it's part of what he intended to do when he came to Jerusalem. It's part of his story, as a promised king of Israel, with all the authority and power of God, including the authority to remove commercial activities from the temple. He relates it explicitly to scripture passages about proper and improper uses of the temple. It has some kind of deep significance in relation to his story, but I need to do some more research before I try to explain that.

So far I don't think we're very different in our viewpoints.

 

[Niatero]

He apparently struck blows in John's account. In all four versions he violently disrupted their lawful trading.

And of course if he was angry then it was wilful of him to unload on the money-changers, who were a traditional and lawful part of Temple practice. His real argument was with the Temple authorities, since only they had power to change the rules.


That was his view. The adjectives are perhaps his adjectives. But he was, as I said, barking up the wrong tree if he wanted to change things.

If I'm understanding correctly, what you're saying is based on what you think really happened, and not on what the story is saying?

 

[Ajax]

I have a different view of it, from my understanding of what the gospel stories are all about. I don't think that it's an impulsive reaction at all. I think it's part of what he intended to do when he came to Jerusalem. It's part of his story, as a promised king of Israel, with all the authority and power of God, including the authority to remove commercial activities from the temple. He relates it explicitly to scripture passages about proper and improper uses of the temple. It has some kind of deep significance in relation to his story, but I need to do some more research before I try to explain that.

But did he show his authorization letter from God to the Temple authorities?
Would you let anyone unknown to take command of your house or business?

 

[Niatero]

But did he show his authorization letter from God to the Temple authorities?
Would you let anyone unknown to take command of your house or business?

In the story, he doesn't need to show them an authorization letter, to be able to clear out the temple. He just does it, without any mention of any interference from any authorities. He doesn't need the authorities to accept his authority at all, to do what he does. In fact later, when some of them question his authority, he asks them a question that shuts them down. They don't dare make any move against him in public.

 

[Ajax]

In the story, he doesn't need to show them an authorization letter, to be able to clear out the temple. He just does it, without any mention of any interference from any authorities. He doesn't need the authorities to accept his authority at all, to do what he does. In fact later, when some of them question his authority, he asks them a question that shuts them down. They don't dare make any move against him in public.

It seems strange to me, that any of the many "prophets" at the time in Judea could enter the Temple and cause havoc. The Temple authorities were well prepared for thieves and troublemakers and the building was heavily guarded with an armed force deployed to prevent just this sort of thing. Most likely they would have killed Jesus immediately.
Furthermore the Temple was finished by Herod on about 26 AD and the new Temple square served as a gathering/public place, and its porticoes sheltered merchants and money changers. Britannica
So the merchants were not situated in the Temple itself, but in the square where all Jews were gathered.

 

[Niatero]

It seems strange to me, that any of the many "prophets" at the time in Judea could enter the Temple and cause havoc. The Temple authorities were well prepared for thieves and troublemakers and the building was heavily guarded with an armed force deployed to prevent just this sort of thing. Most likely they would have killed Jesus immediately.
Furthermore the Temple was finished by Herod on about 26 AD and the new Temple square served as a gathering/public place, and its porticoes sheltered merchants and money changers. Britannica
So the merchants were not situated in the Temple itself, but in the square where all Jews were gathered.

I'm not talking about what might have actually happened. I'm talking about what happens in the stories. In the stories, the authorities don't dare make any move against Jesus in public. Also, there's nothing in the story saying that there was any havoc. That's a popular image in people's minds, but considered in the larger context, nothing in the story is actually any reason for thinking that, not even the whip.

 

[Ajax]

I'm not talking about what might have actually happened. I'm talking about what happens in the stories. In the stories, the authorities don't dare make any move against Jesus in public. Also, there's nothing in the story saying that there was any havoc. That's a popular image in people's minds, but considered in the larger context, nothing in the story is actually any reason for thinking that, not even the whip.

Of course there was havoc according to scripture... John 2:15 "And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables."
I think the gospels enlarge Jesus image by far, making him look indestructible from the authorities (the authorities didn't dare make any move against Jesus in public). Under normal circumstances, he would have been arrested, if not killed.

On another note, I have the impression that most Jesus acts which were connected with "prophecies", were invented by the gospel writers, and this particular one was based on Jeremiah 7:11-15. The reasons are obvious.