Jesus did violence in the father's temple..so he did do something immoral ...but immorality has nothing to do with it...if is the fact that he didn't turn the other cheek and not committ an act of violence

Again he did nothing violent, he did not harm anyone. Nothing was destroyed or anything. Only stopping the bartering that was going on when and where it shouldn't have been.

Again he did nothing violent, he did not harm anyone. Nothing was destroyed or anything. Only stopping the bartering that was going on when and where it shouldn't have been.

next sunday go into a pack church and start turning over tables and pews and when the police come tell them they you did nothing violent

Or better yet, go into the basements of the churches across America and overturn their Bingo tables for gambling in the house of the Lord, and when the police come tell them you did nothing violent and no one was harmed.

The Christians who were playing Bingo aren't going to be happy with you either.

It was clearly an unwise and immature act. There is no wisdom in throwing things around. All that does is set a bad example for everyone.

Such an act is clearly ungodly, IMHO.

I am not Jesus, I am not the judge of sinful actions. He is the judge and can judge anyway he pleases.

so according to Jesus...it's neither a sin nor an act of violence to go into temples and turn over tables and pews

No, it was a judgement. Also keep in mind in the time before and while Jesus was here people were judged on earth. Judgement doesn't have to be death. Judgement is a punishment for your sins. Their sin was selling things inside the church, therefore their judgement was to have their stuff thrown over and kicked out.

ahhhh...so it's ok for Jesus to do violence and not follow his own teachings "to turn the other cheek" ....isn't that Jesus being a hypocrite .....BEHOLD do as I say and not as I do

ahhhh...so it's ok for Jesus to do violence and not follow his own teachings "to turn the other cheek" ....isn't that Jesus being a hypocrite .....BEHOLD do as I say and not as I do

People seem to forget that Jesus was a Rabbi and as such would not be unjust in kicking "profiteers" (my term) out of His temple...

Of course at times of judgement there might be use of violence to enforce that judgement.

When someone is judged by a jury and receives the death penalty, if that prisoner tries to rebel will there not be violence used to enforce that judgement?

so everytime Jesus feels a judgement coming on it's ok for him to ignore his own teachings to turn the other cheek and do violence

Redykeulous posted a link that I think you should read...

http://www.zcommunications.org/christian-nonviolence-by-walter-wink

This is just yet another example of a mortal man having "his way" with interpreting an ancient set of rumors about a supposed demigod.

Moreover, this is getting into dangerous territory because taking this man's interpretation opens up the very real danger that people might begin to follow the actions of Jesus rather than his teachings.

The next thing you know we'll have Christians going around tearing down all non-Christian temples saying, "It's ok, Jesus was physically violent against this kind of thing too! We're just overturning the mosques. It perfectly Christ-like."

As soon as any mortal man starts to speak for Jesus we're all doomed. Especially if Jesus is being held up as a god and the mortal men who claim to speak for him are held up as having the "correct interpretation".

The problem is that you can twist this crap into anything you like. Just look at the Witch Burnings. Look at the Crusades. Look at Hitler.

Christianity and the Bible can be used to support just about anything you care to support. All in the name of God! Just twist a word here, reinterpret something there, point out the fact that Jesus actually did behave in a violent manner that refutes the peaceful teachings that are usually associated with him. You can easily turn Jesus into a monster and use him to justify just about anything you like in the name of God. All because of the totally unsupportable rumor that he was supposedly a demigod.

I reject that notion first and foremost. Everything else is moot.

It doesn't really matter what he taught. He was just another mortal man with an opinion is all.

It would be wrong for a man/woman to do this. Jesus wasn't just a man, he was the son of God, he was the word of God.

Actually, either "a lot" or "alot" is acceptable in English. Oh yes, I'm sure you have a degree. Probably 98 of them.

And if you wanna trade insults, you'll just end up being schooled--again. Better quit while you're behind, kiddo.

It's not a matter of it being right or wrong. It's was clearly immature behavior. Period.

You're suggesting that our creator doesn't have anymore control over his emotions than a mere mortal man, and then you're attempting to 'defend' that kind of behavior by trying to claim that God can do anything he wants and he's justified simply because he's God.

But as Einstein and others have wisely pointed out, these fables depict a God who has all the same human failings and frailties as mortal men have. You may as well be trying to sell me on the idea that Zeus is God. There really isn't any more wisdom or maturity in the Hebrew fables than there was in the Greek fables.

Besides, if it's your claim that Jesus was judging those money changes to be sinners, then why didn't he just kill them? After all, you keep harping over, and over, and over again that the only reward for sin is death. So if that's true, then Jesus should have just killed them on the spot. Because that's the only reward for sin according to you.

It's not a matter of it being right or wrong. It's was clearly immature behavior. Period.

You're suggesting that our creator doesn't have anymore control over his emotions than a mere mortal man, and then you're attempting to 'defend' that kind of behavior by trying to claim that God can do anything he wants and he's justified simply because he's God....


Besides, if it's your claim that Jesus was judging those money changes to be sinners, then why didn't he just kill them? After all, you keep harping over, and over, and over again that the only reward for sin is death. So if that's true, then Jesus should have just killed them on the spot. Because that's the only reward for sin according to you.