If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been . . .

[Zzyzx]

.
If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

[tam]

[Replying to post 26 by tam]

perhaps even show where Christ killed and harmed and cursed HIS enemies

The moneylenders at the temple? Where Christ drove them out with a whip? That fits the criteria of violence

Really? Who was harmed, killed, cursed? Can you even show one person that actually got whipped or injured? Or was the cord used to drive out the cattle, though still without a single mention of a an animal being harmed, injured, killed or cursed?


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 26 by tam]

An addition to my post, if I may, just in case I am misunderstood:


Some misunderstandings in the meaning of things that Christ taught/teaches... does not mean that one does not know Him. One might still be learning; and He will teach them.


24 students can listen to the same teacher, and not all be at the same level of understanding at the same time.


The example that I gave was extreme for a reason.

Bless, and do not cures; do good to those who harm you... is exactly opposite of... round em up and burn em at the stake.


Someone having trouble blessing those who are cursing them... but who knows that he is supposed to bless those who curse him and so tries and does this out of love for Christ; is still listening to Christ.

Someone who has decided that it is okay to curse those who curse him, instead of listening to Christ - well, that person is listening to someone else OVER Christ.




Not that the point is to know the one who knows Christ. It is not about US.

The point is to know Christ. It is about HIM.





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

In other words, it is not necessary for you to rely upon what Jesus is reputed to have taught 2,000 years ago, as much as it is important for you to rely on what Jesus teaches you now. Is this a correct interpretation?

[Zzyzx]

.

The moneylenders at the temple? Where Christ drove them out with a whip? That fits the criteria of violence

Really? Who was harmed, killed, cursed? Can you even show one person that actually got whipped or injured?

Is this to say that it is acceptable to drive people out of where they are and have been doing business (apparently with approval of officialdom) because I disapprove? On what authority would Jesus drive people out of the temple? He was not an official or an enforcer.

In fact the story makes him seem like a self-righteous, fanatical, vigilante.

Is it okay to be a bully or vigilante as along as no one is injured?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 26 by tam]

perhaps even show where Christ killed and harmed and cursed HIS enemies

The moneylenders at the temple? Where Christ drove them out with a whip? That fits the criteria of violence

Really? Who was harmed, killed, cursed? Can you even show one person that actually got whipped or injured? Or was the cord used to drive out the cattle, though still without a single mention of a an animal being harmed, injured, killed or cursed?


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

So what you're proposing is that Jesus walked into the temple, saw the moneylenders there. He got angry, told the merchants to leave and they did. Jesus had in hand a whip, but he didn't actually use it...thus raising the question of why anyone left.
Quick question - imagine that happens today. A guy walks into a mall, whip in hand, and starts turning over stands and tables, and chases people out. He doesn't actually whip anyone though. Would it be accurate to say he acted with violence?

P.S. This question doesn't mean I agree that Jesus didn't whip anyone. Depending on the translation and which Gospel one reads, it can say that the whip was used on humans.
Oh and let me guess. Christ will tell you that he didn't actually harm any humans. And for this, we have naught but your word.

[tam]

[Replying to post 26 by tam]

An addition to my post, if I may, just in case I am misunderstood:


Some misunderstandings in the meaning of things that Christ taught/teaches... does not mean that one does not know Him. One might still be learning; and He will teach them.


24 students can listen to the same teacher, and not all be at the same level of understanding at the same time.


The example that I gave was extreme for a reason.

Bless, and do not cures; do good to those who harm you... is exactly opposite of... round em up and burn em at the stake.


Someone having trouble blessing those who are cursing them... but who knows that he is supposed to bless those who curse him and so tries and does this out of love for Christ; is still listening to Christ.

Someone who has decided that it is okay to curse those who curse him, instead of listening to Christ - well, that person is listening to someone else OVER Christ.




Not that the point is to know the one who knows Christ. It is not about US.

The point is to know Christ. It is about HIM.





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

In other words, it is not necessary for you to rely upon what Jesus is reputed to have taught 2,000 years ago, as much as it is important for you to rely on what Jesus teaches you now. Is this a correct interpretation?

It is close.

The focus should be on Him. To rely upon Him.

"This is my Son. Listen to Him."

So it is necessary to rely upon CHRIST. As for His teachings, He teaches truth, and truth does not change. (though it may be more deeply understood as one grows and matures)



But yes, His sheep rely upon Him here and now.

I think that is what you were asking. Sorry if I misunderstood.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

.

The moneylenders at the temple? Where Christ drove them out with a whip? That fits the criteria of violence

Really? Who was harmed, killed, cursed? Can you even show one person that actually got whipped or injured?

Is this to say that it is acceptable to drive people out of where they are and have been doing business (apparently with approval of officialdom) because I disapprove? On what authority would Jesus drive people out of the temple?

On the authority that His Father gave Him.

And those people that He chased out were cheating and stealing from those people trying to do right with God.

That is why He said that they had turned His Father's house into a den of THIEVES.

He was not an official or an enforcer.

No official or enforcers stopped Him, charged and arrested him; it was not a charge that he was brought up on when he was arrested later, etc, and they certainly tried to get a charge to stick at that time.

In fact the story makes him seem like a self-righteous, fanatical, vigilante.

Perhaps if you don't consider that He was chasing OUT the thieves; and chasing out those using His Father's house as a means to fill their own pockets, without regard for those who were truly humble before God.

Is it okay to be a bully or vigilante as along as no one is injured?

Is it okay to protect the innocent from those who are taking advantage of them, as long as no one is injured?

Is it okay to protect the innocent from those who are using God as a means to make a profit on others faith/beliefs?


**

In any case, this example was brought up to somehow prove that Christ did approve of killing, harming, cursing one's enemies. The account fails to show that Christ approved or even DID kill, harm, or curse his enemies. It certainly fails to show that burning people at the stake is justified according to Christ.



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Zzyzx]

.

The focus should be on Him. To rely upon Him.

"This is my Son. Listen to Him."

So it is necessary to rely upon CHRIST. As for His teachings, He teaches truth, and truth does not change. (though it may be more deeply understood as one grows and matures).

But yes, His sheep rely upon Him here and now.

Does this apply only to those who hear directly and personally from Jesus (or think they do)? How do "regular" Christians (who do not have such episodes) learn what "he says"?

The supposed teachings attributed to Jesus in Bible stories have passed through uncountable human hands and minds and are subject to error, modification, addition, falsification, etc -- all human frailties. What assures that what is recorded is what Jesus taught?

[tam]

[Replying to post 26 by tam]

perhaps even show where Christ killed and harmed and cursed HIS enemies

The moneylenders at the temple? Where Christ drove them out with a whip? That fits the criteria of violence

Really? Who was harmed, killed, cursed? Can you even show one person that actually got whipped or injured? Or was the cord used to drive out the cattle, though still without a single mention of a an animal being harmed, injured, killed or cursed?


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

So what you're proposing is...

I bolded what I proposed.

No one can get more than that out of what is written.


Even so, you brought this up as some kind of grounds to justify men thinking that they could burn heretics at the stake. In no way AT ALL does this justify that.

There is not one single report of injury; certainly no report of killing; and not even a single report of cursing an enemy.


If there had been damage to property or injury, then do you not think the officials who wanted Him arrested would have followed through on that?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 26 by tam]

An addition to my post, if I may, just in case I am misunderstood:


Some misunderstandings in the meaning of things that Christ taught/teaches... does not mean that one does not know Him. One might still be learning; and He will teach them.


24 students can listen to the same teacher, and not all be at the same level of understanding at the same time.


The example that I gave was extreme for a reason.

Bless, and do not cures; do good to those who harm you... is exactly opposite of... round em up and burn em at the stake.


Someone having trouble blessing those who are cursing them... but who knows that he is supposed to bless those who curse him and so tries and does this out of love for Christ; is still listening to Christ.

Someone who has decided that it is okay to curse those who curse him, instead of listening to Christ - well, that person is listening to someone else OVER Christ.




Not that the point is to know the one who knows Christ. It is not about US.

The point is to know Christ. It is about HIM.





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

In other words, it is not necessary for you to rely upon what Jesus is reputed to have taught 2,000 years ago, as much as it is important for you to rely on what Jesus teaches you now. Is this a correct interpretation?

It is close.

The focus should be on Him. To rely upon Him.

"This is my Son. Listen to Him."

So it is necessary to rely upon CHRIST. As for His teachings, He teaches truth, and truth does not change. (though it may be more deeply understood as one grows and matures)



But yes, His sheep rely upon Him here and now.

I think that is what you were asking. Sorry if I misunderstood.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

When Jesus communicates to you, is he present, standing there before you? Or is he invisible?

The reason I ask is because my aunt had a running conversion going with Jesus for many years. It was an entirely one-sided conversation to the rest of us, but he was standing right there in the living room, according to her. Being respectful of her privacy, he only ever appeared to her in her living room.

For her eightieth birthday Jesus told her that because she was his special beloved he would tell her the day of his return. It would be at the crack of dawn. So on the appointed day my aunt and nearly half of her church members sat out in the parking lot of the church to watch the triumphant return of Jesus and his angelic host appear in the morning sky.

As you may have surmised, Jesus stood her up. She had no explanation for this, but went right on talking to Jesus in her living room just as always. Ten years later on her death bed, when informed that she only had a few days to live, she proclaimed "Thank the Lord," and passed away within a few hours.

Because it was the goal that my aunt had waited her entire life to achieve.

Now, some people might think that waiting and hoping to die for ninety years was a waste of a life. She seldom if ever left her house to go anywhere during that time, other than church and shopping. My aunt would have preferred to die earlier, but she believed that God had placed her on this earth for ninety years to proclaim His glory. She died happy, and at peace. But I cannot say in all honesty that I have ever envied any portion of her life.

I have told this story numerous times in the past, and am unable to remember exactly whom I have told it to. If I have repeated myself here, my apologies.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 38 by tam]

If there had been damage to property or injury, then do you not think the officials who wanted Him arrested would have followed through on that?

If there were no damage to property or injuries, this gives me suspicions that the story isn't true. Since as you state the authorities were looking to have him arrested, why completely ignore him doing this? The Jewish priests who whipped the mob into a frenzy after the Last Supper and went before Pilate...where are they during this incident?

Besides, what you've said on this matter shows that you don't actually know WHY the moneylenders were even there in the first place. They were fulfilling a necessary function. They exchanged Greek and Roman money for Jewish money that could be used in Temple offerings (imagine offering to the Hebrew god a coin featuring a Roman emperor).