Thursday, August 18, 2011

Was Jesus violent? | True Freethinker

Mariano has posted a series of articles responding to the charge that Jesus was violent and advocated violence. Follow the link to read his series!

In the end, this was not so much an exercise in biblical or otherwise historical studies as it was a saddening window into the heart of someone seeking any excuse whatsoever to justify their rejection of Jesus.
It is truly heart breaking to see to what lengths some will go, grasping for something, anything at all, that they talk themselves into believing will justify their rebellion.

Was Jesus violent? | True Freethinker

22 comments:

  1. Of course Jesus was violent, see John 2:15. And Marino's rationalization of that verse is particularly weak. He focus on the harmless σχοινίων and completely ignores the lethal φραγέλλιον. He's essentially arguing that a robber was harmless, because he had a flash suppressor and you couldn't really ever hurt anyone with a flash suppressor. Never mind that the flash suppressor is attached to the end of a pistol.

    Here's a project for you, take some very soft rope or cord, and try to "drive" everyone out of your local mall, and then hold the mall for several days*. Let me know how that works out.

    *I imagine this would be easier to accomplish, especially the holding part, if you had twelve guys with swords to help you. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. The text doesn't say anything about the Apostles having swords in the Temple. I don't even think the Jews allowed swords in the Temple. I think you need to go back and read your Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What? Only you are allowed to add stuff in the blank spaces?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't add stuff that has no reason to add.. just your silly imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My hypothesis on Peleg does not add to the text. You are just making up an alternate idea for why the merchants left the temple. Don't you think that if people brought swords in the temple, the guards and Roman soldiers might have something to say about it? That's a pretty big and stupid hole in your "reasoning".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Don't you think that if people brought swords in the temple, the guards and Roman soldiers might have something to say about it?

    Yeah, they might crucify the leader.

    Alternatively, why didn't you ask "Don't you think that if a person brought a scourge in the temple, the guards and Roman soldiers might have something to say about it?"

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ooooo....ooo......they might even wait a week to arrest people who brought swords into the temple!

    NOT

    And if the others had swords, why wouldn't they had arrested and crucified all of them. And they did Crucify Jesus and Jesus said that in each of the Gospels that when he went to Jerusalem that time, they were going to crucify him.

    If you don't think it makes sense that Jesus could have driven people out of the Temple with "wet rope" you obviously must think he must have been God in order to do it.

    Oh and if you think that Jesus was using the same thing to clear the temple as what he was scourged with you are even more backward and ignorant than I thought. I've given you too much credit.

    Last thing: Jesus was not wrong, according to the law to cleanse the temple. There are several reasons he was arrested and crucified but they didn't touch him because he had not broken a single law. Jesus angered the religious leaders but that does not equal breaking the Law.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What does φραγέλλιον mean to you?

    ReplyDelete
  9. John 2:15 refers to whip made out of small cords. φραγέλλιον (strong number 4979 since I know you don't Read Greek) is not referring to the same lethal tool that the Romans scourged people with - like the one used on Jesus before his crucifixion. Look up 4979 if you want to know that the whip that Jesus used in John 2:15. Compare John 19:1

    "Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him."

    "scourged" here and "scourge" in John 2:15 are not even close to the same word and has way more painful and lethal connotations than your new favorite word "φραγέλλιον". James White was right, a little Greek is dangerous when you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Do you even know what kind of a whip the Romans used on Jesus and their prisoners? Not the same at all as the one Jesus used made of small cords in John 2:15. Are you sure you read Mariano's article. doesn't look like you did.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I should have asked if you "understood" because I think that's where the disconnect is.

    ReplyDelete
  11. strong number 4979 since I know you don't Read Greek

    You'd be wrong. I'm better at Latin, but I read Koine.

    "scourged" here and "scourge" in John 2:15 are not even close to the same word

    You know the difference between a verb and a noun, right?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Plus, you are confused, φραγέλλιον if 5416, not 4979. σχοινίων is 4979 (since you apparently don't know how to use a concordance).

    John 2:15 uses both words. 5416 is the word for the Roman Scourge, 4979 just describes what the Scourge is made out of. See me flash suppressor example.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A little entomology for you, μαστιγόω (mastigo) is to flog or scourge (verb). We use the word masticate today (chew up) and it's totally unrelated to the noun "scourge" or φραγέλλιον.

    φραγέλλιον is the Roman flail or scourge. And is a greek word of Roman origin. Scorpio in Latin because the bits on the end hurt like a scorpion sting.

    You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  14. HAHAHAHAHAAHAH, I just typed φραγέλλιον into google and one of the first headings that comes up makes it appear that φραγέλλιον is entry 4979 in Strongs (no doubt because both φραγέλλιον and σχοινίων are in John 2:15 which is linked to 4979). If you don't click further, I can see how one would think φραγέλλιον was entry 4979.

    You've really got to be more thorough than that Marcus, it helps to have a hard copy of Strong's handy.

    F- for you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You prove my point: the whip used in John 2:15 is not of the same kind in John 19:1. You are trying to conflate them in order to make it appear that here was not a difference and there is. Your problem is that the context of John 2:15 tells us what the whip is made of and it is not the same thing as the Roman's tool for plublic flogging used on Jesus in John 19:1.

    The attempt at accusing me of not being able to use a concordance is a red herring at best. Bravo. Sam Harris would be proud. I doubt you know what you are talking about because a concordance without a lexicon is like a brain without a mind. Explains you very well, however.

    I don't have the time to answer all of what I want say now but a specific response showing how you cannot exegete your way out of a paper bag is coming soon

    Don't try to thank me all at once. You are more than welcomed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. the whip used in John 2:15 is not of the same kind in John 19:1.

    Actually, if you were honest (or understood grammar) you'd admit that the type of whip in John 19:1 is not described per se, but since it was a Roman solider doing the μαστιγόω, it's likely it was a φραγέλλιον, but that would be "adding to the text" now wouldn't it? But in John 2:15 we at least know that the author is saying that Jesus used a "scourge" and used the word to describe the Roman Punishment version.

    The attempt at accusing me of not being able to use a concordance is a red herring at best.

    And what was your attempt at accusing me of not being able to read Koine?

    Sam Harris would be proud.

    I have no idea what that means, and don't care really.

    I doubt you know what you are talking about because a concordance without a lexicon is like a brain without a mind.

    I use an old copy of Thayer. But using google as a replacement for both is like what? Whatever it is, it should be extremely embarrassing. Too funny!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Also, if you truly doubt what I'm talking about, you should scan and post the pages from your copy of Strong's and show that I'm wrong about φραγέλλιον being entry 5416 and σχοινίων being 4979.

    Or you could just admit you were playing fast and loose and turned out to be wrong.

    ReplyDelete