What had happen' was.....: Was Jesus violent? | True Freethinker
Anderson made the following comment.
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. :)
As I understood Anderson's argument, he thinks that the whip Jesus used was lethal and thereby proves that Jesus was violent. But he knows that the text does not support that, so instead he invents the idea suggesting that Jesus held the temple in some military operation with his disciples being armed. Unfortunately for him, nothing in the text remotely supports his conjecture. Let's look at the John 2:15 speak by looking at two translations.
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. (NIV)
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; (KJV)
Now look at Ryan's analogy with the gun and the flash suppressor. If you are shot in the heart, you are just as dead no matter if the gun has a flash suppressor or not. A whip made of small cords is not the same things as a φραγέλλιον. A better analogy would be a gun that fires bullets and a tazer. Ryan and I went back and forth several ways and meandered about until the following exchange. I'm going to make new comments in red.
- What does φραγέλλιον mean to you?
- August 20, 2011 7:49 AM
-
- Marcus McElhaney said...
- 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. August 20, 2011 8:10 AM
- Marcus McElhaney said...
- I should have asked if you "understood" because I think that's where the disconnect is.
- August 20, 2011 8:10 AM
After a day of looking this over, I think this is where I lost Ryan. He most likely will not accept this but I really thought he understood what I wrote but I don't think he did.
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
- Ryan Anderson said...
- strong number 4979 since I know you don't Read Greek You'd be wrong. I'm better at Latin, but I read Koine. Can't tell Ryan gets oh so many things wrong. "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?
- August 20, 2011 10:45 AM
Yes. A flogging is a noun. Flog is verb. See how that works in English? Here is a problem. The fact that John 2:15 is talking about a tool Jesus used to cleanse the temple and John 19:1 is referring to an action does nothing to refute my argument or support his.
- Ryan Anderson said...
- 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.
- August 20, 2011 10:59 AM
σχοινίων was 4979 so we actually agree on this point. I was copying and pasting the Greek text and made a mistake. I still think that he has made a very poor analogy to the gun and flash suppressor because Jesus was not holding a Roman Scourge in his hand in John 2:15 and should not be confused with one.
- Ryan Anderson said...
- 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.
- August 20, 2011 11:06 AM
- Ryan Anderson said...
- 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.
- August 20, 2011 11:22 AM
- Marcus McElhaney said...
- 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.
- August 21, 2011 6:53 AM
- Ryan Anderson said...
- 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.
We know from history what kind of whip was used by the Romans when they flogged someone. It's not going beyond to the text to assume that it was that kind of whip in John 19. I mean do we really want to argue that Pilate tried to placate the Jewish leaders by basically trying to beat Jesus with a "wet noodle" when they wanted Pilate to execute him? Really? That's not the same thing as making up that the disciples had swords in John 2:15 and Jesus held the temple for a time as in a military occupation. And Ryan accuses me of dishonesty.
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?
I proved that that Ryan has an exegetical problem with your analysis. Ryan seems to think you can just ignore what the text says. He didn't fill in a blank spot, he erased what was there and rewrote it and worse came up with really misfit analogy to try to
"shoe-horn" his point. Sam Harris would be proud. I have no idea what that means, and don't care really. For something that Ryan doesn't care about, he made sure to mention it. In Sam Harris' debate with William Lane Craig (And I know Ryan says he saw it because he vehemently disagreed with my post on it) he made use of red herrings, just like Ryan did on the comment thread I'm commenting on now and Ryan doesn't even seem to be able to see it. 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!!!! - August 21, 2011 8:27 AM
- Ryan Anderson said...
- 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.
- August 21, 2011 8:31 AM
I did post an interlinear Greek text for John 2:15 above and as I already stated I made a mistake plain and simple. But look at what my mistake was: I was trying to make a point about σχοινίων and pasted the wrong word in my text. I ask forgiveness to anyone who was confused. But that doesn't mean my argument or Mariano's argument about σχοινίων is refuted because of a typo.
Let me recap: Ryan Anderson wants to argue that Jesus was violent because he used lethal force to drive out the merchants from the Temple. As I understand his argument, Ryan is saying that it doesn't matter if the whip was made of small cords, a phragellion is a phragellion and it's cruel to use it. However he ignores these facts.
1. phragellions that the Romans used (as in John 19:1) did indeed has bits of metal hooks, glass, and what not at the ends with the intention of ripping flesh from bone to cause maximum pain and suffering as possible. They were not made of small cords.
2. There is nothing in John 2:15 even remotely telling us that Jesus used lethal force.
3. Jesus broke no law in cleaning the temple. He actually forced them to follow it. He wasn't arrested because he did nothing wrong and they all knew he did the right thing.
4. Instead of Ryan explaining how Jesus is proven to be violent by John 2:15, he instead focuses on my typo that doesn't prove his argument.
Wow, that was a lot of words for not much said. I have to ask, when you started researching for this post, what was in your heart, to learn something new or to prove me wrong?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was trying to figure out your position, since you haven’t clearly articulated it. Is it Jesus was non-violent because whatever it was he did in the temple, it wasn’t violent, and it was not violent because all he had was a “short rope”?
As I understood Anderson's argument, he thinks that the whip Jesus used was lethal and thereby proves that Jesus was violent.
Correct.
But he knows that the text does not support that …The text absolutely supports that… so instead he invents the idea suggesting that Jesus held the temple in some military operation with his disciples being armed. Yeah, I just added that for fun, it in no way is central to the argument that Jesus acted violently at the temple.
It did not have the "bits on the end". Those bits would rip the flesh right off the bones of the victim and would rip open the very bowls [sic] of a human being. That is the kind of whipping Jesus received in John 19 but not what he gave in John 2:15.
You’ll want to justify the assertion that the φραγέλλιον in John 2:15 did not have bits on the end, might be tough since by definition, φραγέλλιον had bits on the ends. And if the scourging that Jesus received in John 19.1 was not what he gave (or threatened to give) in 2:15, why did the Matthew and Mark authors, when describing the scourging Jesus received from the Romans, used the verb form of the word the John author used in 2:15 (see Strong’s 5417).
A whip made of small (hahahaha!) cords is not the same things as a φραγέλλιον
So you are saying Jesus didn’t use “a whip made of small cords” when he cleansed the temple? I would have to agree since there is no justification for including the word small. He used a φραγέλλιον, as you know, but I assume this is just another sloppy “copy/paste” error on your part.
Ryan Anderson wants to argue that Jesus was violent because he used lethal force to drive out the merchants from the Temple.
That’s close to my position. But since when does committing violence require the use of “lethal force”? If someone punched you in the stomach or threatened to punch you in the stomach, would you say that was “lethal force”? But I bet you’d describe it as violence. Would getting punched in the stomach or the threat of getting punched in the stomach potentially “drive you” from a place?
Ryan is saying that it doesn't matter if the whip was made of small cords…
For the most part yes, it’s not what the whip is made out of, but what’s on the end that makes them threatening or capable of dealing violence. Plus, no one except you and the translators of the KJV are saying the whip was made of small cords. The text certainly isn’t saying it.
Wow, that was a lot of words for not much said. I have to ask, when you started researching for this post, what was in your heart, to learn something new or to prove me wrong?
ReplyDeleteThe point was to not misrepresent what you said. I am always on the look out to learn. Are you? God can use just about anything and everyone to teach us anything He wants even if you don't realize you are being used by him for my good. I mean he once used an ass to teach someone, so why should he stop now? (What? I can't make jokes?) Oh, and I thought you deny the existence of anything other than the physical body? What's with this heart stuff?
Also, I was trying to figure out your position, since you haven’t clearly articulated it. Is it Jesus was non-violent because whatever it was he did in the temple, it wasn’t violent, and it was not violent because all he had was a “short rope”?
This an important point. Mariano's goal was to address the polemic that Jesus inappropriately used violence and set a precedent for Christians to do the same. I understood this as their meaning in a immoral sense. You did too, because you have insisted that John 2:15 should be taken in a lethal way. Jesus acted appropriately and in a non-lethal way!
You’ll want to justify the assertion that the φραγέλλιον in John 2:15 did not have bits on the end, might be tough since by definition, φραγέλλιον had bits on the ends. And if the scourging that Jesus received in John 19.1 was not what he gave (or threatened to give) in 2:15, why did the Matthew and Mark authors, when describing the scourging Jesus received from the Romans, used the verb form of the word the John author used in 2:15 (see Strong’s 5417).
I don't have to justify that the φραγέλλιον in John 2:15 did not have bits on the end because it's not an assertion. The text tells us what the φραγέλλιον was made of in John 2:15. φραγέλλιον is used in a general sense because again we know what it was made of: scoinivon. As for Matthew and Mark, they don't say what whip Jesus used was. John does. This is a good example of "unintended coincidences", Dr Tim McGrew has pointed out. In all honesty you have agree that saying someone used a whip tells you nothing about what the whip is made out of. Fortunately, John 19:1 does have a cultural and historical context that tells us what the whip Jesus was scourged with was made out of. There isn't much elaboration because all the contemporaneous readers would have known what it meant to be scourged by the Romans. We know it included leather straps with bits of scraps - metal and glass- at the ends. This isn't the same as the whip described in John 2:15.
So you are saying Jesus didn’t use “a whip made of small cords” when he cleansed the temple? I would have to agree since there is no justification for including the word small. He used a φραγέλλιον, as you know, but I assume this is just another sloppy “copy/paste” error on your part.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm saying that Jesus used a φραγελλιον εκ σχοινιων in John 2:15 not a φραγελλιον.
That’s close to my position. But since when does committing violence require the use of “lethal force”? If someone punched you in the stomach or threatened to punch you in the stomach, would you say that was “lethal force”? But I bet you’d describe it as violence. Would getting punched in the stomach or the threat of getting punched in the stomach potentially “drive you” from a place?
Violence does not have to include lethality. You have admitted that you think that there was lethality in Jesus' actions in John 2:15 and thee is no reason to come to that conclusion. Jesus' actions were no more lethal than using a switch on a rebellious child. The money changers and merchants were defrauding the people and desecrating the temple. Jesus didn't kill a single one of them and if he had been using the same kind of whip as in John 19:1, we would expect that some of the people getting hit would have died. You can't show that any of them died. Many people died all the time when a φραγελλιον was used. You know what I was saying.
For the most part yes, it’s not what the whip is made out of, but what’s on the end that makes them threatening or capable of dealing violence. Plus, no one except you and the translators of the KJV are saying the whip was made of small cords. The text certainly isn’t saying it.
Ryan, just how many translations have you looked this up in? I don't think you have done nearly enough. Here are many - http://scripturetext.com/john/2-15.htm You won't find a single translator who would translate the text in such a way that you would think that there were lethal bits at the end. No translator says that the whip was a bunch of leather straps with lethal bits at the end. They all say it was cords and no idea of lethality. The text is certainly not saying what you say it does. σχοινιων is sometimes translated as rushes not cords - even more nonlethal. "Soft rope" is supported by the text and no way could you put lethal bits at the end of soft ropes. You have exegetical problems galore, but at least you didn't make mistakes with your concordance. I however did get the exegesis right.
What's with this heart stuff? It’s a figurative expression that means “your intention”.
ReplyDeleteJesus acted appropriately and in a non-lethal way! “Appropriate” is a matter of perspective, but he did act violently, given a plain reading of the text.
The text tells us what the φραγέλλιον was made of in John 2:15. φραγέλλιον is used in a general sense because again we know what it was made of: scoinivon. [sic] You realize anything that was “rope” from the pre-modern world that was “schoinion”, right? People tied their boats up and fished with “schoinion”. But most importantly, the material of the scourge is of minor importance compared to what’s on the end and the use of rope as opposed to leather is of little significance. If your position is that the σχοινίον makes the φραγέλλιον harmless, well then the whole verse no longer makes sense.
As for Matthew and Mark, they don't say what whip Jesus used was. No they don’t and I didn’t say they did, but when the Matthew and Mark authors describe Jesus punishment at the hands of the Romans, they do use the verb form of φραγέλλιον. He was φραγελλόω with a φραγέλλιον.
This is a good example of "unintended coincidences", Dr Tim McGrew has pointed out. No, more like the Legio X’s idea of an ironic punishment.
In all honesty you have agree that saying someone used a whip tells you nothing about what the whip is made out of. Yes, but if someone says they “scourged” or they used a “scourge” we can be pretty sure they used a scourge.
This isn't the same as the whip described in John 2:15. Assert… assert… assert…
You have admitted that you think that there was lethality in Jesus' actions in John 2:15 and thee [sic] is no reason to come to that conclusion. No, he only had a weapon and violently ejected people from the temple… Lethal intent is as likely as it's not.
Jesus' actions were no more lethal than using a switch on a rebellious child. As an adult (and an adult in a group of peers), it’s likely that someone who came at me with a “switch” would get their ass handed back to them. It’s less likely they would get their ass handed back to them if they had a scourge.
Jesus didn't kill a single one of them and if he had been using the same kind of whip as in John 19:1, we would expect that some of the people getting hit would have died. Why on earth would we expect that? Jesus was naked, immobilized and scourged multiple times and those wounds were not immediately fatal. People were scourged all the time by the Jewish and Roman authorities in a non-fatal manner. We most certainly would not expect people wearing clothes and able to parry and flee to die from being hit by a scourge. You may want to expect that, but it’s not justified.
Ryan, just how many translations have you looked this up in? I don't think you have done nearly enough. Sorry, should have emphasized the word “small”. The word small is an unjustified addition given the text.
…and no way could you put lethal bits at the end of soft ropes. No? Why not?
I however did get the exegesis right. Um, no, σχοινιων is a cord or rope, σχοινιοσ is a rush, ropes were made of plant fibers up until about 50 years ago… I think you misread the note or your “mysword” is a shoddy application. In any case, a φραγέλλιον is a scourge.
You never did answer your own question about intention. I answered the question.
ReplyDeleteYou realize anything that was “rope” from the pre-modern world that was “schoinion”, right? People tied their boats up and fished with “schoinion”.
You mean like "whip" is φραγέλλιον no matter what it was made of or what was at the end(s) of it? Yup, I know. Your argument make me doubt that you understand that.
But most importantly, the material of the scourge is of minor importance compared to what’s on the end and the use of rope as opposed to leather is of little significance. If your position is that the σχοινίον makes the φραγέλλιον harmless, well then the whole verse no longer makes sense.
We both agree that the φραγέλλιον used in John 19:1 was lethal - that it had metal and glass and hooks at the ends of it. Right? So why do you think that the φραγέλλιον in John 2:15 was the same? How do you prove that? This is something you have not done. The text tells us what the φραγέλλιον was made out of and who made it in John 2:15. Why would you think it's the same in John 19:1?
No they don’t and I didn’t say they did, but when the Matthew and Mark authors describe Jesus punishment at the hands of the Romans, they do use the verb form of φραγέλλιον. He was φραγελλόω with a φραγέλλιον.
ReplyDeleteAgain you are dodging. Why do you think the φραγέλλιον was the same lethal kind of whip in the same circumstances? Why should I think that when John 2:15 tells us what the φραγέλλιον was made out of?
Yes, but if someone says they “scourged” or they used a “scourge” we can be pretty sure they used a scourge.
Again, are all scourges (φραγέλλιον) the same? Nope.
No, he only had a weapon and violently ejected people from the temple… Lethal intent is as likely as it's not.
In your mind. The whip in John 2:15 is not lethal. If you think a rope made out of rushes is lethal, I fear for your sanity. It's hilarious to me that you think I should just let you assert that the whip in John 2:15 and John 19:1 were the same kind of whip.
As an adult (and an adult in a group of peers), it’s likely that someone who came at me with a “switch” would get their ass handed back to them. It’s less likely they would get their ass handed back to them if they had a scourge.
They knew they were wrong and Jesus was right. Jesus' actions were lawful. Just like a police man breaking up a riot using non-lethal force. No where in the same category as Jihad.
Why on earth would we expect that? Jesus was naked, immobilized and scourged multiple times and those wounds were not immediately fatal. People were scourged all the time by the Jewish and Roman authorities in a non-fatal manner. We most certainly would not expect people wearing clothes and able to parry and flee to die from being hit by a scourge. You may want to expect that, but it’s not justified.
There is plenty evidence of people being killed as a direct result of a Roman flogging due to the lethality of the kind of whip the Romans used. Those things were like being hit by an anti-personal grenade where you are hit by shrapnel. Clothes and running away wouldn't help someone very much if it hits you in the face, or exposes organs. Truth is I would expect more probable survival if it just hit your back.
Sorry, should have emphasized the word “small”. The word small is an unjustified addition given the text.
HAAAA Haaa...oh wait, you are being serious.
Really, you could not tie metal or glass onto ancient rope and expect it to stay as its being whipped about. Try your own experiment
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.
And don't forget to try to put the bits on the end and see "how that works out". I doubt it will work well.
I didn't get "rushes" from "MySword" I got it from the interlinear text I posted in the blog post. I thought you read this thing? You said you read Greek. Maybe the uncial threw you. Well, I've come to expect nothing more from you.
Those things were like being hit by an anti-personal grenade where you are hit by shrapnel.
ReplyDeleteOK, I get it now, you are attributing WAY more lethality to the Roman scourge than is due. Basically, I think that when I say that the scourge Jesus used in the temple was similar to the scourge that was used on him, you imagine I’m saying he walked into the temple with a sawed off shotgun. Was the φραγέλλιον lethal? Yes, potentially. Was it like a grenade? No. That’s idiotic. I would imagine some preacher built it up for you in your mind to make Jesus’ suffering seem as terrible as possible, but do some actual research on your own. Go to Rome maybe, there is a good display at the Coliseum and at the Villa Borghese, in fact there are many scourges made out of… um… “cord”. In any case, φραγελλόω was, as a rule, not a capital punishment. If, when people were stripped, immobilized and beaten repeatedly, it wasn’t a capital punishment, then you have no foot to stand on when you say someone getting hit once or twice through clothes while fleeing would surely die.
As for the rest, basically, you are just asserting that “φραγελλόω ek σχοινίον” is not a φραγελλόω but is simply a σχοινίον. Why use the word φραγελλόω at all? And does the narrative really make any sense if he only had a σχοινίον. “… he made a rope and drove them all out…”??? No, it doesn’t, but that’s what you want it to say. Additionally, the Mathew and Mark authors used the verb φραγελλόω to describe Jesus’ punishment at the hands of the Romans (Mark 15:15, Matthew 27:26). That seems to be something you’ve not allowed to sink in.
Your position is confused. You want to attribute righteous anger to Jesus, but for some reason, you want to avoid the implication of him being violent, so you have him walking into the temple with a “soft, small rope” and wreaking havoc with it! You accept that your god is willing to send bears to kill (or just tear) kids, drown all humanity but a handful, kill a husband and wife for embezzlement and send non-believers to roast for eternity because everyone deserves it, but for some reason, you won’t allow a plain reading of the text that says Jesus would use violence in the temple. Makes no sense, the mind of a believer is a fascinating thing...
As for your the interlinear text, I didn’t pay it much heed because there was no indication where you got it from, and I have my own. But you might want to read it a little more closely though, a σχοινίον is always a rope/cord, it’s derived from the word σχοινίοσ, because σχοινίον in the ancient world was made from σχοινίοσ, but the words are not interchangeable (i.e. your notion that he was using a switch or twigs is not supported…)
OK, I get it now, you are attributing WAY more lethality to the Roman scourge than is due. Basically, I think that when I say that the scourge Jesus used in the temple was similar to the scourge that was used on him, you imagine I’m saying he walked into the temple with a sawed off shotgun. Was the φραγέλλιον lethal? Yes, potentially. Was it like a grenade? No. That’s idiotic
ReplyDeleteYou mean like comparing it to a gun with a flash suppressor? Yeah, that was idiotic.
In any case, φραγελλόω was, as a rule, not a capital punishment. If, when people were stripped, immobilized and beaten repeatedly, it wasn’t a capital punishment, then you have no foot to stand on when you say someone getting hit once or twice through clothes while fleeing would surely die.
I argued the same point much earlier. You are the one that said it was lethal in John 2:15 but now you are saying it's not lethal in John 19:1. Make u-p your mind. I have researched it. And many scholars agree that people sometimes died due to the way Romans flogged people although killing was not the intended goal of flogging. I never said that Jesus was scourged as a form of Capital punishment. In fact I argued that Pilate scourged him so that Pilate would not have to crucify Jesus. I don't think you understood what I wrote. I'm saying that i would have expected some people to die or at least get seriously maimed if Jesus was using the kind of whip the Romans used for punishment. No evidence of that - which you assert that it was that kind of whip.
As for the rest, basically, you are just asserting that “φραγελλόω ek σχοινίον” is not a φραγελλόω but is simply a σχοινίον. Why use the word φραγελλόω at all? And does the narrative really make any sense if he only had a σχοινίον. “… he made a rope and drove them all out…”??? No, it doesn’t, but that’s what you want it to say. Additionally, the Mathew and Mark authors used the verb φραγελλόω to describe Jesus’ punishment at the hands of the Romans (Mark 15:15, Matthew 27:26). That seems to be something you’ve not allowed to sink in.
One more time, since your comprehension level seems to be suspect: In John 2:15 we find a φραγελλόω made of σχοινίον and all the pictures and history and archaeology that I can find does not support that this is the same kind of φραγελλόω in John 19:1. Saying that a person was whipped, does not tell you what the Whip was made out of. An easy example is Mel Gibson's movie, Passion of the Christ John tell us that in John 2:15 so we know it's not the same thing in John 19:1. It's you who don't seem to understand what is being discussed.
Your position is confused. You want to attribute righteous anger to Jesus, but for some reason, you want to avoid the implication of him being violent, so you have him walking into the temple with a “soft, small rope” and wreaking havoc with it! You accept that your god is willing to send bears to kill (or just tear) kids, drown all humanity but a handful, kill a husband and wife for embezzlement and send non-believers to roast for eternity because everyone deserves it, but for some reason, you won’t allow a plain reading of the text that says Jesus would use violence in the temple. Makes no sense, the mind of a believer is a fascinating thing..
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to understand at all what I said about the point of the discussion is to answer the charge that Jesus inspires the same violence of Jihadfist andf terrorists not that force is not necessary to carry out the will of God. "Violence" has the wrong connotation which you seem to embrace. Again, if a child is about to step into the street and get hit by a car, is it violence to forcibly drive them back on the sidewalk? That's what Jesus did on a grander scale when he drove the merchants out of the Temple. You ignore the plain text because you refuse to recognize the the Text itself says was different about the the φραγελλόω in John 2:15 and John 19:1. God has mercy on whomeverhe chooses. In each of the cases you mentioned God picked out what that mercy looked like. John 2:15 and 19:1 are no different. And I still don't get why you comment on the "minds of believers" or intentions of the heart because you have vehnemntly denied both. (Figure of speech don't cut it).
As for your the interlinear text, I didn’t pay it much heed because there was no indication where you got it from, and I have my own.
Explains why you get so much wrong.
But you might want to read it a little more closely though, a σχοινίον is always a rope/cord, it’s derived from the word σχοινίοσ, because σχοινίον in the ancient world was made from σχοινίοσ, but the words are not interchangeable
So why should anyone trust your lay understanding as opposed to the one who translated the text? Where is your proof of what you say? As for whare the passage came from: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh2.pdf and feel free to download it, you could use it.
(i.e. your notion that he was using a switch or twigs is not supported…)
I never said that the whip in any of the passages I spoke of was a switch or twig, Maybe you should always read Latin because you Greek and English are problematic. This coming from a guy who says that φραγελλόω was lethal as a gun with a flash suppressor, and then backs off from that when it's obvious that it can't be proven or put in the same category as the φραγελλόω in John 19:1. Which is it?
So why should anyone trust your lay understanding as opposed to the one who translated the text? Where is your proof of what you say?
ReplyDeleteJust look at Strong and Thayer, kid. No more on this subject. You've embarrassed yourself enough. But thanks for your effort, you've proved something you didn't intend to (and didn't prove what you set out to). It is both absolutely hilarious and horrifying that you'll disagree with something that is non-controversial if I argue the counter.
Let's just review. I don't think you understand at all what Mariano's argument was. No surprise, you don't understand mine either. I know Mariano is over your head, but let's try one more time.
ReplyDeleteMariano's arguing against people who think that Jesus behaved inappropriately and taught others to do the same thing. You can think that all you want, but that is not uncontroversial.
You have argued the the whip Jesus made in John 2:15 was lethal at first and then you said it wasn't when I asked why wasn't anyone killed and you even went as far as to suggest that the scourging Jesus endured in John 19:1 really wasn't that bad. Remember you compared a scourge to gun? You did that. And you refuse to see that not all whips in the first century were lethal (oh wait you did flip flop on the lethality part)...er...ok) and that not all whips had lethal bits. Learn something did we? Given your last comment, obviously not.
You have argued the the whip Jesus made in John 2:15 was lethal at first and then you said it wasn't when I asked why wasn't anyone killed and you even went as far as to suggest that the scourging Jesus endured in John 19:1 really wasn't that bad.
ReplyDeleteYou are being dishonest and you know if (or you are an idiot).
So let's see what dishonesty is.
ReplyDeleteAs I understood Anderson's argument, he thinks that the whip Jesus used was lethal and thereby proves that Jesus was violent.
Correct.
Ryan wrote that August 22, 2011 2:54 PM PST.
I'd rather people think I was an "idiot" than be able to prove that I'm a liar like Ryan Anderson.
I could go on, but this more than proves my point. I'll be praying for Ryan, like all of us he needs Jesus but he's too busy suppressing the truth to see it.
I said, Was the φραγέλλιον lethal? Yes, potentially. Was it like a grenade? No. That’s idiotic.
ReplyDeleteI stand by this (both the main point and that you are an idiot). Something can be lethal, like say a stout stick, if you hit someone in a certain way, often enough, but we would NOT surely expected multiple people to die if all we had was the following description of an event "Marcus took a stout stick and drove everyone from the mall". But I would justified to conclude that Marcus was violent.
Strawman away marcus.
Thank you for showing you own back paddle. If you are going to change your argument, just admit it. Be a big boy and I admit you didn't say what you meant.
ReplyDeleteI love when you misrepresent an argument and then claim backpeddling when one tries to correct it. It's almost as classic as your "but you can't prove [completely made up thing] didn't happen..."
ReplyDeleteAlways a laugh Marcus.
If Jesus was violent, I would like ONE example.
ReplyDeleteI do not want a text that DOES NOT refer to Him being violent as we are not told His specific actions, we are not told that He hit anyone.
I also do not want an anachronistic metaphor about modern day riot police (or, ancient riot police).
But let us get all anachronistic up in here for a minute: even if Jesus is said to have whipped them, this is tantamount to you owning a business, having people come on to your property to set up their wares and having you drive them off of your property. Indeed, the police would side with you in chasing those rascals away.
Ryan, I quoted you! I asked you: Is this the correct understanding on your position that Jesus used lethal force when drove the merchants and con-artists away who were cheating the people and desecrating the Temple and you said it was.
ReplyDeleteThen several days later you claim that is not what you said when it's no longer convenient for you. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic and obvious. You should admit that you were correcting your misunderstanding - not mine. According to you, I understood your position. You weren't clear and then claim I'm the problem.
By the way Mariano issued you a challenge. I'm sure you won't answer because you can't.
I also do not want an anachronistic metaphor about modern day riot police (or, ancient riot police).
ReplyDelete????
But OK, let's see, Mariano only wants to look at the text in the most literal and narrow way and will only accept that Jesus was violent if the text explicitly states Jesus hit someone, presumably ONLY the word πατάσσω will do, and obviously "took a scourge and forcibly ejected" is not good enough. But then Marcus adds willy nilly to the text with his soft ropes, grenades and con-artists. Fantastic... You two enjoy each other.
The absurdity of both of your positions is mind boggling, but I concede, apparently forcefully ejecting people from a place with a scourge in hand is a completely non-violent activity... Yay cute and cuddly baby jesus, my favorite jesus!!!!
PS: Whether Jesus was justified in his violence is completely irrelevant to whether he was violent and is a theological question that I couldn't care less about, but if you want to add theology to what should be a simple discussion of the text then isn't Jesus on the hook for all other violence committed by "god" in other parts of the bible (see previous comment).
ReplyDeleteBut OK, let's see, Mariano only wants to look at the text in the most literal and narrow way and will only accept that Jesus was violent if the text explicitly states Jesus hit someone, presumably ONLY the word πατάσσω will do, and obviously "took a scourge and forcibly ejected" is not good enough. But then Marcus adds willy nilly to the text with his soft ropes, grenades and con-artists. Fantastic... You two enjoy each other
First off, Mariano is not ignoring the whip. The fact of what the whip was made of is important. Second we know that the men Jesus ejected from the Temple were con-artist and fleecing the people and were desecrating the Temple....go ahead and pick up a history book. And because, Ryan is quick to complain about clergy fleecing their flocks, one would assume he'd think Jesus was in the right. Go figure.
PS: Whether Jesus was justified in his violence is completely irrelevant to whether he was violent and is a theological question that I couldn't care less about, but if you want to add theology to what should be a simple discussion of the text then isn't Jesus on the hook for all other violence committed by "god" in other parts of the bible (see previous comment).
"Theology" is the Study of God. Jesus is God and therefore you can't really talk about Jesus or anything he says or does without discussing theology or the text of the Bible. If you don't want a discussion of theology than stay out of theological discussions. The point of Mariano's post was arguing against those who say Jesus' actions were wrong not just that they were violent - but violent in wrong ways! You are amazingly blinded by your own presuppositions. All of my posts and Mariano's on this are dealing with your "theological point":
if you want to add theology to what should be a simple discussion of the text then isn't Jesus on the hook for all other violence committed by "god" in other parts of the bible
True to form, you didn't say anything about what Mariano said. Nice dodging, however.
ReplyDeleteI address Mariano directly. You're last two (hundred) comments added nothing.
ReplyDeleteRyan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to interact on this issue. I see that it has gone around and around and around and around, as such things often do.
The word at issue in the phrase "took a scourge and forcibly ejected" refers to removal and is used in everything from that which proceeds forth from the heart, to removing treasure, to removing a beam from our eyes, to casting out demons, etc.
Sometimes it is used in the context where no physical interaction occurs at all. Something there is physical interaction but with things that you would not want to damage (such as treasure or a bean in your eyeball).
I see that you correlate the removal of those at the temple with the use of a scourge and thus, see a violent action.
Although, I see no reason to make such a connection between a scourge and the bodies of human beings without further info. He could have used it on the animals that were being sold. He could have used it to trash their tables/wares, etc.
In any regard, here are my two questions:
1) What would it mean if Jesus was violent?
2) Do you condemn violence?
3) If you do then, upon what basis?
Mariano; does one have to make contact with a human being to be "violent"? If you walked into an Arby's with a whip and started beating tables, I'd imagine the word "violent" would appear somewhere on the police report.
ReplyDelete1) Nothing to me, but ask Marcus though, he's vehemently opposed to the idea for some reason..
2) I do not, and if believed your theology, I wouldn't either in this case, given the other violence committed by God (i.e. allegedly Jesus, supposedly...)
3) moot, see 2.