How can i show that Jesus wasnt a pacifist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shaolen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Shaolen

Guest
For anyone who claims Jesus was a pacifist, what can i show against this?
 
Overturning moneychanger’s tables and driving them out of the Temple with an improvised whip?

 
what else can I use? Wasn’t there a verse where he says to take up swords?
 
can someone give examples of when Jesus talks sharply to the Pharisees?
 
Matt 8:5-10, Jesus says that the centurion is said to have greater faith than all Israel. He could not be a pacifist.

Acts 10, Cornelius, another centurion is called by God and baptized into the faith. In neither case, did the centurions say they would stop being enforcers of law.

Acts 5 is about the death of Ananias and Sapphira for their sins.
 
Shaolen said:
For anyone who claims Jesus was a pacifist, what can i show against this?
Click to expand...
So you don’t know whether Jesus was a pacifist, but you want some ammunition to go against the notion? You my friend are engaging in eisegesis; you must read the text of the New Testament and determine that proposition for yourself.
 
To be fair, he never said that he didn’t know if Jesus was a pacifist. In the Catholic Church, the majority of believers cannot locate or quote scriptural evidence for the beliefs that they have. I wouldn’t say that this is a very bad thing, but I would agree that it isn’t the smartest thing to engage in debate with someone about scriptural evidence for anything without yourself devoting more effort to the study of scripture and Catholic theology. I really think that living in developed countries, it is becoming almost mandatory to learn our faith better and with evidence from scripture and Church history. We are exposed to too many anti-Catholic Christians and atheists that are trying to create doubt and confusion to our brothers. We need to be able to not fall for traps and be a little more firm in decisions. Of course we realize that it takes faith to believe, but that doesn’t mean that our faith can’t at least be somewhat reasonable.
 
pacloc said:
To be fair, he never said that he didn’t know if Jesus was a pacifist. In the Catholic Church, the majority of believers cannot locate or quote scriptural evidence for the beliefs that they have. I wouldn’t say that this is a very bad thing, but I would agree that it isn’t the smartest thing to engage in debate with someone about scriptural evidence for anything without yourself devoting more effort to the study of scripture and Catholic theology. I really think that living in developed countries, it is becoming almost mandatory to learn our faith better and with evidence from scripture and Church history. We are exposed to too many anti-Catholic Christians and atheists that are trying to create doubt and confusion to our brothers. We need to be able to not fall for traps and be a little more firm in decisions. Of course we realize that it takes faith to believe, but that doesn’t mean that our faith can’t at least be somewhat reasonable.
Click to expand...
thank you! Yes I read someone saying that Jesus was a pacifist and I knew that wasn’t right but just didn’t remember everything or where they were. I guess I don’t have tye greatest memory but its getting better 🙂
 
Shaolen said:
For anyone who claims Jesus was a pacifist, what can i show against this?
Click to expand...
Why is important to prove or disprove Jesus was either a pacifist or not?🤷

Jesus is God, therefore always employed the divine use of Perfect Justice, which at times required his being passive, and at others confrontational or even aggressive.

Stressing just one emotion or the other, without emphasizing the message of Christ, detracts from his divinity.

I’m not saying this is true in your case, but my suspicions are that many people who are overly concerned about this question, are looking to justify their own deeds, by saying, “Yeah, I fly off the handle, and you just sit there like a whimp, but I’m the one acting as Jesus would!”

The Gospel is a culmination of paradoxes. In weakness there is strength, in poverty there is wealth, in meekness there power… While Jesus can pull off the fine balance, man cannot…so why the obsession with creating anti-beatitudes?

Peace and all Good!
 
Frank1992 said:
So you don’t know whether Jesus was a pacifist, but you want some ammunition to go against the notion? You my friend are engaging in eisegesis; you must read the text of the New Testament and determine that proposition for yourself.
Click to expand...
Definition of Exegesis. In a theological sense, the word Exegesis is used to denote an approach to interpreting Bible passages utilizing critical analysis.

Eisegesis is when a person interprets and reads information into the text that is not there.

According to these definitions the OP is not engaged in eisegesis, he is mainly trying to support his interpretaion objectively.
 
SCHULTZZKOPF said:
Definition of Exegesis. In a theological sense, the word Exegesis is used to denote an approach to interpreting Bible passages utilizing critical analysis.

Eisegesis is when a person interprets and reads information into the text that is not there.

According to these definitions the OP is not engaged in eisegesis, he is mainly trying to support his interpretaion objectively.
Click to expand...
Definitions may vary from dictionary to dictionary, but the term exegesis generally refers to interpreting a passage from a text on the basis of the author’s intentions, while eisegesis refers to interpreting a text or passage the way one wants to interpret it, irrespective of what the author meant. Semantics aside, the OP did not at any time ask, “Was Jesus a pacifist?” Instead, he limited his question to “What can I use to support the notion that Jesus wasn’t a pacifist?” The fact that the OP asked indicates that he does not know, and in his question he does not indicate any desire to want to know. That is about as far from objective as a person can go.

EDIT: you wrote that the author had an “interpretation.” If he had any such interpretation, why would he need scriptural evidence to support that interpretation? His post made it clear that he has not read and has no desire to read the text for himself and come to a conclusion; he just wants evidence to support what he wants to believe about Jesus.
 
Shaolen said:
what else can I use? Wasn’t there a verse where he says to take up swords?
Click to expand...
He [Jesus] said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. (Luke 22:36)
 
Frank1992 said:
Definitions may vary from dictionary to dictionary, but the term exegesis generally refers to interpreting a passage from a text on the basis of the author’s intentions, while eisegesis refers to interpreting a text or passage the way one wants to interpret it, irrespective of what the author meant. Semantics aside, the OP did not at any time ask, “Was Jesus a pacifist?” Instead, he limited his question to “What can I use to support the notion that Jesus wasn’t a pacifist?” The fact that the OP asked indicates that he does not know, and in his question he does not indicate any desire to want to know. That is about as far from objective as a person can go.

EDIT: you wrote that the author had an “interpretation.” If he had any such interpretation, why would he need scriptural evidence to support that interpretation? His post made it clear that he has not read and has no desire to read the text for himself and come to a conclusion; he just wants evidence to support what he wants to believe about Jesus.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t play semantic chess. It is highly unproductive, often incendiary, and virtually meaningless. Please refer to my signature below for further elucidation.🙂
 
Frank1992 said:
Definitions may vary from dictionary to dictionary, but the term exegesis generally refers to interpreting a passage from a text on the basis of the author’s intentions, while eisegesis refers to interpreting a text or passage the way one wants to interpret it, irrespective of what the author meant. Semantics aside, the OP did not at any time ask, “Was Jesus a pacifist?” Instead, he limited his question to “What can I use to support the notion that Jesus wasn’t a pacifist?” The fact that the OP asked indicates that he does not know, and in his question he does not indicate any desire to want to know. That is about as far from objective as a person can go.

EDIT: you wrote that the author had an “interpretation.” If he had any such interpretation, why would he need scriptural evidence to support that interpretation? His post made it clear that he has not read and has no desire to read the text for himself and come to a conclusion; he just wants evidence to support what he wants to believe about Jesus.
Click to expand...
You are accusing the poster of something he might not be guilty of. You are assuming that just because he is not familiar with scripture, he has no right to believe anything. I think confusion might be in the definition of pacifist. I am thinking of it in the extreme where violence is never justified and therefore never done. We as Catholics know that God has never condoned extreme pacifism, or he would have made the 2 centurions I mentioned quit their positions. It is not a simple topic and I understand why the poster has had difficulty proving this from scripture. He obviously believes that pacifism is wrong and has been taught by the Church to believe so. He doesn’t have to be as familiar with scripture as you in order to believe. It surely helps to be able to use scripture when trying to convince someone else of the Church’s position. We are not believers of the misconception of sola scriptura, his being taught by a priest is sufficient, not as strong as doing both, but one leads to another hopefully. Maybe this is his turn to scripture right now.
 
pacloc said:
You are accusing the poster of something he might not be guilty of. You are assuming that just because he is not familiar with scripture, he has no right to believe anything. I think confusion might be in the definition of pacifist. I am thinking of it in the extreme where violence is never justified and therefore never done. We as Catholics know that God has never condoned extreme pacifism, or he would have made the 2 centurions I mentioned quit their positions. It is not a simple topic and I understand why the poster has had difficulty proving this from scripture. He obviously believes that pacifism is wrong and has been taught by the Church to believe so. He doesn’t have to be as familiar with scripture as you in order to believe. It surely helps to be able to use scripture when trying to convince someone else of the Church’s position. We are not believers of the misconception of sola scriptura, his being taught by a priest is sufficient, not as strong as doing both, but one leads to another hopefully. Maybe this is his turn to scripture right now.
Click to expand...
No, I said there are two sides to every story, and he should look at the evidence for both before reaching his conclusion. We consistently ask that of other Christians in dialogue with one another, and if we would be hypocritical if we didn’t subscribe to that same precept. The scriptures warn us a myriad of times not to be hypocrites.
 
Frank1992 said:
No, I said there are two sides to every story, and he should look at the evidence for both before reaching his conclusion. We consistently ask that of other Christians in dialogue with one another, and if we would be hypocritical if we didn’t subscribe to that same precept. The scriptures warn us a myriad of times not to be hypocrites.
Click to expand...
Well, if you do this better than this poster, why do you think it is better to insult him than to give him the 2 sides of the story? I really think your problem with him is that he doesn’t memorize scripture the way you think he should. And that has flavor of Protestantism in where only “The Bible tells me what to think.” I am a big supporter of getting Catholics to read their Bible and use it for edifying their beliefs, but I really don’t think the poster has shown to be trying to make the Bible and Jesus say what he wants to believe, but rather believes what he does from the Church, and is looking for proof. And like I mentioned, this topic is not easily explained. There is a lot of wrong interpretation about this subject floating around.

While you may be correct that he has not made an informed decision, he has not written anything that would say that he has or hasn’t. To know this maybe I could ask the OP: Why are you of the opinion that Jesus wasn’t a pacifist? Obviously it is not scriptural study that has led you to this belief. If you could explain, maybe we all could stop arguing about what may or may not be going on in your head.
 
pacloc said:
Well, if you do this better than this poster, why do you think it is better to insult him than to give him the 2 sides of the story? I really think your problem with him is that he doesn’t memorize scripture the way you think he should. And that has flavor of Protestantism in where only “The Bible tells me what to think.” I am a big supporter of getting Catholics to read their Bible and use it for edifying their beliefs, but I really don’t think the poster has shown to be trying to make the Bible and Jesus say what he wants to believe, but rather believes what he does from the Church, and is looking for proof. And like I mentioned, this topic is not easily explained. There is a lot of wrong interpretation about this subject floating around.

While you may be correct that he has not made an informed decision, he has not written anything that would say that he has or hasn’t. To know this maybe I could ask the OP: Why are you of the opinion that Jesus wasn’t a pacifist? Obviously it is not scriptural study that has led you to this belief. If you could explain, maybe we all could stop arguing about what may or may not be going on in your head.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you take as an “insult.” Did I call him a loser and say he would never get anywhere in life? No. I reminded him of the importance of making an informed decision and not simply looking for evidence to support one’s view (which one could do for any position on which there has ever been a debate about). If he considered that an insult, then I would remind him the importance of humility and the willingness to hear others out. I think you are hyper-exaggerating what I’m saying; I never made the slightest connotation that he had to memorize even a single verse of scripture. The fact that he asked for evidence to support his view shows that whatever he may already have is sufficient to produce doubts, and these crevices in certainty should be filled in with truth, not evidence with one eye closed.

EDIT: thanks for dialoguing with me nonetheless. Sorry if you may have taken offense at what I’ve written.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top