Jesus a "great teacher"

[belorg]

He is the Divine Physician, belorg.

And, as such, he ought to be able to cut off, “violently”, like any surgeon does, things which are malignant to the body.

Or do you believe that surgeons ought not perform this “violent” act?

Except, that was NOT what he taught? He did not tell us to ‘cut off’ our enemies, but to love them, to turm the other cheek etc.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Except, that was NOT what he taught? He did not tell us to ‘cut off’ our enemies, but to love them, to turm the other cheek etc.

Not only did he teach that sometimes it is necessary to “cut off” our enemies but that sometimes it might be necessary to do the same violence to ourselves:

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matt 5:29-30)

These words followed your “turn the other cheek” citation from the Sermon on the Mount.

Before you get too carried away with your fundamentalist literal interpretation of His words and claim another inconsistency, you must understand that Jesus’ incorporated a great deal of subtlety in His teachings. The fact that He used mostly parables to get His message across means He did not intend everything to be taken literally.

In general, his message was avoid sin because sin cuts you off from God who is the source of all life. So it would be better for you to lose an arm than to lose your life. The reason He taught us to love our enemies is that we are not to be the cause of sin for them. If we hate them it may lead them into sin and therefore we might be partially the cause of their loss. However, that does not mean that we should merely allow their sinfulness to prevail. If it is right for me to, figuratively speaking, cut off my arm, i.e., do violence to myself out of love for myself to extract myself from sin, then it would be just as loving for me to cut off someone else’s arm to keep them from doing the same.

The key point here is the nature of sin as a cutting off or separation from God. Sometimes cutting off or doing violence to a lesser good, if it is the cause of sin, may be the loving thing to do because it leads to the greater good of saving your very being. Jesus’ words, “What good does it profit a man to gain the whole world but suffer the loss of his very self?”

The problem is that taking a few words out of context may cause you to lose the big picture. May I suggest that you do a little violence to your narrow perspective so that you might get a better view of the entire message?

The problem with many skeptics is that they don’t apply the same level of skepticism to their own tenaciously held beliefs as they do to those they are criticizing.

 

[PRmerger]

I said that if Jesus claimed he was God’s son and if it is not true that Jesus was God’s son **then **Jesus was deluded/

LOL!

Is there anyone here who you think would disagree with the above proposition?

Yep, you are right, belorg.

IF Jesus claimed to be God, and IF it was not true, then, Jesus was deluded.

:coffeeread:

Now, are there some *other *reasons that make you believe that Jesus was deluded?

 

[PRmerger]

Except, that was NOT what he taught? He did not tell us to ‘cut off’ our enemies, but to love them, to turm the other cheek etc.

Are you not familiar with Jesus’ words regarding cutting off certain body parts if they cause us to sin?

Or to leave your family in order to follow him?

Or to sell your belongings?

 

[Portofino]

Sometimes cutting off or doing violence to a lesser good, if it is the cause of sin, may be the loving thing to do because it leads to the greater good of saving your very being. Jesus’ words, “What good does it profit a man to gain the whole world but suffer the loss of his very self?”

As I understand it, the church only condones physical violence for the purpose of physical self-defense. You are not saying that Jesus counseled, in some cases, pre-emptive violence as a way of preventing spiritual harm (e.g., imprisoning the street preacher who is spreading heresy), or are you?

As I understand it, the church does not condone pre-emptive violence (i.e., initiating physical violence against those who are not themselves physically violent), even if it is done with loving intentions, and even if those it is attacking are presumed to be propagating spiritual harm. I’m looking up the Vatican Declaration of Religious Freedom, for example (Dignitatis Humanae), which states:

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”

Therefore, the Vatican is not condoning violence or even coercion as a way of preventing the spiritual harm of false doctrine. The “within due limits,” quoted above, applies to anything from Jehovah’s Witnesses, to Seventh Day Adventists, to Lutherans, Buddhists, Wicca, to atheists – in other words, going very far afield from Catholic truth. Thus, it seems that violence in the name of preventing spiritual harm is proscribed by the Church, generally speaking. Only violence in defense against physical harm – e.g., defense of a country being invaded by another country, or personal self-defense against an attacker – is permitted.

If someone doesn’t like someone else’s ideas, because they are clearly heretical from a Catholic standpoint, he seemingly don’t have the right–per the Vatican–to lock that person up in his house, for safe-keeping, or even to confiscate his pamphlets and light them on fire; or, for that matter, overturn the tables on which which his pamphlets have been stacked, on a street corner.

 

[PRmerger]

As I understand it, the church only condones physical violence for the purpose of physical self-defense. You are not saying that Jesus counseled, in some cases, pre-emptive violence as a way of preventing spiritual harm (e.g., imprisoning the street preacher who is spreading heresy), or are you?

As I understand it, the church does not condone pre-emptive violence (i.e., initiating physical violence against those who are not themselves physically violent), even if it is done with loving intentions, and even if those it is attacking are presumed to be propagating spiritual harm. I’m looking up the Vatican Declaration of Religious Freedom, for example (Dignitatis Humanae), which states:

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”

Therefore, the Vatican is not condoning violence or even coercion as a way of preventing the spiritual harm of false doctrine. The “within due limits,” quoted above, applies to anything from Jehovah’s Witnesses, to Seventh Day Adventists, to Lutherans, Buddhists, Wicca, to atheists – in other words, going very far afield from Catholic truth. Thus, it seems that violence in the name of preventing spiritual harm is proscribed by the Church, generally speaking. Only violence in defense against physical harm – e.g., defense of a country being invaded by another country, or personal self-defense against an attacker – is permitted.

If someone doesn’t like someone else’s ideas, because they are clearly heretical from a Catholic standpoint, he seemingly don’t have the right–per the Vatican–to lock that person up in his house, for safe-keeping, or even to confiscate his pamphlets and light them on fire; or, for that matter, overturn the tables on which which his pamphlets have been stacked, on a street corner.

The point being made, Portofino, is that not everything that is painful ought to be defined as “violence”.

 

[uther]

I can’t remember his exact words (can you refresh my memory on the quotes?)…but I think many say those words could have been mis-interpreted.
Many religions teach that all of us, in a sense, are God…that God is within us. So many people read his words as saying that. That he is God, that you are God, that God is inside us.
As in:
“…the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21?) et al.

So he may have been saying one thing, but some might say it’s possible the meaning or words were tweaked in that first century or two, especially during the oral storytelling.
All this to say there can exist other options other than liar/lunatic…he doesn’t have to be insane…it’s the others who could be in error.

Sounds a bit like the (fictional) movie Stigmata.

Luke 17:
[20] Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;
[21] nor will they say, Lo, here it is!' or There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
[22] And he said to the disciples, "The days are coming when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and you will not see it. - RSV

In context he is saying, “I am here in your midst right now.” He is continually telling parables beginning with the words, “The Kingdom of heaven is like…” The point is, with his arrival the Kingdom of heaven is now on earth and continues here, in purgatory and in heaven until he returns and the earth ends as we know it. As well, he is saying to the disciples that there will come a day when you will wish you were back here listening to me in physical person. Tough times when you will have to continue on by faith.

But he is definitely not saying to them that the Kingdom is within them independent of himself. That is an entirely different religion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As I understand it, the church only condones physical violence for the purpose of physical self-defense. You are not saying that Jesus counseled, in some cases, pre-emptive violence as a way of preventing spiritual harm (e.g., imprisoning the street preacher who is spreading heresy), or are you?

As I understand it, the church does not condone pre-emptive violence (i.e., initiating physical violence against those who are not themselves physically violent), even if it is done with loving intentions, and even if those it is attacking are presumed to be propagating spiritual harm. I’m looking up the Vatican Declaration of Religious Freedom, for example (Dignitatis Humanae), which states:

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”

Therefore, the Vatican is not condoning violence or even coercion as a way of preventing the spiritual harm of false doctrine. The “within due limits,” quoted above, applies to anything from Jehovah’s Witnesses, to Seventh Day Adventists, to Lutherans, Buddhists, Wicca, to atheists – in other words, going very far afield from Catholic truth. Thus, it seems that violence in the name of preventing spiritual harm is proscribed by the Church, generally speaking. Only violence in defense against physical harm – e.g., defense of a country being invaded by another country, or personal self-defense against an attacker – is permitted.

If someone doesn’t like someone else’s ideas, because they are clearly heretical from a Catholic standpoint, he seemingly don’t have the right–per the Vatican–to lock that person up in his house, for safe-keeping, or even to confiscate his pamphlets and light them on fire; or, for that matter, overturn the tables on which which his pamphlets have been stacked, on a street corner.

This is an important point you brought up. Jesus was obviously speaking figuratively. There are other ways of stopping ourselves from sinning and respect for the free choices of others would mean we do not have a right to coerce belief from them or to use coercive force to stop them from sinning. However, a point could be made that the reasonable force or “violence” I might use on myself to prevent myself from doing evil, I could “all things being equal” use on possible perpetrators to stop them from causing me or others to sin against our free will.

So the use of violence, when necessary, on “our enemies” (which was the issue in question by belorg) to stop them from sinning against me or other innocents, could be justified if I might reasonably use that level of violence against myself. Do onto others, etc.,

So violence in and of itself would not, in principle, be inconsistent with Jesus’ teachings, which is what belorg is attempting to demonstrate.

Any thoughts?

 

[uther]

Thank you
I for one, tho, wouldn’t say his teachings are worthless if he’s not divine.
Why would teaching peace, understanding, and love be worthless?
People in the current era, like Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama…or the guy next door, or the kid down the street…teach peace and love every day…and their teachings are not worthless just because they are not divine.

Can you elaborate, if i may ask, as to why you’d think so?

I think the best response to the idea that Jesus was just a great teacher is “so what is the point?”

Actually, those teachings are useful to placate the masses. In the exercise of power it is always nice to have willing acceptance by those who are subject to that power. For someone with serious ambition, on a personal level they just get in the way, as do a lot of Christ’s teachings with respect to self-sacrifice and fidelity and commitment and so forth. If the only judgment is in this world, it is irrational to act on any principle that would limit personal goals or pleasures arbitrarily.

 

[Portofino]

This is an important point you brought up. Jesus was obviously speaking figuratively. There are other ways of stopping ourselves from sinning and respect for the free choices of others would mean we do not have a right to coerce belief from them or to use coercive force to stop them from sinning. However, a point could be made that the reasonable force or “violence” I might use on myself to prevent myself from doing evil

It is tricky, isn’t it; what is self-control in regards to myself, could be coercive as regards others.

You make an intriguing point with “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” but the Christian is normally harder on himself than he is on others, on humanistic grounds; there is more he would be willing to die for, than to kill for. I can decide that I would rather die, than compromise my morals; but it becomes more problematic to say that I would rather let others die, than compromise my morals. I’m thinking of the Christian who wouldn’t lie to save his own life, but who would lie to save the life of his neighbor (a Jewish family that he is hiding, for example). His neighbor’s life is ultimately more precious to him than his own.

We know there was a time when the church believed that it was justified in using force to prevent spiritual harm. Looking back on its history, it seems to regret this, because of the unintended consequences that resulted from it.

This is what John Paul II referred to, as regards the execution of Jan Hus of Bohemia. His execution created a “wound” within the Czech people, that took centuries to heal. Thus, the use of physical force did not have healing consequences, but wounding ones. Once blood was shed, the chances of reconciliation between the Church and the Czech people was all but impossible; negotiations did not take a step forward, but many steps backwards. Thus, John Paul II said, in 1999:

“Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on Jan Hus and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people.”

The immediate result of Hus’ execution were the Hussite wars; thus, blows were exchanged for blows, which is always a danger when force is used. Even threatening someone with force can set back the cause of reconciliation, having the same effect–psychologically–as if a blow had already been struck.

 

[Adamski]

This is what first brought me to Christ after reading the bible
I had to accept that this concept was crazy

Josh McDowell
More than a carpenter book

Answered this very well

 

[belorg]

LOL!

Is there anyone here who you think would disagree with the above proposition?

Yep, you are right, belorg.

IF Jesus claimed to be God, and IF it was not true, then, Jesus was deluded.

The point is that the trilemma talk about Jesus being either God, or a liar or a lunatic. I am claiming that if he claimed to be God and he wasn’t God, he was deluded, but not (necessarily) a lunatic.

Now, are there some *other *reasons that make you believe that Jesus was deluded?

I have never claimed that Jesus was deluded, I am only claiming that Jesus was not a very consistent moral teacher.

 

[belorg]

Not only did he teach that sometimes it is necessary to “cut off” our enemies but that sometimes it might be necessary to do the same violence to ourselves:

If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matt 5:29-30)

These words followed your “turn the other cheek” citation from the Sermon on the Mount.

Before you get too carried away with your fundamentalist literal interpretation of His words and claim another inconsistency, you must understand that Jesus’ incorporated a great deal of subtlety in His teachings. The fact that He used mostly parables to get His message across means He did not intend everything to be taken literally.

In general, his message was avoid sin because sin cuts you off from God who is the source of all life. So it would be better for you to lose an arm than to lose your life. The reason He taught us to love our enemies is that we are not to be the cause of sin for them. If we hate them it may lead them into sin and therefore we might be partially the cause of their loss. However, that does not mean that we should merely allow their sinfulness to prevail. If it is right for me to, figuratively speaking, cut off my arm, i.e., do violence to myself out of love for myself to extract myself from sin, then it would be just as loving for me to cut off someone else’s arm to keep them from doing the same.

No it would not. There is a big differnce between doing something to my self and doing something to others. And it’s only if ‘cutting off’ your arm (figuratively) is the only possible option to prevent sin that it is justified. If there are other means to reach the same goal, which do not entail violence, then we should use those means.
And that’s the problem: there is not a single indication that using violence aganist the money changres was the only available option. Jesus’ behaviour on other occasions suggests that it wasn’t the only option.

The key point here is the nature of sin as a cutting off or separation from God. Sometimes cutting off or doing violence to a lesser good, if it is the cause of sin, may be the loving thing to do because it leads to the greater good of saving your very being. Jesus’ words, “What good does it profit a man to gain the whole world but suffer the loss of his very self?”

Yes, if it is the only option.

The problem is that taking a few words out of context may cause you to lose the big picture. May I suggest that you do a little violence to your narrow perspective so that you might get a better view of the entire message?

You may suggest whatever you like, but my perspective is, in fact a whole lot broader than yours. I do not start from an assumption and try to fit everything into it.

The problem with many skeptics is that they don’t apply the same level of skepticism to their own tenaciously held beliefs as they do to those they are criticizing.

I have applied skepticism to everything, Peter.

 

[PRmerger]

The point is that the trilemma talk about Jesus being either God, or a liar or a lunatic. I am claiming that if he claimed to be God and he wasn’t God, he was deluded, but not (necessarily) a lunatic.

Ok.

IF Jesus claimed to be God but wasn’t, he was deluded.

No one here ought to argue with you on that one. :nope:

I have never claimed that Jesus was deluded,

Excellent.

I am only claiming that Jesus was not a very consistent moral teacher.

Perhaps that is because you haven’t researched the Word of God in its entirety.

That would be like a therapist reviewing your few posts here, rather than meeting you in person, and then making a diagnosis about you.

He hasn’t met you. So how can he make any conclusions about you. He only has a few sentences you’ve proclaimed.

He couldn’t make a very accurate assessment about you could he, based on your few posts here, right?

 

[belorg]

Ok.

IF Jesus claimed to be God but wasn’t, he was deluded.

No one here ought to argue with you on that one. :nope:

I am glad you say this, becasue lots of people are arguing with me about that.

Perhaps that is because you haven’t researched the Word of God in its entirety.

I have researched the Word of God in its entirety. With an open mind.

That would be like a therapist reviewing your few posts here, rather than meeting you in person, and then making a diagnosis about you.

If among the few posts here he found an inconsitency (which is very well possible since I am not omniscient and perfect) he would correctly diagnose me as not completely consistent.

He hasn’t met you. So how can he make any conclusions about you. He only has a few sentences you’ve proclaimed.

It does not keep Catholics from claiiming all sortys of things about Jesus, though. Most Catholics do not claim to have met Jesus either.

He couldn’t make a very accurate assessment about you could he, based on your few posts here, right?

You cannot conclude that Jesus was the Son of God based on the few lines we have about him. Do you actually think that al Jesus said and did is recorded in the Gospels?

 

[PRmerger]

I am glad you say this, becasue lots of people are arguing with me about that.

LOL!

That’s because we believe that Jesus is GOD.

I have researched the Word of God in its entirety. With an open mind.

Really? What does the Word of God say regarding the Eucharist? And what does the Word of God say regarding atheists? And what does the Word of God say regarding contraception?

And can you define, without seeking succor in Fr. Google, what the Church proclaims is the Word of God?

 

[PRmerger]

If among the few posts here he found an inconsitency (which is very well possible since I am not omniscient and perfect) he would correctly diagnose me as not completely consistent.

But here you’re begging the question again.

What if the person really is consistent, but from the posts here the therapist makes the wrong conclusion…

because the therapist doesn’t really know the poster.

It does not keep Catholics from claiiming all sortys of things about Jesus, though. Most Catholics do not claim to have met Jesus either.

Forgive me if I sound a little condescending, but how in the world do you know what “most Catholics” claim??

Do you know what we proclaim regarding the Eucharist?

Do you know who it is we meet at Mass?

You cannot conclude that Jesus was the Son of God based on the few lines we have about him.

This is exactly the Catholic paradigm.

Perhaps you forgot you were in dialogue on a Catholic forum and thought you were in an Evangelical or Fundamentalist chat room?

No Catholic who is well catechized ought to say that we conclude Jesus was the Son of God based on the Bible alone.

Do you actually think that al Jesus said and did is recorded in the Gospels?

Hah! You are making a very good Catholic argument, belorg. One I and many other Catholics have made a multitude of times here on the CAFs.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9682808&postcount=708
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9682834&postcount=709
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9237076&postcount=599

So you are correct, belorg: ALL that Jesus said and did is NOT recorded in the Gospels.This is very Catholic of you to say!

 

[belorg]

But here you’re begging the question again.

What if the person really is consistent, but from the posts here the therapist makes the wrong conclusion…

µ

If a person makes an inconsistent claim, he is is not completely inconsitent. the only way for this person to really be consistent is when the posts do not refelct what he really said.

because the therapist doesn’t really know the poster.

If a poster claims ‘I never curse’ and in one of his next posts he actually does curse, then you do not have to know him to conclude he is not entirely consistent.

Forgive me if I sound a little condescending, but how in the world do you know what “most Catholics” claim??

Because I am familiar with Catholic teachings asI am a former Catholic myself.

Do you know what we proclaim regarding the Eucharist?

Yes, I know this.

Do you know who it is we meet at Mass?

Yes, I kniw who you claimto meet at Mass.

This is exactly the Catholic paradigm.

Yes, I know. So, Catholics draw conclsuons that are unfounded.

Perhaps you forgot you were in dialogue on a Catholic forum and thought you were in an Evangelical or Fundamentalist chat room?

No, I didn’t.

No Catholic who is well catechized ought to say that we conclude Jesus was the Son of God based on the Bible alone.

The problem is that Catholics base their judgment of what the Bible says on a doctrine that in itself is largely based on an interpretation of whatv the Bible says., combined with lots of personal experiences, some of them contradicting one another.

So you are correct, belorg: ALL that Jesus said and did is NOT recorded in the Gospels.This is very Catholic of you to say!

If in the few things thaty are actually recorded pf his teachings, there are alreday inconsistencies, then it is most likely (although of course not impossible) that there were la lot more inconsitencies that weren’t recorded.

 

[belorg]

LOL!

That’s because we believe that Jesus is GOD.

That does not mean that if he wasn’t he was a lunatic, which is what people here claim.

Really? What does the Word of God say regarding the Eucharist? And what does the Word of God say regarding atheists? And what does the Word of God say regarding contraception?

Regarding the Eucharist, the Word of God leads to a logical contradiction, so I reject it.
Regarding atheists, the Word of God is simply wrong. And I know this because I am an atheist.

And can you define, without seeking succor in Fr. Google, what the Church proclaims is the Word of God?

Yes.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The point is that the trilemma talk about Jesus being either God, or a liar or a lunatic. I am claiming that** if he claimed to be God and he wasn’t God, he was deluded**, but not (necessarily) a lunatic.

I have never claimed that Jesus was deluded, I am only claiming that Jesus was not a very consistent moral teacher.

Your argument is intended to be stronger than “I have never claimed that Jesus was deluded…” What you are claiming is that Jesus was inconsistent in his teaching and that, in itself, is enough to show He could not have been God.

Actually, it is you who are being inconsistent. Logically, it adds up to:

1. If Jesus claimed to be God and he wasn’t, he was not necessarily a lunatic but could have been deluded.
2. God would not be inconsistent.
3. Jesus was an inconsistent moral teacher.
   Conclusion: Jesus could not be God, therefore he wasn’t necessarily a lunatic, but he would have been deluded. (Which implies if he wasn’t a lunatic then he was deluded.)

That has been your position all along, yet you say:

I have never claimed that Jesus was deluded, I am only claiming that Jesus was not a very consistent moral teacher.

Apparently, you do not understand the concept of inconsistency because you are being precisely that, so why should we accept that you can even apply the concept to Jesus?

What you are not clearly laying out in the first quote, is that a necessary logical implication of your position is that Jesus could not be God because of his inconsistency, then he must have been either deluded or a liar, or some other possible attribute that could lead a human being to claim to be God. He could not be God and also be an inconsistent moral teacher. That is your claim! You are compelled to admit, by that very claim that if Jesus is not God, then he must have been a lunatic, a liar, deluded, or some other possibility that would cause Him to claim, quite decisively, that he is God. You settle on, as the first quote shows, that “if he claimed to be God and he wasn’t God, he was deluded,” yet you say, “I have never claimed that Jesus was deluded.” That is inconsistency!

The entire thrust of your argument relies on your claim that Jesus was inconsistent because he did not act in accord with his own teaching in a couple of areas. He was violent in the Temple when (according to you) he need not have been and he did not explicitly condemn slavery when moral goodness would necessitate that.

Both of these claims have been soundly refuted.

Jesus may have not explicitly condemned slavery because A) He understood that doing so in the political milieu he was in, given his authority among the people, could have generated a great deal of backlash from ruling authorities who were quite capable of unleashing ferocious “justice.” Consider the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred a few years later. B) His message was clearly addressing the source of evil (sin) and not merely attempting to bandaid symptoms of sin like abuse of power, etc.
**Violence is not logically inconsistent with love. You claim it is, but multiple examples have been brought up to demonstrate that that belief is simply false. A) Police officers using violence to maintain peace and security. B) Surgeons and dentists using controlled violence to remove infected parts that endanger the health of patients. **

Therefore, it is logically possible that Jesus’ words and actions were consistent. You have certainly not demonstrated otherwise. Your claim that Jesus could not be God because he was inconsistent (for God, according to you, should be perfectly consistent) has been found wanting. Still you continue to flog this deceased horse of a submission on the hope that somehow it will resurrect as long as you repeat it ad tedium.

Yes, I know, you are claiming Jesus used unwarranted violence in the Temple as evidenced by that fact that the money changers ran out of the Temple in utter fear of the lashing cord of ropes. Perhaps the reason they “ran out” was because they knew that the “innocent business” they were engaged in was not so innocuous and they retreated compelled by their awareness of guilt, much as thieves flee from the crime scene when police arrive. They may have been acutely aware that they should not have been in the Temple carrying on dubious trading to begin with.