Do you think Jesus was a pacifist?

[IcemanSK]

Thanks for the props Iceman! :asian:

Its very very interesting...coming from an eastern faith, some of the stories in my own scriptures carry similar messages to those told in the Bible. Yet many of my holy writings are heavily metaphoric, and are to be meditated on to explore how the writings apply to the path in front of oneself. Many of the scriptures have an undercurrent that implies (simplifying here) the root of evil is some/all forms of indulgence, and to stay on the path of right living, one must fight and eliminate that indulgence.

By comparison, Christianity to me always seemed to be a bit dogmatic, full of Thou Shalts, Thou Shalt Nots, and Jesus Saids. Dogmatic is not a bad thing, IMO. Christianity struck me as a faith where it was easier to "understand the rules", as they were spelled out more clearly.

This is shattering my perception of Christianity. For when I read things like "only when necessary" and "only what is necessary", I'm seeing more paralells with the "fight indulgence" values of my own faith. I'm also discovering that Jesus was perhaps not quite as dogmatic and easy to understand as I thought.

Forgive my, er, indulgence here I dunno about you all but I am finding the answers to what seemed to be a simple question.....to be very complex and very fascinating. I hope more of you continue to post your views, and please continue to keep the respectful tone. :asian:

Carol:

I'm always interested in how Christianity comes across to those of other faiths. When I was younger, I held pretty tightly to a dogmatic understanding of Scripture, Jesus & faith in general. As I've gotten older (some would say theologically more liberal) I am less dogmatic. While I still ask the question "What would Jesus Do" (or rather its now, What would Jesus have me Do) I realize there are a lot of factors that inform my decisions now.

Sadly, a lot of folks in the Church (whether theologically liberal or conservative) select parts of the Bible for their doctrine & ignore other parts. I'm certainly guilty of this as well. I'm much more a fan of Micah 6:8
"He (God) has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly & to love mercy & to walk humbly with your God." than some other parts of the Old Testament. I wish some parts of Scripture weren't there. But they are & I have to embrace them, too.

But back to your original question on "if I believe "X" how does that jibe with my MA experience. As I said, I believe Jesus was more on the spectrum toward pacifist than in the "gun totin'" camp. Although not completely. In my reading of the Gospels, I note Jesus' "defending the intent of the Temple as a House of Prayer" by driving out the money changers (John 2:12ff). I feel that Jesus allows for us to defend ourselves to fight to defend others in need. The way that works out in my personal life is, I will fight if I have to, but I don't look for it. I'm more likely to walk away. After 24 years in MA, I still train hard, but for the pleasure of it & to perfect techniques.

Your simple question doesn't have a simple answer, sadly. It brings up the idea of "just war," & other not-so-easy subjects. I appreciate the question & the debate.

 

[John Brewer]

Great Post!

 

[Carol]

Iceman I appreciate the discussion very much as well. :asian: In my faith we have the same challenges of scriptures and how it is interpreted and how comfortable we are with all of it, especially over the changing of time and culture.

Personally, I have no interest in changing, challenging or proving/discrediting one's path. I'd much rather wonder about the view. There is a lot to see here, isn't there? And, when asking others what they see...sometimes we get to see even more than we thought.


Now...a broader question for anyone still tuned in. :

I feel that Jesus allows for us to defend ourselves to fight to defend others in need. The way that works out in my personal life is, I will fight if I have to, but I don't look for it. I'm more likely to walk away. After 24 years in MA, I still train hard, but for the pleasure of it & to perfect techniques.

Your simple question doesn't have a simple answer, sadly.

Iceman says something here that touches upon what I wonder about.

Does anyone feel that learning how to fight has brought them to view Jesus, or their belief in Jesus, in a different perspective?

 

[Ceicei]

Now...a broader question for anyone still tuned in. :

Does anyone feel that learning how to fight has brought them to view Jesus, or their belief in Jesus, in a different perspective?

Learning how to fight has given me a greater understanding of compassion for others. This assurance from learning and the injury that can be inflicted has taught me to seek for ways to not fight whenever possible.

In other words, understanding "both sides of the coin" of human nature gives a better perspective.

- Ceicei

 

[IcemanSK]

Learning how to fight has given me a greater understanding of compassion for others. This assurance from learning and the injury that can be inflicted has taught me to seek for ways to not fight whenever possible.

In other words, understanding "both sides of the coin" of human nature gives a better perspective.

- Ceicei

Very well put, Ceicei:ultracool

 

[John Brewer]

Very well put, Ceicei:ultracool

Ditto! I feel the greater your skill becomes the more restraint you should show. Maybe this includes the amount of force and type of attack applied when the need arises?

 

[gardawamtu]

The definition of pacifism from dictionary.com:

1. opposition to war or violence of any kind.
2. refusal to engage in military activity because of one's principles or beliefs.
3. the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.

Was Jesus opposed to war or violence of any kind? I guess now you have to define violence. Does "any kind" include the "metaphorical" violence cited above when Jesus advises to buy a sword?

Was driving out the money-changers a violent action? I hate to cite Obi-Wan here, but I guess that depends on your point of view.

Jesus certainly was radical and was a religious and political agitator, but many pacifists were also agitators using non-violence (Gandhi and MLK, Jr. come to mind).

I hate to put labels on Jesus (or anyone for that matter). Some situations call for more violent action (the money-lenders in the temple) while other purposes can be served by more non-violent action.

I think perhaps that pacifists may also get a bad reputation for being doormats. I know some pacifists who definitely do not fit that label.

 

[zDom]

Prince of Peace, yes, but I agree: not a pacifist.

If you believe the Messiah is the Creator in the flesh (which I do) then you have further evidence in the Old Testament.

The Creator sent the Isrealites into the Promised Land with instructions to completely wipe out those who were living there.

Does anyone feel that learning how to fight has brought them to view Jesus, or their belief in Jesus, in a different perspective?

I sometimes wonder if I haven't been guided and forged by the Creator into a shield to protect the weak and a hammer to smite the wicked, if ever needed.

Scriptures indicate there are different gifts, that every part of the body of Christ has a purpose. It definately seems that of all my gifts, two stand out in particular: my ability with the written word and martial arts.

 

[Elayna]

I do not think Jesus was a pacifist. For many reasons, but first I would like to put forth something...


I believe with all my heart Jesus was a true person. We do not have any solid proof scientifically that he existed one way or the other. Only words of men. We have the Bible. But for me, I respect the Bible of what people wish it to represent, but I do not believe the Bible to be true doctrine.
It was written by men, and men(and women) or imperfect in every sense of the word. So then therefore the Bible can not be perfect.
To me religion is nothing more then a "government" telling their people what to think, believe and do or they will go to jail,aka "hell".
I believe in a "hell" yes. I believe in a "heaven" definatly.
I believe in my God. I believe that Jesus existed and he is the one and only "Perfect" son of my God.
I do not follow the Bible down to the letter. I believe the Bible to be more like the consitiution. A good outline for law, morals and when the punish and not. But I do believe that it can be amended.
I believe that you have to listen to your own heart for your own believe. Not letting anyone, anything, or and "idol" tell you what to believe. I believe that facts are only words of men and the truth really lies within your heart to decide if it is indeed "fact".
With that being said I would also like to say..
Both my parents were southern baptist preachers. A very long lineage of them. So I was raised with a spoon in one hand and a Bible in the other. LOL.
Also, I believe that Jesus was not a pacifist and that even though he may have never used physicall violence i dont believe we would NEVER use it.
I just believe that he never HAD to use it. Because he was indeed the son of God.
God himself has used violence in the Bible to get something accomplished so why would his son be any different? I just believe that Jesus only used violence when there was no other option. And he, to me, saw ever option.

There is truth in every religon I believe. There is truth in every man and women I believe. It is just a matter of finding it and using it. Which is a very hard and daunting task indeed, but worthy of our attention.

Love to you all

 

[heretic888]

I believe with all my heart Jesus was a true person.

That is certainly your right, Elayna, but it flies in the face of all available evidence. The truth is we have no more reason to believe Yeshua ben Nazareth was a "true person" than we have to believe Osiris, Hercules, Adonis, Mithras, and Bacchus were "true persons".

Have a good one.

 

[John Brewer]

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-and-scientific-proof-of-jesus-faq.htm

 

[heretic888]

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/historical-and-scientific-proof-of-jesus-faq.htm

Just so we're clear, Crane577, virtually all the information on the aformentioned link is wrong:

1) "The" Bible was not written between 40 and 100 CE. Several books of the canonical Bible were not authored until the late 2nd century or possibly the early 3rd century (including the psuedo-Pauline "Pastoral Letters" and the Revelation of John). If one is referring to the canonical Gospels, most scholars place the oldest (the Gospel of Mark) as no older than 70 to 80 CE. Most place the youngest (the Gospel of John) as somewhere between 100 and 120 CE.

2) The idea that there is a "copy" of the Bible that dates to 130 CE is, to be blunt, a straightforward lie. There is a fragment of one of the canonical Gospels (John, I think) that dates to around this time, but we have to wait until the 4th century to find an extant "copy" of the Bible.

3) The so-called "Testimonium Flavius" is almost universally considered to be a Christian forgery. In fact, most of the "references" to Jesus in historical texts are generally forgeries. Those honest Christians!

4) Tacitus wrote around 120 CE and hardly corroborates the existence of Jesus as a historical person.

Laterz.

 

[John Brewer]

Here's a quick lesson on the transmission of ancient history down to our day. With the exception of rock inscriptions, very few original, historical documents now exist because they disintegrated or were burned or otherwise destroyed in the past. Handmade copies of old documents, some of which are ancient or near ancient themselves, are our key windows to ancient history.
Additionally, historians of centuries ago whose writings exist today often quoted historians of centuries before them whose writings no longer exist, and they in turn had cited the writings of original authors. The study of history consists of piecing together historical documents to learn the story of man—and in this case, God.
The bottom line is that when we have large numbers of historical documents or fragments on a particular topic dating from or faithfully transcribed from ancient times, then we can consider the history gleaned from them remarkably accurate.
For instance, no one—especially your literature teacher—questions the authenticity of the epic poem The Iliad by the ancient Greek poet Homer. In fact, it is the second most well-documented historical writing in existence, with 643 manuscripts still surviving, the oldest complete text dating from the 13th century. Quite impressive!
Now consider the ancient text that is the most well-documented.
By a late 20th-century reckoning, there are over 5,300 surviving ancient Greek manuscripts, 10,000 in Latin and over 9,300 other early-language versions for a grand total of 24,633 manuscripts of this document—the one we call the New Testament of the Bible! This amounts to phenomenal historical validity. This ancient text, by far the most reliably preserved of any, thus validates Jesus Christ's historical existence (Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Vol. 1, pp. 39-40).

• Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (in northern Turkey), wrote a letter (Epistle X.96) to Roman Emperor Trajan (c. A.D. 112) seeking counsel on how to deal with Christians whose practice it was to meet on appointed days to sing a hymn "to Christ as if to God."
• Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian who, in his Annals (XV.44, c. A.D. 115), wrote of "Christus" (from Christos, Greek for "Christ") who "was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."
• Suetonius, the popular Roman writer, about A.D. 120 described how the Emperor Claudius commanded the Jews to depart from Rome for "continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus" (Vita Claudii XXV.4). "Chrestus" is again a corrupted form of Christos (Christ).

Luke made reference to this situation in Rome in Acts 18:2.
During the later part of the second through the fifth centuries, many more historical references to Jesus were made in Jewish rabbinical literature, especially the Talmud. Several prominent pagan philosophers—Celsus, Lucian of Samosata and Porphyry of Tyre—wrote attacks on Jesus, His teachings and followers. Early Christian writers and church leaders—Polycarp (c. A.D. 69-155), Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200) and others—wrote extensively about Jesus Christ as well.

 

[zDom]

It definately seems that of all my gifts, two stand out in particular: my ability with the written word and martial arts.

Hehehe.. that sure sounds egotistical, doesn't it? I just meant: those two things, I think, are what I am best at among the things I've tried.

So: are there any evil-doers out there who need smiting?

 

[heretic888]

Here's a quick lesson on the transmission of ancient history down to our day. With the exception of rock inscriptions, very few original, historical documents now exist because they disintegrated or were burned or otherwise destroyed in the past. Handmade copies of old documents, some of which are ancient or near ancient themselves, are our key windows to ancient history.
Additionally, historians of centuries ago whose writings exist today often quoted historians of centuries before them whose writings no longer exist, and they in turn had cited the writings of original authors. The study of history consists of piecing together historical documents to learn the story of man—and in this case, God.
The bottom line is that when we have large numbers of historical documents or fragments on a particular topic dating from or faithfully transcribed from ancient times, then we can consider the history gleaned from them remarkably accurate.
For instance, no one—especially your literature teacher—questions the authenticity of the epic poem The Iliad by the ancient Greek poet Homer. In fact, it is the second most well-documented historical writing in existence, with 643 manuscripts still surviving, the oldest complete text dating from the 13th century. Quite impressive!

Yeah, I know this trick well. You make generalizations about history as a whole to "prove" the particular case of Jesus of Nazareth. Typical apologetic strategy, but hogwash nonetheless.

The big issue is when we examine the particular "evidence" in support of the historicity of Jesus. The big difference between Jesus and the other examples you have mentioned is that there is no consistency among the sources concerning Jesus. There isn't even consistency among the same source over long periods of time (i.e., whatever "Mark" wrote around 75 CE ain't the "Gospel of Mark" we have today).

I've gone over this nonsense on numerous threads here over the past three years or so. Feel free to use the search engine.

Now consider the ancient text that is the most well-documented.
By a late 20th-century reckoning, there are over 5,300 surviving ancient Greek manuscripts, 10,000 in Latin and over 9,300 other early-language versions for a grand total of 24,633 manuscripts of this document—the one we call the New Testament of the Bible! This amounts to phenomenal historical validity. This ancient text, by far the most reliably preserved of any, thus validates Jesus Christ's historical existence (Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Vol. 1, pp. 39-40).

Yeah, that's what we call in academia a "lie".

The various copies of "the" Bible are in no way in agreement with one another. The earliest versions of Mark, for example, end with the scene of the empty tomb. There is no "resurrection" material found therein. That was "added" by scholars in later centuries.

There is also, of course, the external inconsistency the Bible has with the known facts of history. Pretty much all the depictions of "Jewish" customs and rites are laughable from an athropological point-of-view (but perfectly acceptable from an ideological or apologetic point-of-view). There is also the little wrinkle that both "Mark" and "John" had clearly never spent a day of their lives in Judea, based on the absurdities they make in terms of geography.

Again, I've gone over all this before, and apologetic lies aren't going to change the facts.

• Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (in northern Turkey), wrote a letter (Epistle X.96) to Roman Emperor Trajan (c. A.D. 112) seeking counsel on how to deal with Christians whose practice it was to meet on appointed days to sing a hymn "to Christ as if to God."

Yeah, we know there were Christians in the early 2nd century. Paul's letters are proof of that. Doesn't corroborate a historical Jesus.

• Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian who, in his Annals (XV.44, c. A.D. 115), wrote of "Christus" (from Christos, Greek for "Christ") who "was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius."

Same deal as before. Oh, by the way, Pontius Pilate (as evinced from coins bearing his name at the time) was a "prefect", not a "procurator". Whoever Tacitus is getting his information from is clearly not familiar with the history of the time.

• Suetonius, the popular Roman writer, about A.D. 120 described how the Emperor Claudius commanded the Jews to depart from Rome for "continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus" (Vita Claudii XXV.4). "Chrestus" is again a corrupted form of Christos (Christ).

This is another apologetic lie that is based on ideological assumptions. "Chrestus" is Greek for "Good" and was a common appelation to sages and religious leaders at the time.

In any event, this still doesn't change the fact that we know there were Christians in the early 2nd century and that they worshipped a deity they called "Jesus Christ". Again, refer to Paul's letters. That doesn't mean this guy actually existed.

Luke made reference to this situation in Rome in Acts 18:2.

Which was authored in the late first or early second centuries.

During the later part of the second through the fifth centuries, many more historical references to Jesus were made in Jewish rabbinical literature, especially the Talmud.

The so-called references to "Jesus" in the Talmudar are actually in reference to a "Jesus ben Pandera", who lived in the first century BCE.

Several prominent pagan philosophers—Celsus, Lucian of Samosata and Porphyry of Tyre—wrote attacks on Jesus, His teachings and followers.

One of the attacks Celsus lobbed at the "Christians" was that they continually rewrote and "edited" their gospels to fit the political climate of the time. The Church father Origen acknowledged this charge and considered it despicable, but common practice.

Early Christian writers and church leaders—Polycarp (c. A.D. 69-155), Irenaeus (c. A.D. 130-200) and others—wrote extensively about Jesus Christ as well.

The texts attributed to "Polycarp" are disputed and generally considered forgeries (most probably by guys like Irenaeus). Irenaeus is one of the fathers of Christian "orthodoxy" as we know it today.

Laterz.

 

[bignick]

I believe Jesus would use the means to best accomplish the things he needed to accomplsih. Sometimes you have to fight for what is right and sometimes non-violence makes an even bolder statement. Different tools for different situations. Nothing in life can be grouped into a "black vs. white" discussion. Sometimes you need to fight to win, other times violence will cost more than the problem it was supposed to fix.

 

[tsdclaflin]

I don't think "Jesus Christ" existed in the first place, so it's something of a moot point to me.

Do you doubt the existence of other historical figures, or just Jesus?

 

[heretic888]

Do you doubt the existence of other historical figures, or just Jesus?

Well, "Jesus" was a not a historical figure to begin with --- at least, not any more than, say, Hercules or Mithras --- so, this is kind of a moot point.

To answer your question, though, I am skeptical about the historical existence of mythological characters when there is a dearth of evidence about them. In the case of Jesus Christ, when we actually have a fair amount of negative evidence, then that skepticism grows into a cautious affirmation of non-historicity.

As a comparison, I also doubt the historical existence of Lao Tzu, Siddartha Gautama, Moses, King David, and Abraham. In each case, there is no recorded documentation of these mythical figures until centuries (sometimes millenia) after the time they supposedly lived.

Laterz.

 

[zDom]

Well, "Jesus" was a not a historical figure to begin with --- at least, not any more than, say, Hercules or Mithras --- so, this is kind of a moot point.

And how do you know Hercules and Mithras were not real? Sure, stories may have been warped over centuries, but that doesn't mean the myths didn't have roots in real people or events.

Lack of evidence does not prove something did not exist.

It just makes it impossible to prove it did.

 

[heretic888]

And how do you know Hercules and Mithras were not real? Sure, stories may have been warped over centuries, but that doesn't mean the myths didn't have roots in real people or events.

Lack of evidence does not prove something did not exist.

It just makes it impossible to prove it did.

Call it an educated guess.

When the content of a story is completely mythical in nature, has zero evidence to corroborate it, and actually flies in the face of the known laws of nature, then there is really little reason to take it as credible history. I mean, you are certainly free to do so, but such an acquiesence demands an abdication of reason and common sense.

Even if we assume there was a great hero in prehistory that went by the name of Herakles and who was debatably the inspiration for the myth, that does not mean he was the son of Zeus, was hounded by Hera, performed 12 feats, was betrayed, and then ascended to Olympus as a god. In fact, barring the commonality of their names, you would conclude that these were two entirely different individuals altogether.

It's the same deal with "Jesus Christ". There may have been a rabbi named Yeshua ben Nazareth that went out and taught the masses, but that still doesn't change the fact that supposedly biographical details of the New Testament gospels never happened to him. If there was a historical Jesus, he has nothing to do with Christianity.

Laterz.