True. Why is it invoked here? Surely, no one claims it applies to Jesus. If it did, it would be self-defeating. At least to those who believe he's the son of God. IIUC, Jesus was put here to show mankind how humans can reach for God. If he were perfect, he would be a useless as an example.
I agree scripturally, but what do you think? Perfect as my post mentions about it being impossible for a mortal to achieve perfection do you think? I think we can make perfect things that are not 100% subjective. How was Jesus perfect? He was perfect because he used righteousness to speak his mind physically? So not being violent is not perfect.
He may not have been physically violent toward other people, but he sure acted in a radical manner at the market. He'd be arrested today.
Being atheist, I was arguing as Devil's Advocate. Jesus was just this guy. He believed in God, like, a lot. And thought everyone else should too.
Violence being "necessary" is a pretty ambiguous concept, particularly in the circumstances we speak of. How will you defend it? Was it "necessary" for tables to be flipped? Would Jesus have been "morally flawed" if he had not done so?
He was defending traditional Judaism, which I disagree with. Defending one's self from terrorism, a bully, or Nazis is more defensible. Even Buddhist monks practiced martial arts, as a last resort when non-violence falls on deaf ears.
Water WOULD taste like wine after wandering in the desert for days. Jesus did talk to God, on the cross. In case you were unaware, they are called, "Monk" because they renounce their own name. "Monk" is the only thing to call them.
Well, says you. I did not read that into it. Regardless you interpreted, then generalized then overstated.
Look at the historical context, Judea was occupied by the Romans, who placed their own handpicked and paid off Jews to run things. Jesus and other similar rebels found this highly distasteful and disrespectful of their sacred space.
I can imagine him walking along, goes berserk when he see's the disrespect shown to God. No politics, temple in the right place at the wrong time.
That doesn't support your claim that any general violence is necessary in any context, nor that eschewing it is immoral. Even if I were to grant your argument about Judea (which I don't), it still completely specious. IOW, non sequitur.
IMO, it was exactly the opposite. The Romans had no problem with Jesus. It was the Jewish priests who really wanted Jesus gone. In their eyes he was committing blasphemy. It is really the priests who insisted that Jesus be punished, even after Pilate "washed his hands" of the whole affair.
Nonsense. That is a modern Christian apologetic from the Roman Catholic Church, an effort to demonize Jews. Read Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan.
Here is quote from a reliable source? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 19&version=NLT Who are we to believe?
