# Do you think Jesus was a pacifist?



## Carol (Jul 24, 2006)

Do you think Jesus was a pacifist?  Personally, I did.   

In fairness, I'm not of the Christian faith, although I do respect it highly.  I've since come across the views of two ladies on MT that happen to be Christian.  They both believe that Jesus was not a pacifist.

What are your points of view?  Do you think Jesus was a pacifist?  Does this point of view reflect how you approach your training at all?

Please be respectful to all faiths and backgrounds if you reply...thank you! :asian:


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jul 24, 2006)

I have to agree that he wasn't a pacifist.  From a historical perspective, he was crucified by the Romans.  That leads me to believe he was at least a political agitator, if not fomenting rebellion outright.  If he had truly been handed over to the Jewish religious hierarchy for heretical views, he would have been stoned.

Also, isn't there something, in the gospel of Mark or Matthew, about selling your coat to buy a sword to defend your family?

JeffJ


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jul 24, 2006)

He most certainly was not a pacifist. While preferring peace, He would not sway from what was right to avoid conflict.


----------



## mrhnau (Jul 24, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> I have to agree that he wasn't a pacifist.  From a historical perspective, he was crucified by the Romans.  That leads me to believe he was at least a political agitator, if not fomenting rebellion outright.  If he had truly been handed over to the Jewish religious hierarchy for heretical views, he would have been stoned.
> 
> Also, isn't there something, in the gospel of Mark or Matthew, about selling your coat to buy a sword to defend your family?
> 
> JeffJ





			
				Luke 22:36-38 said:
			
		

> He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."     The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
> "That is enough," he replied.


 


Political agitator? Not directly against the Romans, which Jews had expected him to be. More of a religious agitator. Seemed to pine mostly against the Jews in what he said. He did advocate buying swords, but spoke negatively to Peter when he used one to chop off a guys ear (later in Luke). What Jesus seemed to advocate most was not an overturning of the government of the time, but a spiritual revolution. Government overturning comes later, if you believe the book of Revelation and the second coming of Jesus 

I don't think he was a pacifist. Most moving to me would be when he took out a whip and overturned the money changers tables in the temple. Drove 
out the people.



			
				John 2:13-17 said:
			
		

> When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
> His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."


----------



## Kensai (Jul 24, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> I have to agree that he wasn't a pacifist. From a historical perspective, he was crucified by the Romans. That leads me to believe he was at least a political agitator, if not fomenting rebellion outright. If he had truly been handed over to the Jewish religious hierarchy for heretical views, he would have been stoned.
> 
> Also, isn't there something, in the gospel of Mark or Matthew, about selling your coat to buy a sword to defend your family?
> 
> JeffJ


 
In fairness though, it didn't take much to have oneself crucified by the Romans. Depending on a particular Emperor, men could be taken from the streets and forced into gladiatorial contests, or slavery, Roman law was often at the whim of whichever Imperator ruled at the time. Terrific race the Romans... 

However, as to whether Christ was a pacifist or not... I'm insufficiently informed to post my opinion... Don't want to hazard a guess either...


----------



## Kacey (Jul 24, 2006)

I suppose it would depend on what you mean by "pacifist".  Jesus was an activist, and he used the methods appropriate to his time and place in history.  Had Jesus been born in another time, his methods could well have been different, and yet had the same intent.  I suspect - and this is my opinion only - that he used the minimum force necessary to get the desired effect, but that, in that time and place, the pacifistic non-violence of, say, Gandhi, would have been inappropriate and ineffective; likewise, the casual violence of the conqueror would have been equally inappropriate and ineffective.  The definitions of "pacifist", "activist", "agitator", and so on vary with the time, place, and experiences of the culture, and looking back that far in history, they may not be appropriate to use now in defining then.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jul 24, 2006)

By my definition of "pacifist", he was not.


----------



## John Brewer (Jul 24, 2006)

I believe Jesus was a pacifist in matters involving pride or the opinions others had of him, however when it comes to defending yourself, your family or somone who cannot defend themselves it seems his teachings have no problem with that.

Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle--
*Psalm 144:1 *

*Ecclesiastes 3:8*
A time to love, And a time to hate; A time of war, And a time of peace. 

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.(John15:13) NIV


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 24, 2006)

I would say no.
terry


----------



## mantis (Jul 24, 2006)

judging from christians i'd say he definitely wasnt.  and good luck getting a conclusion out of the bible about that


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 24, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Do you think Jesus was a pacifist? Personally, I did.


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

To be entirely honest, the "Jesus Christ" character of the Gospels is a mythical composite that was created by taking bits and pieces from several Jewish and Gentile sources. Some of these were militant sources, as with Zealot religious literature. Others were pacifist sources, as with Essene and Middle Platonic religious literature. 

The resulting product is a hodgepodge of a number of different philosophies and ideologies, which is why many a commentator has rightly pointed out that the Gospel Jesus is fundamentally self-contradictory and illogical.

So, was "Jesus Christ" a pacifist??

My answer would be that some of the authors that created the composite Jesus were pacifists, and some were not.

Laterz.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 24, 2006)

Most of the time when people say that Jesus was a pacifist and was against fighting/defending yourself they use the Sermon on the Mount, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, give to them also the other.

That verse is not examined enough because it is actually VERY specific in what it says.  It says the "right cheek" (Matthew 5:39) There are only two ways to do that 1) Use your left hand, which was considered unclean by the jews or 2) a backhanded strike with the right.  The culture at the time you would backhand a slave and/or someone you thought was very much beneath you.

If you offer the person the other cheek, you were in a sense telling them that they had a choice to make. 1) either back down from you or 2) acknowledge by striking you that you were equals.  Either way you are actually standing up for yourself in doing so.  Not just being a doormat for them to walk on.

The other things in the sermon on the mount also are in effect ways to turn the tables on someone.  For example, if someone sues you for your coat give to them also your shirt.  The words in the orginal, the "shirt" was your underclothes.  So a better way to say it in modern concepts would be if someone sues your for your shirt and pants give to them also your underwear.  Again, in Jewish society nudity was a big disgrace and the only thing more disgraceful was the person who caused the nudity.  Again, not saying to be a doormat but to stand up for yourself.

Also, from the Sermon on the Mount  "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."  We have a VERY different definition of what meek means than the ancient greek word.  Meek to the greeks was a virtue of only getting angry at the appropriate things.  So to have a righteous anger over a legitimate thing was very good.  Loosing your temper over stupid things was not.

Only by being able to stand up for yourself and defend yourself can you truly make a decision to be a pacifist and what to do.  Too many people say they are "pacifists", and it's just a case of them being too cowardly to stand up for themselves so they avoid all conflict under the guise of pacifism.  As far as Jesus begin a pacifist or not, I'd encourage you to seek out that answer for yourself by what he did and said and apply it to what you think a pacifist is.  My opinion is that Jesus would prefer not to use violence but he did not reject all forms of violence (driving out the tax collectors in the temple).


----------



## IcemanSK (Jul 24, 2006)

Great thread, Carol!

I find no quick or simple answer to that question. When I look at the Gospels as a whole (Including Luke 22 & the turn the other cheek verse in Matt 5) I don't see Jesus as a zealot ready to call for a violent overthrow of the Romans. Nor do I read of someone who says the Kingdom of God can be brought about by force. The early Church after his death hid for fear that they would be next, rather taking up arms. Even after the Resurection the Church went underground because of the persecution they received. They chose martyrdom in an effort to be "like Christ", rather than to fight for power or control.

Like punisher73, I see that Jesus did not reject all forms of violence. But I would say that I think He'd be more on the scale toward pacifist than on the "Bible in one hand, rifle in the other" of some of my Christian brothers & sisters.


----------



## Carol (Jul 24, 2006)

IcemanSK said:
			
		

> Great thread, Carol!
> 
> I find no quick or simple answer to that question. When I look at the Gospels as a whole (Including Luke 22 & the turn the other cheek verse in Matt 5) I don't see Jesus as a zealot ready to call for a violent overthrow of the Romans. Nor do I read of someone who says the Kingdom of God can be brought about by force. The early Church after his death hid for fear that they would be next, rather taking up arms. Even after the Resurection the Church went underground because of the persecution they received. They chose martyrdom in an effort to be "like Christ", rather than to fight for power or control.
> 
> Like punisher73, I see that Jesus did not reject all forms of violence. But I would say that I think He'd be more on the scale toward pacifist than on the "Bible in one hand, rifle in the other" of some of my Christian brothers & sisters.


 
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:


----------



## matt.m (Jul 24, 2006)

Jesus was not a pacifist.  Look at the table overturnings at the temple for instance.  There are many other things that have been brought up already so I will not repeat, however Jesus was no pacifist. 

He wanted love, compassion and understanding among all men.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 24, 2006)

IcemanSK said:
			
		

> I find no quick or simple answer to that question. When I look at the Gospels as a whole (Including Luke 22 & the turn the other cheek verse in Matt 5) I don't see Jesus as a zealot ready to call for a violent overthrow of the Romans.



Yet, we see "Jesus" using decidedly Zealot terminology and symbolism throughout the Gospels ("I come to bring the sword", etc). The Revelation of John, in particular, was probably written by a Zealot (and it shows). Entire books have been written exploring the Zealot contributions to primitive Christianity, but I must admit I'm not all that interested in the subject myself.

Personally, I believe that certain groups of early Christians were probably more Zealot-esque than others, and that the early Catholic Church, seeking to get everybody to play along, made use of material that was popular among a number of local groups. This included both militaristic and pacifistic material.



			
				IcemanSK said:
			
		

> Nor do I read of someone who says the Kingdom of God can be brought about by force. The early Church after his death hid for fear that they would be next, rather taking up arms. Even after the Resurection the Church went underground because of the persecution they received. They chose martyrdom in an effort to be "like Christ", rather than to fight for power or control.



Actually, Christians were not widely persecuted until the middle of the third century. Even then, it was only very briefly (less than a decade).

Laterz.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 24, 2006)

The temple issues were not issues until Christ was already dead. This was a first century political use of Christs name.
Sean


----------



## Jenna (Jul 24, 2006)

Typically it comes down to personal belief and there are several already cited.. but what do I care bout that.. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe.

I do not believe Jesus was a pacifist though the often cited verse to support that is Matthew 26:52..

then said Jesus unto him (Simon Peter).. put up again thy sword into his place.. for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword ​
Well that seems plain that Jesus is not an advocate of violence even at the time he is to be led away to his death and but Jesus did not tell Peter to dump out his sword altogether but rather put it neatly back in the scabbard or whatever which is akin to saying.. Not now my man.. this is not the right time.. well that is my take on that but moreover the clearest note for me that Jesus did not care for pacifism was Matthew 26:53 54..

thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father.. and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? .. But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled.. that thus it must be?​So not only is Jesus saying if he did not have a glorious mission he would defend himself but he is saying he would call down a whole shedload of angels to kick up an holy stink.. but he is eternally bound to what would APPEAR to be pacifism in order to protect the predeterminations of the scriptures.. 

Was Jesus a pacifist? I do not believe so.. anyway do not listen to me.. what do I know bout that.. cuckoo.. crazy woman

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## Carol (Jul 24, 2006)

Jenna said:
			
		

> Typically it comes down to personal belief and there are several already cited.. but what do I care bout that.. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe.


 
That's what this thread is all about...sharing thoughts.


----------



## John Brewer (Jul 25, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> That's what this thread is all about...sharing thoughts.


Great Thread!


----------



## IcemanSK (Jul 25, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Jul 25, 2006)

Great Post!


----------



## Carol (Jul 25, 2006)

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.   :



			
				IcemanSK said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 4, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> 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 (Sep 13, 2006)

Ceicei said:


> 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 (Sep 13, 2006)

IcemanSK said:


> 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 (Sep 13, 2006)

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 (Sep 14, 2006)

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. 



Carol Kaur said:


> 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 (Sep 14, 2006)

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 (Sep 15, 2006)

Elayna said:


> 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 (Sep 15, 2006)

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


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2006)

Crane557 said:


> 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 (Sep 15, 2006)

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 (Sep 15, 2006)

zDom said:


> 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 (Sep 15, 2006)

Crane557 said:


> 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.



Crane557 said:


> 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.



Crane557 said:


>  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.



Crane557 said:


>  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.



Crane557 said:


>  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. 



Crane557 said:


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



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



Crane557 said:


> 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.




Crane557 said:


> 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.



Crane557 said:


> 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 (Sep 15, 2006)

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 (Sep 15, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> 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 (Sep 16, 2006)

tsdclaflin said:


> 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 (Sep 16, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> 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 (Sep 16, 2006)

zDom said:


> 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.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 25, 2006)

bignick said:


> 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.


Hey bignick  that is clever.. I really like that viewpoint a lot.. and but I wonder is that REALLY how we imagine a man such as Jesus would have been OR is it how we would LIKE to imagine such a man ie. more like ourselves: pragmatic.. going with the flow.. rolling with the punches and maybe not averse to decking someone if necessary.. I think you are right about the different tools for the task at hand.. that is a lovely analogy and but I wonder now in the 21st century have we a much more limited range of tools that we would be willing to use.. resistance and / or non violence being EXCLUDED from our toolkit?? 

Thank you again for your insight 

Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## OUMoose (Sep 25, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:


> Do you think Jesus was a pacifist? Personally, I did.
> 
> In fairness, I'm not of the Christian faith, although I do respect it highly. I've since come across the views of two ladies on MT that happen to be Christian. They both believe that Jesus was not a pacifist.
> 
> ...


I figured he'd be a laid back kind of guy until I took a philosophy class in college discussing the rituals/beliefs about death from around the world.  We had to read the bible and a couple other religious texts front to bad, and it definitely makes me think the old-testimate vengeful god was the more common one.  *shrug*  I'm not of the christian faith either, but I do respect its ideas.  YMMV.

and in response to:


			
				Crane557 said:
			
		

> 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).


I'm sure there are quite literally millions of copies of "The Cat in the Hat" as well, but I'm quite sure that there never existed a bi-pedial indigo feline with a chapeau.  They are parables, not to be meant literally.


----------



## pstarr (Sep 26, 2006)

He was no pacifist...remember that He suggested that his disciples should sell their coats and buy swords...


----------



## jkd friend (Sep 28, 2006)

He was no pacifist he new when to use force and when not too. He had the best appraoch to every confilct. To be pacifist you have no answer but one of no harm bieing done to one another, while many think being pacifist is finding that peaceful solution to a conflict. never the less its not the presention of peace but the acceptence of it that being said Jesus Knew of foolish people so he Knew of course when to fight back with force to still obtain peace for that moment however long it may last.


----------

