So did Jesus live or what?

[davefoc]

When this issue came up I was interested in it enough to go looking for how various believers might interpret this passage so as to be consistent with the overall peace and love message that is purported to be the primary point of Christ's ministery.

I frankly didn't understand what the heck they were talking about.

What was Matthew trying to accomplish by including this in his story?

Is this one of the Jesus quotes that might be original or at least trace back to an original tradition and Matthew threw it in because he was moved to include what he knew of the original traditions into his story even if it didn't quite fit with his overall theme.

Incidentally, I see this whole topic as a bit of digression, and I hesitated to comment on it because I thought it might be hypocritical of me to do so given my earlier request that the thread stay on topic. Then I realized that I had already admitted to my hypocrisy so now I'm just proving it.

And while I'm digressing, I find the issue of who wrote the gospels and when they did it interesting. Did these guys ever come into contact with each other? There can't have been that many copies of the gospels floating around after they were first written and maybe Mark loaned a copy to Luke and Matthew. Assuming that the current scholarly consensus is right, Mark wrote his and then Matthew and Luke expanded on Mark's work. Apparently Matthew and Luke didn't work together but they did each include some stuff that looks like it might have come from a document that they both had access to (the q document).

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

No offense, Belz - you gave probably the least worst possible answer. But l'd still like to see Ossai justify his statement with reference to Matthew.

I stated that “Jesus preached violence at least in the early gospels aimed strictly at the Jewish people.”

Ok, all references are to Matthew

Jesus tells his followers to only go to the lost children of the house of Israel.
10:5-7
“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. “

Any city that doesn’t welcome Jesus’s followers will be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrha – violent portent.
10:14-15
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

Jesus tells his followers (all TRUE Christians, BTW ) that they will be persecuted and hated but not to worry; just continue spreading the word as fast as possible.
10:21-22
“And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

Jesus is addressing a specific audience and telling them that the world will end before they finish their mission of spreading the word.
10:23
“But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.”

Jesus tells his followers not to be afraid of other people but to fear god. (Can’t you just feel the Christian love here?)
10:28
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

For completeness, the same quotes supplied by Belz....
Jesus says it’s not enough, I’m going to break families up as well.
10:34-37
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

An instances where Jesus is referred to as the Son of man.
16:13-17
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.”

Again Jesus says to a specific audience that at least some of them will be alive when god’s kid comes back all pissed and ready to lay waste to those cities and people that didn’t accept the earlier teachings.
16:28
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Another instance of Jesus = Son of man
20:18
“Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death,”

Another generation reference.
23:34-36
“Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.”

Jesus will gather all his followers.
23:37-39
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”


Throw all the above together and get:
The end is coming.
Anyone not saved will be punished worse than Sodom and Gomorrha.
Those that follow the Son of man will be saved.
Jesus declares himself and is declared by others to be the Son of man.
Jesus has been sent to rend apart and punish not just cities (peoples) but families.
Upon his return Jesus will gather his followers.
He will return within the lifetime of his listeners.

Sounds like Jesus will be handing out divine retribution upon his return, which will be soon and that anyone not with him will be mowed down. Doomsday and violent.

Ossai

 

[Belz...]

No offense, Belz - you gave probably the least worst possible answer. But l'd still like to see Ossai justify his statement with reference to Matthew.

Oh, none taken. But I would think that someone telling me he's bringing a sword to the world and that he's going to set people against one another wouldn't be on my list of role-models for kids.


...I have a thousand posts!!

 

[kmortis]

<snip>

Jesus tells his followers (all TRUE Christians, BTW ) that they will be persecuted and hated but not to worry; just continue spreading the word as fast as possible.
10:21-22
“And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

<snip>

Ossai

When I read this, a thought popped into my head...it is just me, or doesn't this sound just like the meme of a virus? Continously attacked, but rapidly growing.

 

[ceo_esq]

I stated that “Jesus preached violence at least in the early gospels aimed strictly at the Jewish people.”

To preach something, according to the OED, means "to exhort people (to some act or practice)"; to exhort means "to recommend earnestly" or "to urge by stimulating words to conduct regarded as laudable."

So, if the Jesus of Matthew's Gospel can fairly be said to have preached violence, we should by definition be able to identify instances where he recommends violence to his audience, or urges his audience to violence as laudable conduct. In none of the passages you cited can Jesus sanely be interpreted as doing any such thing. At the same time, we must consider the undeniable presence in Matthew's Gospel of passages (previously pointed out) in which Jesus unambiguously recommends nonviolence to his audience, or urges his audience to nonviolence as laudable conduct.

Accordingly, it is not clear how an unbiased observer could reach the conclusion that Matthew's Gospel is a text whose protagonist preaches violence.

Oh, none taken. But I would think that someone telling me he's bringing a sword to the world and that he's going to set people against one another wouldn't be on my list of role-models for kids.

Most readers understand Jesus there as suggesting that his coming would provoke a certain turmoil and divisiveness. I think we'd all agree that this certainly turned out to be the case! As a character in a famous Flannery O'Connor story laments, Jesus "thrown everything off balance". I suppose the same thing is true of every powerful idea or thinker, especially in the moral realm.

...I have a thousand posts!!

Keep it up!

 

[kmortis]

To preach something, according to the OED, means "to exhort people (to some act or practice)"; to exhort means "to recommend earnestly" or "to urge by stimulating words to conduct regarded as laudable."

So, if the Jesus of Matthew's Gospel can fairly be said to have preached violence, we should by definition be able to identify instances where he recommends violence to his audience, or urges his audience to violence as laudable conduct. In none of the passages you cited can Jesus sanely be interpreted as doing any such thing. At the same time, we must consider the undeniable presence in Matthew's Gospel of passages (previously pointed out) in which Jesus unambiguously recommends nonviolence to his audience, or urges his audience to nonviolence as laudable conduct.

Accordingly, it is not clear how an unbiased observer could reach the conclusion that Matthew's Gospel is a text whose protagonist preaches violence.




Most readers understand Jesus there as suggesting that his coming would provoke a certain turmoil and divisiveness. I think we'd all agree that this certainly turned out to be the case! As a character in a famous Flannery O'Connor story laments, Jesus "thrown everything off balance". I suppose the same thing is true of every powerful idea or thinker, especially in the moral realm.




Keep it up!

To be fair, Jesus did preach violence...and non-violence. The "brother against brother" was refering to the turmoil that would come from believing in the Messiah in a Jewish household in 30AD. Later, in the Garden, he extorted Peter & Co. not not fight the Romans as they came to take him away.

Unfortunatly, the former has been subtlily emphasised over the last 1600 years, since Constantine (the emperor, not John...) converted.

 

[Belz...]

Most readers understand Jesus there as suggesting that his coming would provoke a certain turmoil and divisiveness. I think we'd all agree that this certainly turned out to be the case! As a character in a famous Flannery O'Connor story laments, Jesus "thrown everything off balance". I suppose the same thing is true of every powerful idea or thinker, especially in the moral realm.

I'm just telling you what he alledgedly said, not the result of his religion. If someone told me he would bring a sword to the world, I'd be very concerned. Of course, matthew was pretty bent on making sure Jesus fit prophecy. It's possible he added that part because the messiah was supposedly going to be a general of some sort.

 

[ceo_esq]

To be fair, Jesus did preach violence...and non-violence.

I'm trying to be fair, of course. And if we are to be fair, I think it must be conceded that if Jesus (in Matthew's Gospel, at least) did preach violence, he did so a very different, less conventional, less direct, and more ambiguous sense than the sense in which he preached nonviolence.

To return to my previous point, however, we still haven't identified with any passages where the Jesus of Matthew's Gospel earnestly recommends violence to his audience, or otherwise urges his audience to violence as laudable conduct. This would appear to rule out, as a simple matter of definition, the notion that Matthew's Jesus preached violence, period.

The "brother against brother" was refering to the turmoil that would come from believing in the Messiah in a Jewish household in 30AD. Later, in the Garden, he extorted Peter & Co. not not fight the Romans as they came to take him away.

Who knows what Jesus was really anticipating by "brother against brother", or saying that he would "bring a sword"? The only things we can say with reasonable assurance are that Jesus does not appear to have been advocating violence by his audience, and that - since he later rebuked his disciple for using a literal sword, and never literally took up a sword himself (doubtless against the expectations of many of his followers) - he was using the sword image in some other sense.

If someone told me he would bring a sword to the world, I'd be very concerned. Of course, matthew was pretty bent on making sure Jesus fit prophecy. It's possible he added that part because the messiah was supposedly going to be a general of some sort.

I know of no way of determining with any certitude whether Matthew (or a person responsible for the underlying source tradition) was "bent on making sure Jesus fit prophecy." On the other hand, I agree that the author and his audience might well have expected or hoped the Messiah to become some sort of military leader. It would not be the only respect in which the figure of Jesus contradicted or reversed the expectations and preconceived notions held by first-century Jews, rather than confirming them. I get the impression sometimes that the author of Matthew's Gospel found some of its content surprising even to him.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

To preach something, according to the OED, means "to exhort people (to some act or practice)"; to exhort means "to recommend earnestly" or "to urge by stimulating words to conduct regarded as laudable."

Jesus preached:
The end times are near.
During the end times people would rise up and follow him.
He would bring the wrath of god down.

Jesus was saying get ready for when the end times comes we’ll overthrow/decimate all those that don’t follow me. While I’ll admit that Jesus wasn’t saying grab a weapon and follow me; he was saying be ready to do so on a moments notice. Think of it more as getting the army ready instead of giving the order to march.

Ossai

 

[ceo_esq]

Jesus was saying get ready for when the end times comes we’ll overthrow/decimate all those that don’t follow me. While I’ll admit that Jesus wasn’t saying grab a weapon and follow me; he was saying be ready to do so on a moments notice. Think of it more as getting the army ready instead of giving the order to march.

Where does Matthew's Jesus indicate that the wrath of God, which is to be visited on the unrighteous, is going to involve an army that includes his followers in the audience? This seems to be the sort of thing restricted to God himself. If he had intended to convey what you're saying, wouldn't it have been crucial to add some important qualifications to his teachings about not living by the (literal) sword, doing good to one's enemies, and turning the other cheek (as in "N.B. This policy only applies until we've assembled the troops and are ready to launch the final assault")?

It just seems to me that you have to go looking pretty hard - almost "Bible Code" hard! - to come across anything in Matthew's Gospel that arguably constitutes preaching violence - and THEN you have to rationalize all of the explicitly nonviolent teachings. Let's be realistic; the most parsimonious interpretation is that Matthew's Jesus, while perhaps not a pacifist in the modern sense, is a lover not a fighter. Perhaps more importantly, he urges his audience to prefer nonviolence to violence.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

his seems to be the sort of thing restricted to God himself. If he had intended to convey what you're saying, wouldn't it have been crucial to add some important qualifications to his teachings about not living by the (literal) sword, doing good to one's enemies, and turning the other cheek (as in "N.B. This policy only applies until we've assembled the troops and are ready to launch the final assault")?

Where in Matthew does he teach the above? Is it the same place he teaches his followers to castrate themselves (and maybe children)?

 

[ceo_esq]

Where in Matthew does he teach the above?

If by "the above" you mean the parts about not living by the (literal) sword, doing good to one's enemies, and turning the other cheek, then consult Mt 5:38-48 and 26:52.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

If by "the above" you mean the parts about not living by the (literal) sword, doing good to one's enemies, and turning the other cheek, then consult Mt 5:38-48 and 26:52.

Yet that contradicts
Matthew 10:14-15
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

If Jesus’s followers aren’t the ones to extract vengeance who is?
This is in the same chapter of Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Jesus then goes on to talk about being the cause of domestic violence.
Matthew 10:35
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

Ossai

 

[Rufo]

Jesus then goes on to talk about being the cause of domestic violence.
Matthew 10:35
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

Ossai

Geez, you sure know how to interpret things the worst way possible, don't you?
I've always interpreted this more as a comment to his new teachings. Of course the young ones who are supposedly more interested in his teachings will get in conflict with their parents who sticks with the old ones. Jesus understood that he would cause conflict - and I'm not talking about divination here, but simple common sense, since he was indeed radical. "Not to send peace, but a sword." Also fits in. Of course there was going to be a mess, and Jesus knew that. Domestic violence? Aren't you making your conclusions a bit too fast here?

I'm not saying Jesus is all peace, love and understanding, though.

 

[Ossai]

Rufo

Geez, you sure know how to interpret things the worst way possible, don't you?

Not really. Jesus was basically building a dooms day cult. He told his followers that they should be more concerned with spreading the word than fighting back, but that the unbelievers would be punished worse than Sodom and Gomorrha.

If you want the worse way possible then look at Matthew 18:1-11.
People should be child like.
If a body part offends thee, cut it off.

Child like is open to interpretation, one of which is innocent, without sin or without temptations of the flesh (i.e. not sexually mature – or tempted by sex).

Throw in that interpretation and you get a clear message that men should be castrated to avoid temptation.

Ossai

 

[kuroyume0161]

Rufo
Not really. Jesus was basically building a dooms day cult. He told his followers that they should be more concerned with spreading the word than fighting back, but that the unbelievers would be punished worse than Sodom and Gomorrha.

If you want the worse way possible then look at Matthew 18:1-11.
People should be child like.
If a body part offends thee, cut it off.

Child like is open to interpretation, one of which is innocent, without sin or without temptations of the flesh (i.e. not sexually mature – or tempted by sex).

Throw in that interpretation and you get a clear message that men should be castrated to avoid temptation.

Ossai

Where have I heard something about 'cult' and 'castration' before? And, no, not thinking about the more recent Heaven's Gate cult.

And also sorry for not continuing the conversation here, but am a little busy with the project on which I'm supposedly supposed to be working, the seasonal stuff, and passing a kidney stone (ouch!). I think that the more scholarly evidence speaks somewhat for itself. The existence of someone associated with the lengendary character depicted in the gospels is still up in the air, once the biases and seemingly endless supply of post hoc ergo propter hoc are removed for validation.

Although one must take TV documentaries at face value, I did find a recent one about Jesus' holiday in Jerusalem to be a very interesting interpretation of the events from his entry therein to crucifixion. That at least shows that there may be some factuality to a personage on which the final events were based. But then again, interpretation and fact are two different things ... or at least one is contingent upon the other.

If this documentary is to be given merit, it would point to a cult leader with possibly passive resistance motives - any violent acts were more for making a point rather than actively promoting outright rebellion or violence.

 

[ceo_esq]

Yet that contradicts
Matthew 10:14-15
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

There's certainly no explicit contradiction. The only command Jesus gives in that verse is "when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet", and that's not incompatible with the other commands I cited.

If Jesus’s followers aren’t the ones to extract vengeance who is?

Well, both the Old and New Testament refer to the saying "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" - the lesson in each case being that it's Yahweh's job to exact retributive justice for wickedness. He didn't ask for any volunteers at Sodom, did he?

This is in the same chapter of Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Yes, we already accounted for that. Jesus never picked up a literal sword, and the next time one of his followers did so, Jesus rebuked the follower. Apparently, this statement (arguably ambiguous in isolation) was not a reference to armed violence. Other interpretations make far more sense, especially in light of all the nonviolent teachings in Matthew. In fact, in the very next verse, Jesus offers an explanation for his metaphor that suggests he's not calling anyone to take up arms.

Jesus then goes on to talk about being the cause of domestic violence.
Matthew 10:35
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

Hmm. I was often at variance against my father - sometimes seriously - but there was no domestic violence in our household. For that matter, the anti-slavery and pro-civil rights movements in the United States set men at variance against their fathers, and daughters against mothers, and daughters-in-law against mothers-in-law, but few people would characterize Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Jr. as being a culpable party to domestic violence (unless they simply were biased against Lincoln or King).

Once more, no clear preaching of violence as far as I can tell.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

Well, both the Old and New Testament refer to the saying "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" - the lesson in each case being that it's Yahweh's job to exact retributive justice for wickedness. He didn't ask for any volunteers at Sodom, did he?

Did you forget the claim that Jesus was the son of or was god? Jesus/god is going to come back, gather his follower and strike all others down.

Jesus never picked up a literal sword, and the next time one of his followers did so, Jesus rebuked the follower.

Jesus was a doomsday prophet, he was saying get ready. Or he may have just wanted to keep all the fun, murders, genocide, rape, and pillaging to himself.

Jesus then goes on to talk about being the cause of domestic violence.
Matthew 10:35
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

Hmm. I was often at variance against my father - sometimes seriously - but there was no domestic violence in our household. For that matter, the anti-slavery and pro-civil rights movements in the United States set men at variance against their fathers, and daughters against mothers, and daughters-in-law against mothers-in-law, but few people would characterize Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Jr. as being a culpable party to domestic violence (unless they simply were biased against Lincoln or King).

You’re playing semantic games. Let us look at a different translation.


Matthew 34-36
New International Version

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

New American Standard Bible

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
"For I came toSET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.”

New Living Translation

"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! No, I came to bring a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. Your enemies will be right in your own household!

Sounds like domestic violence.

Ossai

 

[davefoc]

I was a person that was casually interested in this topic. What I don't understand is what are the remaining issues. Isn't there a consensus here?

The Jesus' (in Matthew) point with all of this is that stuff isn't necessarily going to go well for those people who decide to pitch for him. And stuff not going well includes domestic violence. The only line that isn't quite consistent with this is the bringing the sword quote. There's not a lot to be said about that line without additional information beyond that in Matthew. Maybe it was a line that Matthew felt was necessary to throw in because it was extent already as an oral tradition, or maybe Matthew meant it exactly like ceo_esq suggested, i.e. a furtherance of the notion that prosthletyzing for Jesus wouldn't necessarily go peacefully.

 

[Ossai]

davefoc

The Jesus' (in Matthew) point with all of this is that stuff isn't necessarily going to go well for those people who decide to pitch for him. And stuff not going well includes domestic violence.

I took the whole passage as yet another example of biblical inconsistency. Jesus the one that is to save the world says that he’s here to break up families.

Is there any disagreement of what I’ve been repeating, that Jesus was a dooms day prophet?

Ossai