Jesus did NOT Kill Mohammed

by Jarrod McKenna 05-13-2009 | 2:15pm

136 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

Donate

090513-jesus-killed-muhammad-harpers "Jesus Killed Mohammed" was written in Arabic in large red letters on the side of a U.S. Army Special Forces vehicle, armed to kill and rolling through a town in Iraq. It sounds like a bad Mad-Maxesque Hollywood adaption of the Crusades set in our contemporary context. The scene gets more chilling and horrific:

Take Action on This Issue

War No More

Ten years. Thousands of lives. Billions of dollars.

"Then, while they put the translator on the roof with a bullhorn, shouting in Arabic, 'Jesus killed Mohammed,' ... training American guns on anybody who responded, the Bradley fighting vehicle rolled out into the city of Samarra and drawing fire everywhere it went, leading the Special Forces to conclude that every single Iraqi who took offense at these words, 'Jesus killed Mohammed,' was part of the enemy and therefore needed to be destroyed."

The driver of this vehicle went on to "blow up everything he saw" because he explained later, "God was on his side." But this is not just a terrible movie where we can simply pick up our popcorn and walk out in protest. This scene is not from a form of sadomasochistic voyeurism that so often passes for 'film' and gets sold to us as soul-numbing entertainment. This scene is out of the brave and chilling article by Jeff Sharlet exposing horrors of a contemporary fundamentalist right-wing Constantinian "Christianity" that has divorced itself from the 'foolish' nonviolence of the cross and has prostituted itself to another violent military-industrial-growth-complex, like the one that crucified Christ.

While the U.S. military is seeking to go into damage control and discipline soldiers who have broken the proselytizing laws, the church must also deal with the damage to our witness that saying "Jesus is the Way" while failing to live "the Way of Jesus" causes. There are deep questions we as the church must ask that go to the heart of who God is, what the gospel is, and what God's grace calls us to and empowers us for.

The scriptures are clear:

"We know that we have come to know [Christ] if we obey his commands. The person that says, 'I know [Christ],' but does not do what [Christ] commands is a liar, and the truth is not in them. But if anyone obeys [Christ's] word, God's love is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in [Christ]: Whoever claims to live in [Christ] must walk as Jesus did." (1 John 2:3-6)

As my mate Greg Boyd puts it in his timely and important new book, The Myth of the Christian Religion,

"... the clearest evidence that we are being transformed by God's love and participating in the Kingdom that is not 'of this world' is that we adopt the same nonviolent, self-sacrificial stance toward enemies that Jesus had."

Another prophetic book, recently re-released that calls us as the church to be (what Greg would call), "a giant Jesus in the world", is Lee Camp's Mere Discipleship. Lee reminds us,

"[The early churches] model of evangelism ... if you wish the world to believe what you say, you must live as if you believe what you say ... Evangelism is not selling Jesus, but showing Jesus; evangelism is not mere telling about Christ, but about being Christ."

In our ministry, we are encountering a generation that wants to repent of a Christianity that looks like the violent injustice of Empires seen in the Crusades. This generation is hungry to embrace a Christianity that looks like the justice-seeking nonviolent 'kingdom' seen in Christ. And this is no longer just a fringe movement. You can listen to the audio here (or downloadable here) from one of Australia's largest churches where "Living God's Love: The Way of The Cross" is being preached and how the Spirit is moving and empowering a generation to live God's Calvary-shaped love for 'the least of these.'

This generation realizes that biblically, the only way the church practices "evangelism" and "mission" is to live and love like Christ, in such ways that others ask of us "why do your lives look like love, grace, and peace?" When we "walk as Jesus did," our lives will provoke such questions. And we will be read to answer, "Our God is love. Jesus' gospel of the kingdom is grace. And we are empowered by the Spirit to live a kingdom peace." Our generation is waking up to realize that killing for Jesus makes as much sense as shagging for celibacy.

Jarrod McKenna is seeking to live God's love. As a Vine and Fig Tree Planter, he plants "signs" on military bases that draw the connections between God's kingdom, militarism, and climate change. He is a co-founder of the Peace Tree Community, serving with the marginalized in one of the poorest areas in his city, heads up Together for Humanity in Western Australia (an interfaith youth initiative serving together for the common good), and is the founder and creative director of Empowering Peacemakers (EPYC), for which he has received an Australian peace award for his work in empowering a generation of (eco)evangelists and peace prophets.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Donate

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: neuro_nurse

05-13-2009 @ 5:50pm

"obviously Jesus seems to be intentionally exluding someone, which stands in contrast to a traditional view of Christ."

Those who are excluded are those who have rejected Christ, i.e., those who have excluded themselves.

Christ did not reject 'them,' nor should 'we.'

Those who don't know Christ cannot have rejected Him.

by: keithsmith

05-13-2009 @ 5:51pm

No, not obviously.

I was trying to read Isaiah to see who they were in Isaiah that Jesus was quoting from but not sure that I got an accurate picture there either.

by: squeaky

05-13-2009 @ 5:57pm

What's this "we" business?

by: keithsmith

05-13-2009 @ 6:01pm

In the parable of the sowers, it says that Jesus was by the lake and large crowds were gathered. He got into a boat and told them many things in parables including the parable of the sower.

You would assume that there were believers and nonbelievers alike in the crowd.

A few Scriptures later, Jesus says "This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing they do not see; Though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

It would be logical that those that were "them" at the beginning would be "them" at the end.

Question that was posed earlier arises again, who is "them?"

The next parable in Matthew is the Weeds. Jesus explains it and says The field is the world and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one.

The weeds will be pulled FIRST (something for you rapture fans to think about) and burned and then the good seed will be harvest.

So from Jesus mouth, there are people in this world that are the sons of the evil one and will not be harvest for Heaven.

In my study this past month, this parable has been very complexing to me. Not sure I know the answer.

by: BlueDeacon

05-14-2009 @ 12:29am

Was he upset and trying to run the cattle and sheep out of the temple?

Possibly. The folks who were selling animals to be used as sacrifices were taking up space in the Court of the Gentiles, thus keeping non-Jews from worshipping God. Remember what He said: "It is written, "My house shall be a house of prayer," but you have made it into a den of thieves."

My question is, who was it that told the disciples and Peter to have that sword?

He was saying, "Don't focus on that" -- remember how impetuous Peter tended to be. If they had bought guns the effect would have been the same, though Jesus probably would have said something different.

by: keithsmith

05-13-2009 @ 6:06pm

So, you know who told the disciples and Peter to have the sword? And when He told them that?

There is you a hint.

How would it fit into this view of Jesus if he told them to carry a sword? Even told them to sell their cloak and buy a sword. It was that important.

On a side note, don't you think that confused Peter when Jesus got on to me about having the sword and those who live by the sword will die by the sword? But Jesus, you were the one that told me to have one and sell my cloak to get it.

Personally, I think it is meaning that if that is your only way to handle issues than it is wrong.

But from his actions in the temple and telling them AT THE LAST SUPPER to get a sword, that there must be a time that the action with physicality and weapons is the right way. But it should not be the first or prevalent way.

by: neuro_nurse

05-13-2009 @ 6:08pm

'We' have no way of knowing who 'they' are. If someone thinks s/he can tell 'them' from 'us,' I strongly suspect that s/he been deceived by the evil one

by: neuro_nurse

05-13-2009 @ 6:09pm

You must be one of 'them!'

by: neuro_nurse

05-13-2009 @ 6:22pm

"How would it fit into this view of Jesus if he told them to carry a sword? Even told them to sell their cloak and buy a sword."

Sorry, to my understanding, that was metaphorical.

The foot note for Luke 22:36 in the New American Bible says, "

by: squeaky

05-13-2009 @ 6:23pm

it is a difficult passage--why would Jesus seem to deliberately make His message more difficult? Can't say I get that, but I don't think it is as simple as saying Christ was purposely excluding people. There is much cultural and historical context that could shed light on such statements. There is also the context of the stories Jesus told before and after that particular passage. What is the bigger message He is trying to give? Are we missing the forest because we are hung up on this one odd tree?

I would hazard a guess that the answer is far more likely we just don't understand what He means than it is that He is trying to exclude people from the fold.

I don't remember where I heard this, but I think there is a Jewish tradition that proselytes into the Jewish faith are with one hand held out of the faith and with the other invited in. It's because the Rabbis know the faith is hard, and making it harder to get in gives the proselyte the message that the faith is hard and holds no promises of making life easy. In this way, the proselyte is much better prepared for the life-long commitment that is Judaism.

Sometimes Christianity does just the opposite--"come on in! Life will be great when you become a Christian! All your troubles will be over!" And then when the new convert finds themselves still failing in the same ways he or she failed before he or she became a Christian, he or she quickly lose faith. Christianity is not and never should be presented as being easy.

Looking at the parables themselves. Maybe what He meant is that the things of God cannot be grasped from a simple surficial hearing of the Word. They are intentionally designed to cause the hearer (or reader) to dig in deeper. And in the digging you find you discover spiritual truths that are far more profound and important than you would have gained from a simple surface reading. And once you have had an experience like that, you tend to want to dig in even deeper. And when you start to get to that point, you start to become one who truly seeks the Kingdom of God.

Maybe He didn't want to breed surface Christians--turn and they would be healed...a downside of that, and one that we see in His ministry, is that people started coming to Him only for the physical needs He could give them--for healing, for a quick lunch--rather than for the depth of Spiritual truth He wished to impart in their lives and the depth of a relationship with Him. Have you ever wondered why it was so easy for the Pharisees to turn the crowd against Him? Almost certainly many of those people had eaten of the feasts he provided or had even been healed. They were more interested in using Him as a magic food or healing machine than they were of committing their lives to Him. If we only follow God for what we can get out of the relationship, then we have invented a God who is at our beck and call, and actually, we have created an idol.

So I think it would be a mistake to say that this passage is an example of Jesus being exclusive. There is far more than meets the eye.

by: 1Grace

05-14-2009 @ 3:26am

"He was saying, "Don't focus on that" -- remember how impetuous Peter tended to be. "

Yes he was . I believe part of the question though is why was Peter armed with a sword . I had learned that it was normal to carry a sword during traveling between towns because of robbers. But what the heck was Peter carrying a sword during that night is weird . Part of our problem , Ok my problem is being part of the western civilization church . We in America I believe tend to think too much with our "scientific rationalization" . Is the person who says die rather then strike back Bibically accurate ?
Should I allow my family to be murdered . But the message the Lord was giving was I believe our needs do not outweigh another . If a person is so poor he needs to rob you , give him more then he stole . I wonder how many any of us can say we would do that .?

I always liked Peter , not so much that he was wrong and disavowed Christ . Its that he is the best example of when people say you are Un Christ Like or see through eyes of their own and not how Christ sees you , The best example of us all here is the man who betrayed Christ three times in one night . I guess there is hope for us .

by: squeaky

05-13-2009 @ 6:36pm

Interesting footnote. Being prepared for the opposition doesn't necessarily mean armed, as you imply. The Sword of His word is far sharper than actual swords.

On another note--your point that perhaps we should look into the word translated sword is a good one. Not to be too cheeky, and I'm sure I'm taking this interpretation a bit far, but what if the word could be translated "knife"? If you are about to go out into the wilderness, you better have a knife with you--not for protection, but because of all the utilitarian aspects that knives offer. It is, in fact, one of the "ten essentials" that all hikers should carry with them for survival. Jesus was sending out the disciples into the "spiritual" wilderness. Certainly the sword of His word would be amongst their ten essentials. (He was also sending them out on the actual, physical road, and there too, a physical sword (knife) would be very important to survival).

by: squeaky

05-13-2009 @ 6:28pm

Well said, Neuronurse. Jesus is the only person who can judge who is "we" and "them". "we" (if in fact we are we and not them) cannot make that call and have no authority to make those judgments. We get in trouble when we try to do Jesus' job for Him. No one has been given the authority to judge but Him.

by: BlueDeacon

05-14-2009 @ 10:52am

But the message the Lord was giving was I believe our needs do not outweigh another . If a person is so poor he needs to rob you , give him more then he stole . I wonder how many any of us can say we would do that .?

The point is that we should help to create a society in which people don't feel they have to steal. That would truly be counter-cultural because it would result in a level of accountability that we Americans don't care for.

by: squeaky

05-13-2009 @ 6:37pm

Hmmm...I'm feeling a bit Pogo-ish here...we searched for the enemy and they are us.

by: 1Grace

05-14-2009 @ 12:25pm

I know . If I was stealing from you , or anyone would they say here , have
this too ? Our church in western civilization distorst these scriptures
meaning I think . From my rationalizing mind the literal method of giving
someone more of my stuff if they were robbing me would encourgage that
person to steal again . The Commandment says Thous Shall not Steal . Am Im
promoting breaking the Commandment by rewarding :< from my rationalization>
the thief with more goods .
Or am I not obeying Christ by not allowing a thief to rob me . Anyway , its
one reason I really get miffed at church doctrines sometimes . When someone
says they doubt you can be a follower of Christ because you do not give a
specfic doctirne trhe credence they believe deserves , I think of Peter . He
was in the company of Christ for three years, heard more of the Gospel we
have . If he could pull out a sword , their is hope for us I guess.

The need to steal ? At Bible Study our pastor was talking about people he
had councseled on violence . Hitting their wives even . He stated in many
cases the person doing the violence had been hurt themselves by violence ,
one man actually hit by a shovel by his father for discipline . I would say
I understand your view on social justice Rick , that if people were treated
better their would be less ills in the world . In fact if you get anything
out of the Old Testament , and how we are to behave is to help those in need
, and not have idols before us that get in the way of God . I think we both
allowed our idols , in my case mine anyway , to get in the way of our
exchanges .

Mick

by: keithsmith

05-14-2009 @ 1:40pm

Not sure I know what you mean by metaphorical.

Are you meaning he told them to get a sword but didn't really mean for them to get a sword?

by: keithsmith

05-14-2009 @ 1:47pm

Good point on the translation except for it would seem (emphasis on seem which means it is not 100% true) that Jesus told them that and then they should Him two swords and then he told them that was good enough.

And then just a few hours later Peter brandishes his sword.

While we don't know, it is not a huge leap to think that either Peter's sword was one of the two swords or that it was very similar to the two swords that the disciples (maybe even Peter) had shown Jesus.

by: keithsmith

05-14-2009 @ 1:55pm

You mentioned look at Peter.

I will give you one better. Look at Judas who was in Christ's company and from the way Scripture reads there is a pretty good chance that Judas was given Christ's power in healing people.

AND YET, Judas did what Judas did. If Judas could fall so far from Christ seeing, knowing, doing what he did, how much easier would it be for one of us to fall.

On Peter being impetous and what was he doing with the sword.

I think it was as much as him misinterpreting Christ's directions as anything.

Why would Peter have a sword? Cause at the Last Supper, Jesus told them to have a sword. Makes perfect sense to me that he would.

I can imagine Peter later on reviewing that statement to him about the sword and being confused, saying, "Wasn't it Jesus who told me to have a sword???"

What Peter probably learned later is that having a sword and going to it first and making it the cornerstone of your actions was wrong.

by: neuro_nurse

05-14-2009 @ 2:08pm

"I always liked Peter"

I like Peter too. He reminds us that the Apostles were flawed individuals

by: neuro_nurse

05-14-2009 @ 2:20pm

Squeaky's comment above summarizes the metaphor.

by: BlueDeacon

05-14-2009 @ 12:29am

Was he upset and trying to run the cattle and sheep out of the temple?

My question is, who was it that told the disciples and Peter to have that sword?

by: joshjoshjosh

05-22-2009 @ 4:29pm

How
possibly
thin
can
these
columns
get?
Lol.

by: squeaky

05-14-2009 @ 3:00pm

Peter was constantly misinterpreting Christ's meaning--it's not that big a surprise that he should get it wrong about the sword, if in fact, he did.

by: 1Grace

05-14-2009 @ 3:26am

"He was saying, "Don't focus on that" -- remember how impetuous Peter tended to be. "

by: 1Grace

05-14-2009 @ 3:16pm

Keith also this is a possible correlation I have thought about . Remember King David getting upset with God when he struck down the man for holding up the ARk when he thought is was going to fall . The lesson I got out of that , besides yikes , was that we do not need to help God . We tend to do it , try to . I see it all the time here , I get caught into it . As if Jesus needed Peter to pull out a sword to help him . Jesus could have cleaned House if he wanted to , Peter helping out with the sword was an act of Unbelief on his part .

Good conversation by the way , hope you stick around .

by: neuro_nurse

05-14-2009 @ 4:08pm

"Peter helping out with the sword was an act of Unbelief on his part . "

Yes!

by: neuro_nurse

05-14-2009 @ 4:06pm

"You mentioned look at Peter. I will give you one better. Look at Judas who was in Christ's company

by: BlueDeacon

05-14-2009 @ 10:52am

by: 1Grace

05-14-2009 @ 12:25pm

Mick

by: keithsmith

05-14-2009 @ 1:40pm

Not sure I know what you mean by metaphorical.

Are you meaning he told them to get a sword but didn't really mean for them to get a sword?

by: keithsmith

05-14-2009 @ 1:47pm

And then just a few hours later Peter brandishes his sword.

by: keithsmith

05-14-2009 @ 1:55pm

You mentioned look at Peter.

I will give you one better. Look at Judas who was in Christ's company and from the way Scripture reads there is a pretty good chance that Judas was given Christ's power in healing people.

AND YET, Judas did what Judas did. If Judas could fall so far from Christ seeing, knowing, doing what he did, how much easier would it be for one of us to fall.

On Peter being impetous and what was he doing with the sword.

I think it was as much as him misinterpreting Christ's directions as anything.

Why would Peter have a sword? Cause at the Last Supper, Jesus told them to have a sword. Makes perfect sense to me that he would.

I can imagine Peter later on reviewing that statement to him about the sword and being confused, saying, "Wasn't it Jesus who told me to have a sword???"

What Peter probably learned later is that having a sword and going to it first and making it the cornerstone of your actions was wrong.

by: neuro_nurse

05-14-2009 @ 2:08pm

"I always liked Peter"

I like Peter too. He reminds us that the Apostles were flawed individuals

by: neuro_nurse

05-14-2009 @ 2:20pm

Squeaky's comment above summarizes the metaphor.

by: squeaky

05-14-2009 @ 3:00pm

Peter was constantly misinterpreting Christ's meaning--it's not that big a surprise that he should get it wrong about the sword, if in fact, he did.

by: 1Grace

05-14-2009 @ 3:16pm

Good conversation by the way , hope you stick around .

by: mscynthia

05-15-2009 @ 11:11am

In the eyes of the capitalist who set up shop inside the walls of the Temple he was doing a bit of vandalism. Certainly enough to label him as a criminal in their eyes.
What they were doing was legal but not ethical. Jesus lost patience with them and started knocking over their stalls. What were they going to do if everybody started doing this.

by: neuro_nurse

05-14-2009 @ 4:08pm

"Peter helping out with the sword was an act of Unbelief on his part . "

Yes!

by: keithsmith

05-15-2009 @ 11:16am

So a present day Christian who would lose their patience with the social issues of the day is no different than Jesus losing is patience with them (as you have stated)?

Losing patience with our social issues of the day than obviously cannot be a sin (based on your statement) since it would be similar to what Jesus did and we know he was sin-free.

by: neuro_nurse

05-14-2009 @ 4:06pm

"You mentioned look at Peter. I will give you one better. Look at Judas who was in Christ's company

by: keithsmith

05-15-2009 @ 11:42am

I agree with your view that having a knife/sword is essential when going out to the wilderness. And to my point that sometimes having a sword and using it is the absolutely correct thing to do. You just can't make it your first and normal reaction to handling matters as he later indicated to Peter. But there sure seems to indicate that having and possibly using one when appropriate is okay.

This is a part of the Last Supper that is often overlooked.

But it being His Word does not fit because they show two swords to Jesus and He says that will be enough.

How could they be showing Him His own Word?

by: keithsmith

05-15-2009 @ 11:44am

Thank you and I agree. I have enjoyed the discussion.

by: keithsmith

05-15-2009 @ 11:49am

I 100% agree that Jesus wanted us to know about Judas and in our distaste for his betrayal we miss a great lesson for each of us.

How easily, despite all of our study, reading of the Bible, etc, etc (that is similar to what Judas experienced being around Jesus) that the evil one could mislead us for what we think are good worldy things. As Judas was misled.

by: mscynthia

05-15-2009 @ 12:53pm

I dare anyone of those soldiers in the video to go into an Afghan village with out any weapons and live the life professed as Jesus saw it. You can not sincerely be in the act of authentic proselytism if the people you are reaching out to and their neighbors are potential targets of your weapons. Who is going to take you seriously?

If these guys were really serious about what they were reading they would ask to serve in Iraq or Afganistan with out a weapon. The military would eventually dispose of them as unfit for service.

More over most missionaries will tell you they are the ones standing in the need of grace. The most important thing a true missionary does is return home and report on the humanity he has witnessed abroad. IT is us back home that need the saving. How can you know a people well enough if you live among them armed like a lion among lambs?

The ignorance and lack of self reflection in the video is appalling. These are amateurs who have not done any of their required homework for the heart or the head. Maybe the army should wonder if they know what these guys are doing in the army if they are this shallow in their processing ability. If the Chaplain in this video is really serious about about doing mission work why did he sign up for the military? What was he thinking?

I hope their fearless leader gets to clean some latrines for this violating military code. IF he is really serious about being a missionary maybe he will see the light and get better training for that purpose from people in the church community who know what they are doing.

I'm sure their are plenty of professional missionaries in the field who are thinking thanks, but no thanks. Please don't help us. Not like this. The out rage is that you not only endanger the lives of your fellow military with scandal like this you most certainly target authentic mission people in the field who are living on the fault lines between cultures.

By the way there are communities in Africa who desperately need education and public works projects in local sanitation. Not so glamerous as holding a gun but far more essential for saving lives. You really want to win hearts and minds not to mention save souls, put down your gun and try picking up a shovel.

by: neuro_nurse

05-15-2009 @ 2:01pm

"The most important thing a true missionary does is return home and report on the humanity he has witnessed abroad. IT is us back home that need the saving."

Thanks for your comments.

Bruce and Michelle Steffes wrote a book called "Handbook for Short-Term Medical Missionaries." Last summer, Bruce Steffes lectured a tropical medicine program I attended.

One of the things he addressed, both in his lecture and the Handbook is reentry shock. We all know about the culture shock people experience living in a foreign country, but people who serve in other countries also have difficulty reintegrating into their own culture.

Even though I wasn't working as a "missionary" (as commonly understood), one of the most difficult things about my volunteer work in Ethiopia was returning to the U.S. and realizing that most people really didn't care to hear about it.

I'm currently reading "The Hole in Our Gospel" by Richard Stearns, the president of World Vision U.S.A. It's a good book, but for me, he's preaching to the choir. He also addresses the lack of interest people in this country have in hearing about what's going on in developing countries.

I am reminded of a song by Living Colour called "Go Away."

My heart goes out to those missionaries who have to spend part of their time raising funds to support their missions.

"The out rage is that you not only endanger the lives of your fellow military with scandal like this you most certainly target authentic mission people in the field who are living on the fault lines between cultures."

Thank you

by: mscynthia

05-15-2009 @ 2:17pm

Having feelings is not a sin.

Its the way we choose to respond to those feelings.

I rather tend to think that Jesus carefully chose the day and the tools he would use. He probably even thought about which disciples and followers were going to be tagging along with him. This wasn't acting on your impulses. After all it was not about bringing harm or injury to anyone.

He was speaking truth to power with his actions that day. A very dangerous thing to do. Move these stalls out of here and dump them on the street.

It was definitely intended to be a disruption of business as usual. His demonstration was illegal in a court of the day. Anyone else would have been locked up for vandalism or causing social disorder. Don't you think the merchants went to the authorities and complained?

Maybe the Pharisees weren't in the mood for a riot that day or they might have had him arrested, right then and there. As we know now they were busy laying other plans for him. They were hoping his future activities would provide even more evidence for their cause.

by: destroyideas

05-21-2009 @ 4:51pm

The conclusion is right in the text. "He made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle." So he drove sheep and cattle with the whip.

And to the people? 'he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"'

John 2:14-16

You would have to ADD to what is written to infer he whipped the men.

by: keithsmith

05-15-2009 @ 2:41pm

Jesus did respond to those feelings, correct? He responded by driving out either the animals, people or both. He responded by turning over tables, scattering the coins of the money-changers.

If a pro-life person went into an abortion clinic and overturned tables and scattered money, how would that be viewed?

by: naekwon

05-15-2009 @ 2:51pm

Yes, I think if Jesus had access to high powered explosives, he probably would have bombed the temple. (Forget the symbolism of purifying the temple as every passed Messiah had done from David to Judas Maccabeus to Bar Kokhba). He did this to give you justification to plant bombs in abortion clinics. I think that the act would be viewed quite favorably. You may even win a Nobel Peace Prize.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: neuro_nurse

05-13-2009 @ 2:19pm

"Charity, furthermore, cannot be used as a means of engaging in what is nowadays considered proselytism. Love is free; it is not practised as a way of achieving other ends. But this does not mean that charitable activity must somehow leave God and Christ aside. For it is always concerned with the whole man. Often the deepest cause of suffering is the very absence of God. Those who practise charity in the Church's name will never seek to impose the Church's faith upon others. They realize that a pure and generous love is the best witness to the God in whom we believe and by whom we are driven to love. A Christian knows when it is time to speak of God and when it is better to say nothing and to let love alone speak. He knows that God is love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8) and that God's presence is felt at the very time when the only thing we do is to love."
Benedict XVI
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/...

Now, I wouldn't be so naïve as to call the U.S. military action in Afghanistan "charity," but it is clear that Christians can share God's Word and Christ's love without engaging in proselytism.

Of course, it might be a bit more difficult to demonstrate Christian love while armed.

by: neuro_nurse

05-13-2009 @ 2:19pm

Now, I wouldn't be so naïve as to call the U.S. military action in Afghanistan "charity," but it is clear that Christians can share God's Word and Christ's love without engaging in proselytism.

Of course, it might be a bit more difficult to demonstrate Christian love while armed.

by: keithsmith

05-13-2009 @ 3:22pm

From the article...

As my mate Greg Boyd puts it in his timely and important new book, The Myth of the Christian Religion,

by: keithsmith

05-13-2009 @ 3:22pm

From the article...

As my mate Greg Boyd puts it in his timely and important new book, The Myth of the Christian Religion,

by: gened

05-13-2009 @ 3:44pm

keithsmith asked a good question. To me Jesus' action of chasing the money changers out of the temple was a doubly prophetic act. He was chasing out those who had profaned the people's access to God by offering that access only through worldly goods: Mammon. He was also metaphorically denying the temple's validity as well. The temple had lost its right to offer access to God by its corruption. It was only 40 years before that temple would be destroyed by the Romans. He seemed to have little patience for the 'insider' class that he felt had betrayed the faith. Oddly enough, he seemed to display lots of patience, love and nonviolence to those outsiders (Samaritans & pagans, for example) who seemed to get his message better than the 'insiders.'

by: gened

05-13-2009 @ 3:44pm

by: keithsmith

05-13-2009 @ 3:59pm

I agree that he had little patience with insiders and rightfully so.

And I agree that he did display patience for outsiders, BUT

I have been doing a study of his main teaching method parables and the Parable of the Sower is interesting.

They ask why he taught in parables. And he said because the Kingdom of Heaven has been given to you (speaking to the disciples) and NOT TO THEM. And then he went on to say the reason he speaks in parables was that THEY will not understand. It seems he chose that method of teaching to purposely avoid THEM not understanding.

He even quotes Isaiah saying basically they hear but don't understand and "Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them."

It seems that he is saying he spoke in parables for the reason that he did not want to heal some.

Very perplexing in this mindset that Jesus loves all outsiders.

by: keithsmith

05-13-2009 @ 3:59pm

I agree that he had little patience with insiders and rightfully so.

And I agree that he did display patience for outsiders, BUT

I have been doing a study of his main teaching method parables and the Parable of the Sower is interesting.

It seems that he is saying he spoke in parables for the reason that he did not want to heal some.

Very perplexing in this mindset that Jesus loves all outsiders.

by: meurig

05-13-2009 @ 4:05pm

Actually quite easily, Keith.

Firstly, the most natural meaning of the Greek text appears to be that he used the whip (which features only in John's account) only on the "cattle and sheep".

Secondly, there is no hint of lethal force, nor of the intent of lethal force, in any of the gospel accounts of the cleansing of the temple.

by: meurig

05-13-2009 @ 4:05pm

Actually quite easily, Keith.

Firstly, the most natural meaning of the Greek text appears to be that he used the whip (which features only in John's account) only on the "cattle and sheep".

Secondly, there is no hint of lethal force, nor of the intent of lethal force, in any of the gospel accounts of the cleansing of the temple.

by: squeaky

05-13-2009 @ 4:11pm

The question is, who do you think "they" are?

by: squeaky

05-13-2009 @ 4:11pm

The question is, who do you think "they" are?

by: keithsmith

05-13-2009 @ 4:12pm

So, if something is not lethal, it would not be violent then?

On the first paragraph, not sure how you come to the conclusion that it would have only been on cattle and sheep. Was he upset and trying to run the cattle and sheep out of the temple?

On another note, alot of people like to use the quote of those who live by the sword will die by the sword to show a nonviolent Jesus. My question is, who was it that told the disciples and Peter to have that sword?

by: keithsmith

05-13-2009 @ 4:12pm

So, if something is not lethal, it would not be violent then?

On the first paragraph, not sure how you come to the conclusion that it would have only been on cattle and sheep. Was he upset and trying to run the cattle and sheep out of the temple?

by: keithsmith

05-13-2009 @ 4:13pm

That is the key.

But the key is not who I think the they are but who did Jesus mean they were.

by: keithsmith

05-13-2009 @ 4:13pm

That is the key.

But the key is not who I think the they are but who did Jesus mean they were.

by: squeaky

05-13-2009 @ 5:41pm

But if we don't know who that is, then what's the point? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here--are you trying to say that since Jesus was exclusive (according to your understanding of His words) that we also have the right to be exclusive? Please clarify.

by: squeaky

05-13-2009 @ 5:41pm

by: neuro_nurse

05-13-2009 @ 5:45pm

Coincidentally, I gave that very subject some thought this morning.

Peter was a fisherman. Knives are essential tools for fishermen. I don't know if the Greek word used in the Gospels translates to either 'sword' or 'knife.'

Judea at the time was occupied by Rome, and I doubt the Roman authorities of the day would have allowed those subjected to its rule to carry arms so freely.

Just a thought.

by: neuro_nurse

05-13-2009 @ 5:45pm

Coincidentally, I gave that very subject some thought this morning.

Peter was a fisherman. Knives are essential tools for fishermen. I don't know if the Greek word used in the Gospels translates to either 'sword' or 'knife.'

Judea at the time was occupied by Rome, and I doubt the Roman authorities of the day would have allowed those subjected to its rule to carry arms so freely.

Just a thought.

by: neuro_nurse

05-13-2009 @ 5:46pm

"...who do you think "they" are?"

Anyone who isn't me or we, obviously.