BLM protester disrupts Trump rally, gets roughed up and thrown out

[TerranceL]

Not sure what you mean by "physically kicked" them out, but he did not actually kick them NOR did he beat them.
He "drove them out", turned over their tables, and "made a whip of cords" to "drve all from the temple court...both sheep and cattle".

I've noticed how often physical violence by JEsus UPON other humans is misrepresented with this verse. Seems clear to me that he used the whip to drive out the long list of animals given in the John verse.

Wait, so what exactly do you think he did with the whip he made?

"Hey moneylenders look a this neat whip I made, yall go on outside and I'll show you how to make one!"

You do know what a whip is used for right? You really don't think it was harsh language alone that drove them out? And the whole turning over tables... that's physical violence... what would you call it? Do you think he requested the money lenders take a step back then gingerly turned over the table?

 

[TerranceL]

BLM is turning a house of prayer into a den of thieves?

No, analogy shows that when Christ felt the need he had no problem getting violent.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

Wait, so what exactly do you think he did with the whip he made?

"Hey moneylenders look a this neat whip I made, yall go on outside and I'll show you how to make one!"

You do know what a whip is used for right? You really don't think it was harsh language alone that drove them out? And the whole turning over tables... that's physical violence... what would you call it? Do you think he requested the money lenders take a step back then gingerly turned over the table?

The scriptures say Jesus took a whip 'to' the money changers. That means he whipped them. Had he not intended to assault them and being he was the son of God and could heal people, raise the dead, etc.... he could have cleared the temple just with his words. Instead he whipped the money changers with a whip he fashioned for the purpose of purging the temple.

However, you'll find there are those who refuse to acknowledge that Yeshua became violent and lost his temper because they imagine that would have been a sin and Yeshua was to be sinless. Those people forget that Yeshua was God. The same God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by burning its citizens to death, who drowned the world in the flood, who sent a she bear to eat children because a bald man asked him to as a curse upon those children, etc....
They forget all that in order to argue Yeshua couldn't have possibly lost his temper for the blasphemy that was taking place in his fathers house in the new testament.

If someone is going to worship the God of the Bible they can't pick and choose what characteristics they're going to accept and ignore as pertains to that God and his incarnate self Yeshua.
God/Jesus/Yeshua created Hell for ha Satan and his fallen angels. He opened it to receive the souls of humans due to the sins they commit that God decided made them worthy of sharing that eternal abode for finite mistakes and trespasses humans made because they were first imbued with a God given fallen human nature.

Many Christians just don't think. And that's a shame.

 

[smaneck]

In the analogy I gave it's clear that the money lenders are BLM.

Which is to turn the meaning of the story on its head.

 

[bhsmte]

The scriptures say Jesus took a whip 'to' the money changers. That means he whipped them. Had he not intended to assault them and being he was the son of God and could heal people, raise the dead, etc.... he could have cleared the temple just with his words. Instead he whipped the money changers with a whip he fashioned for the purpose of purging the temple.

However, you'll find there are those who refuse to acknowledge that Yeshua became violent and lost his temper because they imagine that would have been a sin and Yeshua was to be sinless. Those people forget that Yeshua was God. The same God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah by burning its citizens to death, who drowned the world in the flood, who sent a she bear to eat children because a bald man asked him to as a curse upon those children, etc....
They forget all that in order to argue Yeshua couldn't have possibly lost his temper for the blasphemy that was taking place in his fathers house in the new testament.

If someone is going to worship the God of the Bible they can't pick and choose what characteristics they're going to accept and ignore as pertains to that God and his incarnate self Yeshua.
God/Jesus/Yeshua created Hell for ha Satan and his fallen angels. He opened it to receive the souls of humans due to the sins they commit that God decided made them worthy of sharing that eternal abode for finite mistakes and trespasses humans made because they were first imbued with a God given fallen human nature.

Many Christians just don't think. And that's a shame.

I think what you really mean is; some Christians don't agree with your theology and that is a shame.

 

[smaneck]

The scriptures say Jesus took a whip 'to' the money changers. That means he whipped them. Had he not intended to assault them and being he was the son of God and could heal people, raise the dead, etc.... he could have cleared the temple just with his words. Instead he whipped the money changers with a whip he fashioned for the purpose of purging the temple.

Yes, Jesus got mad. At those who get rich off of exploiting other people.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

Which is to turn the meaning of the story on its head.

No actually the story refutes those who argue that Jesus would have tolerated BLM's racist extremism when he was preaching. And, worse yet, would have conceded his place at the podium so that those who hated him and his message could take over.

 

[rambot]

Wait, so what exactly do you think he did with the whip he made?

"Hey moneylenders look a this neat whip I made, yall go on outside and I'll show you how to make one!"

You do know what a whip is used for right? You really don't think it was harsh language alone that drove them out? And the whole turning over tables... that's physical violence... what would you call it? Do you think he requested the money lenders take a step back then gingerly turned over the table?

I already explained how it was described to be used. You are welcome to refer back to John 2 to help clarify your understanding but yes, there is NO mention of Jesus hitting people.
Also, I would note that Jesus has a disdain for money; that he overturned their tables and NOT hit other humans would go PERFECTLY in line with Jesus' love of his people and understanding that money is an idol. I would call turning over tables physically violent; but property damage is NOT the same as people damage (unless you choose to define yourself by your possessions...but I'm sure that, as Christians, we don't do that do we?) and Jesus did not damage people.

 

[smaneck]

Our Lord would have some choice words for both sides... but this idea that He'd support the abortion party is absurd. And slightly offensive. The Christian Left really needs to get off the high horse.

There is no such thing as an "abortion party." In fact abortions go down when other forms of birth control are encouraged and social services are adequate to allow women to keep their babies.

 

[smaneck]

No actually the story refutes those who argue that Jesus would have tolerated BLM's racist extremism when he was preaching.

I haven't seen any racist extremism in the BLM. The BLM would not have interrupted a sermon like Matthew 25 in the first place. They interrupt racists like Trump who falsely spread misinformation like 81% of the whites being murdered by blacks.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

Yes, Jesus got mad. At those who get rich off of exploiting other people.

Actually, the Shulḥanim in this case were Jews.
Who made their living exchanging foreign coin for Roman Denarius so that observant Jews could buy sacrificial animals at the local Roman licensed markets to sacrifice in the temple.
Jesus was enraged because his people rendered unto Caesar in order to worship God in his house while trading outside of his house in the name of pagan tradition and law.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

I haven't seen any racist extremism in the BLM. The BLM would not have interrupted a sermon like Matthew 25 in the first place. They interrupt racists like Trump who falsely spread misinformation like 81% of the whites being murdered by blacks.

What apology do you afford BLM for interrupting Sanders speech?

 

[smaneck]

What apology do you afford BLM for interrupting Sanders speech?

BLM felt Sanders wasn't giving enough attention to race matters. Sanders proved they were wrong by listening.

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

BLM felt Sanders wasn't giving enough attention to race matters. Sanders proved they were wrong by listening.

BLM was justified at the Sanders rally?


And no, Sanders didn't listen. Sanders and his aide shut down the rally.

 

[smaneck]

Actually, the Shulḥanim in this case were Jews.
Who made their living exchanging foreign coin for Roman Denarius so that observant Jews could buy sacrificial animals at the local Roman licensed markets to sacrifice in the temple.
Jesus was enraged because his people rendered unto Caesar in order to worship God in his house while trading outside of his house in the name of pagan tradition and law.

Seriously? That's what you think this story was about? Jesus told people to render under Ceasar! The reason the money changers made a profit is because they changed the money at a profit instead of providing the real value of the money being exchanged.

Apparently, you missed the "Den of thieves" part of the story.

 

[rambot]

The scriptures say Jesus took a whip 'to' the money changers.

Not in any verse/translation that I've seen. IT says he overturned their tables and took the whip to the animals.

That means he whipped them. Had he not intended to assault them and being he was the son of God and could heal people, raise the dead, etc.... he could have cleared the temple just with his words. Instead he whipped the money changers with a whip he fashioned for the purpose of purging the temple.

In the Matthew verse:
Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buyingL
)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-23839L"> and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changersM)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-23839M"> and the benches of those selling doves.N)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-23839N"> 13
The John verse:
"In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves,R
)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-26110R"> and others sitting at tables exchanging money.S)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-26110S"> 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s houseT)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-26112T"> into a market!”
That reads to me like the "all" that is being referred to is the animals since it appears to clarify what is meant when he uses the word "all" ("both sheep and cattle")

However, you'll find there are those who refuse to acknowledge that Yeshua became violent and lost his temper because they imagine that would have been a sin and Yeshua was to be sinless

I have no doubt that he became angry. But I don't believe he used violence against people. So I don't think it's a matter of me REFUSING to acknowledge anything; that is how I understand that verse. To be fair, my understanding of that verse was the same as yours until I read it with a more critical eye a couple years ago. Then I realized that there's no indication, really, that he hit a person (he overturned the money lender's tables and spilled their coins). And that makes sense; there is no (other) example of Jesus hitting a person. Having ONE example of violence would seem to me like a serious abberation of character. So it makes sense to me that Jesus demonstrated no violence to any one; and that is what a more precise reading of that passage indicates.

If someone is going to worship the God of the Bible they can't pick and choose what characteristics they're going to accept and ignore as pertains to that God and his incarnate self Yeshua.

And yet I see that very often on this forum; people making assumptions about God. Everyone does it.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Yeshuas_My_Freedom]

Not in any verse/translation that I've seen. IT says he overturned their tables and took the whip to the animals.

Actually the money changers were taking advantage of their own people, those who had traveled great distances in order to celebrate Passover. And the scriptures say he fashioned the whip and drove all from the temple! That would include people and animals alike.

 

[rambot]

Actually the money changers were taking advantage of their own people, those who had traveled great distances in order to celebrate Passover. And the scriptures say he fashioned the whip and drove all from the temple! That would include people and animals alike.

First off. In the Matthew verse, where it suggests he DROVE them off, it does not indicate he fashioned a whip. He fashioned a whip ONLY in the John verse where he clearly indicates that he used it on animals. Read the verse again "all... both sheep and cattle". Also, it CLEARLY states what he did do to the money lenders.

 

[whatbogsends]

Bernie doesn't bring the ratings and networks like ratings.

No, it's because he's represents to the establishment.

The networks are beholden to their respective financial backers. MSNBC aligns quite closely with the establishment Democrats and Fox aligns quite closely with the establishment Republicans. CNN leans Democrat and is pro-establishment.

Bernie draws large crowds in person, and would get ratings if he was given air time, but none of the major media networks support non-establishment candidates.

 

[smaneck]

No, it's because he's represents to the establishment.

The networks are beholden to their respective financial backers. MSNBC aligns quite closely with the establishment Democrats and Fox aligns quite closely with the establishment Republicans. CNN leans Democrat and is pro-establishment.

Bernie draws large crowds in person, and would get ratings if he was given air time, but none of the major media networks support non-establishment candidates.

I think you are wrong here. Carson and Trump get lots of coverage and I would hardly call them "establishment" leaders. They get the coverage because drama makes news.