How does this representation of Jesus make you feel?

[BurtWorm]

[trotsky]

1. Jesus allegedly took a whip to the money changers in the temple.

Why wouldn't he use a gun today?

[Hepburn]

8. He is a long haired librul ~~ could not get a carry permit...n/t

[yellowcanine]

9. The equivalent in his day to a gun was a sword - not a whip.

Besides, there is nothing recorded that suggests he actually whipped anyone.

According to the Gospel of John he used the whip to chase sheep and cattle out of the temple.

John 2:15So 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. 16To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!" And from Matthew 21:13"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

[onager]

14. That whole thing makes no sense.

According to the Gospel of John he used the whip to chase sheep and cattle out of the temple.

They weren't in "the temple," but in the Temple courtyard - which was about the size of 4 (U.S.) football fields. Or a modern Wal-Mart...

And those were sacrificial animals. They had to be ritually purified to be used as offerings in the Temple, which is exactly why they were hanging around the Temple courtyard - for use in religious rituals.

The entrepeneurs that Psycho Jesus attacked were providing a necessary service for believers visiting the Temple to worship according to Judaic law. Since elsewhere Jesus claims he had come to uphold the law and not to overturn it, he shouldn't have been so pissed off.

But then the whole story is most likely fictional. Which can also be said of Jesus himself.

...he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

Again, the moneychangers provided a necessary service. Roman coins of the time were engraved with the Emperor's picture - a "graven image" which could not be used as an offering in the Temple. That would have been blasphemy, which got you stoned to death in those days - as all Monty Python fans know. Before worshippers could enter the Temple to make an offering, their Roman money had to be exchanged for local coinage with no graven images.

Jewish coins of that time/place were engraved with stuff like grapevines and wheat. When Pontius Pilate became Prefect of Judea, he minted coins with traditional Jewish symbols on the reverse and Roman gods on the obverse. Archeologists have found some of those coins.

One Xian website claims - amazingly - that Pilate did this to send a message about his respect for the Jewish religion and toleration of it. That's incredible "logic." It was an out-and-out insult to mix Jewish and Roman religious symbols, and Pilate certainly knew it.

So he was sending a message, all right. But it was more like - "I am here to kick ass and take my names. Just shut up, pay your taxes and we will get along. Screw with me and you will regret it."

[stopbush]

26. Exactly. In the past, I've made the point on DU about the money changers provding a needed service.

Does anyone think that the Roman money changers would give a Jew a better rate to change Roman coins into acceptable Jewish tender than would the money changers at the Temple?

Selling the sacrificial animals was also a service. Every Jewish male was required by the Law to make a live sacrifice every year. Many chose to do that at the Temple in Jerusalem. Sure, a goatherd could bring his own goat all the way with him to sacrifice, but he risked having the animal declared unclean by the priests, which would mean buying an animal at the Temple courtyard anyway.

And, since Yahweh himself set up the rules, what right did Jesus have in overturning the tables of the service industry that was there for the sole purpose of giving Jews a good option to carry out their commitments to Yahweh? Were Jesus around today, he'd probably destroy the flower shop at Mount Sinai Hospital in NYC.

[left is right]

39. there is more to it than you seem to realize

You are correct the sheep and cattle were for sacrifice but they did not meet the standard for sacrifice. They were supposed to be flawless but very recent changes had allowed the selling of inferior animals not worthy of the high price (by their standards) and certainly not worthy of sacrifice. the moneychangers were making a mockery of the whole sacrificial system. It was an affront to God.
Also at the same time they were encroaching upon the space allotted to women, foreigners, and the ritually unclean who could not enter the temple but were allowed to worship outside of the temple in select areas.
These changes that made Jesus so mad that he turned up table and spilt coins, etc was enacted at least partially by the Jewish priests

Added on edit:
It was this instance that set the Jewish council against Jesus. It was on after this action that they set out to rid themselves of this trouble maker.

The passage about the money lenders should make us think of lawyers that go after corporations when they place profits above human safety. Right now I am thinking of the recent egg scandal

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

43. Psycho Jesus??

So I'm a "psycho" for telling a bunch of criminals to get out of My Dad's house?

Believe Me, next time I'm going to the Vatican, Salt Lake City, and Pat Robertson's place in Virginia Beach to do exactly the same thing.

Won't need the guns though. :)

[stopbush]

21. Depends on which Gospel and translation you consult.

The KJV has this:

John 2:14 "And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables"

This translation makes it clear that Jesus used the scourge on animals and humans alike, even singling out the animals after noting that he used the scourge on all. Also, verse 2:14 makes it clear the both animals and humans were involved in being beaten, as verse 15 reflexively draws upon the information provided in the earlier verse to let us know who the "all" were who were driven out with the scourge.

The translation you cite conveniently CHANGES THE TEXT to "both sheep and cattle" as well as the order of the text to get around the fact that Jesus used the scourge on people.

I know Xians love to rewrite this scene of overt violence on the part of gentle Jesus, meek and mild, but the man acted exactly the way one would expect a megalomaniac to act when his delusion of being god was offended.

BTW - The New KJV has this: 15 "When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables," again, clearly showing that Jesus used the scourge on people as well as animals.

[yellowcanine]

23. Not so clear to me.

It isn't even clear that the whip was used on the cattle and sheep let alone people.
People will read into it what they want. If you take the whole NT Jesus does not come across as someone who used violence to further his agenda.

[stopbush]

25. Jesus lived in very violent time, and violence was codified in the OT

as being just peachy keen. It was OK to sell one's daughter into slavery, after all.

While there's only one act of physical violence on Jesus' part noted in the NT, his anti-human philosophy fairly litters the scriptures.

Of course, he's just a fictional character that the world would be better off treating as such.

[yellowcanine]

27. Fictional or not, the words of Matthew 5 and Matthew 25 are still good words to follow.

Someone wrote them. It is the ideas which are important, not the details of authorship.

[stopbush]

29. ???????

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

So, the laws of the OT are binding upon everyone FOREVER. Break one, and you're fucked.

Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.
25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

Gentle Jesus, meek and mild loves to condemn people to an eternity of hellfire. What an asshole.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

46. I didn't condemn anybody to an eternity of Hellfire

Perhaps you should try reading the whole chapter again. Those who are condemned to Hell are there because of their own actions. I would rather not see anybody go there, which is why I made it clear how to avoid it.

As far as "break one and you're fucked", that's where forgiveness comes in. :)

[trotsky]

48. Infinite punishment for a finite transgression.

Yup, you are a vengeful god. No wonder so many violent people love you.

[hendo]

37. Kind of makes you wonder what he would do

to the fat cats on Wall-street huh?

[stopbush]

19. Exactly. And he fashioned the weapon himself and - according to the Bible -

used it on humans and animals alike.

Had Jesus lived past 33 he would have turned into a Grumpy McCain at some point.

Seriously - Jesus is an incredibly vile character.

[KansDem]

2. I like this one better...

[closeupready]

3. Amused. It looks like Sawyer in a toga.

You know, from "Lost".

[gateley]

4. Shows how ludicrous it is for people like Cheney and Rumsfled (and many others)

to claim they are Christians. I'm sure they would think this is blasphemous.

[mediaman007]

5. Other: Protected

He doesn't seem to have a posse. Hope He doesn't let someone slip around behind Him.

[jobycom]

6. Looks more like Bubba in a bathrobe. nt

[Hepburn]

7. Other: The artist has a screw looose. n/t

[TlalocW]

10. I don't know much about guns, but that looks like something you use for hunting, no?

So... where are all the empty beer cans, and the beer that should be in Jesus' hand?

TlalocW

[BurtWorm]

11. He threw them in the river, just like any hunter would.

;-)

Actually they're in a cooler behind the painter.

[spin]

15. You obviously do not know much about guns or hunting ...

Guns and alcohol do not mix.

Responsible hunters do not drink while hunting. If drinking is involved it happens after the guns are unloaded at camp at night.

[Xithras]

12. Slightly ill

I fail to see how it's possible for anyone who has actually read and believes in the New Testament to see that image as anything other than a blasphemous heresy. When purported "Christians" pass around images like these, it just shows how little comprehension they have of the foundations of their own religion.

While I'm no longer a "believer", a significant part of my childhood was spent in the home of my grandfather, a retired priest. That image would have had him on his knees praying for the lost souls of the idiots who created it. He would have called it satanism.

[spin]

17. Some of the followers of Jesus were armed ...

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. 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. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

At that time, the sword was the equivalent of a handgun. The rifle shown might have been the equivalent of a bow. It that sense, the picture is misleading. Jesus should have been portrayed holding a S&W snub nosed revolver or a 1911 .45 auto.

[Xithras]

20. Yes, and what happened a couple of passages later?

Jesus, according to that chapter, was fulfilling a prophesy. When the guards came to seize Jesus and one of his followers struck the guard with his sword (cutting off his ear), Jesus not only commanded him to stop the violence, but actually reached out and healed the guard who had come to take him away to be tortured and killed, completely restoring his severed ear.

While the Book of Luke does mention that his followers had some weapons, it also makes it clear that Jesus absolutely forbade their use against another human being, even when their use could be "justified". He would not permit his followers to take up arms against those who opposed him, even when that decision would end his own life.

The problem I have with most Christians (or Muslims, or most religious people in general) is that they do exactly what you just did. They pick a couple of lines from a particular passage to justify some sort of behavior, completely ignoring the context of the passage in its entirety.

[spin]

24. The authorities were arresting Jesus ...

not the same situation as if his group was being attacked by thugs intent on inflicting serious harm or killing members of his group.

I carry a concealed firearm with a permit, but that doesn't justify my shooting a police office who walks up to arrest me even if the charge is false.

As with many questions in our lives, self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. For instance, in the Luke 22 passage stated above, Jesus does tell his disciples to get a sword. Jesus knew that now was the time when Jesus would be threatened (and later killed) and his followers would be threatened as well. Jesus was giving approval of the fact that one has the right to self-defense. Now just a few verses later we see Jesus being arrested and Peter takes a sword and cuts off someone’s ear. Jesus rebukes him for that act. Why? Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped. We must be wise as to when to fight and when not to.

As far as self-defense when one’s life or property is threatened, there is not a whole lot in the Bible concerning this. Exodus 22 does show quite a bit about God’s attitude toward self-defense. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft” (Exodus 22:2-3). Obviously here we see that when a thief breaks into someone’s house at night and that person defends his home and slays the thief, God does not hold that death over the defender’s head. However, God does not wish for anyone to take law into his or her own hands. This is why it is said that if a thief is struck down during the daylight the defender is guilty of bloodshed. Now this is speaking of thievery, not an attack. So if the thief were to attack the defender even during the day, self-defense would be justified.

The proper use of self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. In many karate classes, one of the principles is: “Restrain your physical abilities by spiritual attainment.” This is a fancy way of saying that since one has the ability to bring great harm doesn’t mean he or she needs to use it. Just because we can break someone’s arm, doesn’t mean we need to use that ability. Just because we have a gun doesn’t mean we need to fire on someone who breaks into the home.
http://www.gotquestions.org/self-defense.html

[cleanhippie]

13. The whole thing is a myth to begin with

so why not add a rifle to the myth? Insert a couple of T-rex and stegosaurus and you have the perfect answer.

[GoneOffShore]

35. Now I'm laughing!

Good one.

[humblebum]

16. Winchester Model 1892, I believe. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Other:

He's going to have a hard time stalking his deer dressed like that.

[qb]

22. Other: Rugged, handsome... it's kind of a turn-on.

:evilgrin:

[frogmarch]

28. About the same as

this representation of Elmer Fudd does:



How fictional characters are portrayed doesn't matter to me.

[Nihil]

30. Other: Old

As in "Was it really that long since that photo was last posted in R/T?"

:P

[dimbear]

31. OK, let's get serious for a second.

Jesus actually did grow up in a rather unusual part of the Near East, more or less beside a lake, and one of the few areas of the Near East (not on the coast) which subsisted mainly on fish as a source of protein. In such an environment, it's likely that his interest would have turned naturally to fishing, even as a hobby. Not hunting.

So the picture which doesn't show Jesus with a rod and creel fills me with a feeling of incredulity.

Reference: "Vie de Jesus."

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

44. Ah, see now we are getting some where....

Though back in those days, we just threw our nets over the side of the boat. Or in My case, just walked out to the middle of the lake.

There's a reason I chose fishermen to be My first disciples.

[demwing]

32. It makes me feel like voting

and a little hungry for a fish sandwich

[PVnRT]

33. That's it? A Winchester?

Borrrrrrrrrrrrrring. Jesus is supposed to be awesome - he should be sporting a minigun or at least an AK-47.

[backscatter712]

34. I've got a better one!

[hendo]

38. I have never seen that before. I approve 100% NT

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

45. That's supposed to look like Me?

It looks like some sort of Chuck Norris/vampire hybrid. With an assault rifle. And a baby?

[GoneOffShore]

36. Other - well that's just silly

[Meshuga]

40. Is that picture a joke? Or is it from a real pro-gun rights group?

It is funny (if it is comedy) but not as funny as Michael Moore's representation of Jesus in "Capitalism: A Love Story" where Jesus refused to heal the sick who had pre-existing conditions and said the sick guy would have to pay out-of-pocket for the healing. That Jesus made me accidently wake my wife up very late at night because I was laughing so hard.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

41. It was Jesus' turn to stand guard over the apostles...

... after all, 13 men running around together talking peace and love HAD to be bullied and called names.

[Iggo]

42. gIVES ME A GODDAM BONER.

:crazy:

[Old Troop]

47. Anachronistic. The Winchester '73 didn't exist in the 1st century.

:rofl:

[kwassa]

49. Did they pry it from his cold dead fingers?