If someone came on this forum, or went on a forum you were running, and started spamvertising for another servicewith a commitment not to quit, should we try fruitlessly social-working them out of here, or just boot them?
lol.. maybe.. or maybe not.. we will see.
I explained it. In my experience (Nearly 30 years of answering questions from atheists and people in the church alike.) i found the quickest way to break the faith of a young person just out of high school and in college is to under mine scripture with logical inconsistencies. Inconsistencies like Jesus demanding we turn the other cheek in the sermon on the mt, and at the same time whipping and kicking over money changers tables. This leads to other questions that if we are not prepared for we will loose a future member of the church.
answersingenesis.org
If Christianity as a whole where as strong as those who come here and share their faith, then we would not have very much to worry about. However, with a 70% attrition rate, the church is set to collapse with in a few generations.
technically it wasn't a slap. The word used that we assume was a slap, in the greek means to strike repeatedly:
www.blueletterbible.org
www.blueletterbible.org
Is that what making a whip and using a kicking over the money changers was to you? banning someone from use of your space?
If what Christ did was righteous, then there's no problem.
He was not, but these are completely separate issues. The purpose of slapping someone on the cheek was not to cause them bodily harm but cause them shame them as part of an honor/shame challenge where there were different monetary compensations depending upon whether someone was slapping them with back or the palm of their hand. A slap with on the right cheek would be done with the back hand, so turning the left cheek would be inviting them to slap with the palm of the right hand.
Jesus' reference to Jeremiah's Message at the Temple Gate in Jeremiah 7 provides insight into why Jesus considered those you have addressed in the outer court as having made the temple a 'den of robbers.' The LORD tells Jeremiah to say to those "who enter through these gates to worship the LORD (Jeremiah 7:2)..."Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, 'This is the temple of the LORD... (Jeremiah 7:4)...'But look, you keep trusting in deceptive words to no avail (Jer 7:8)." And then poses the rhetorical question that leads to the aforementioned conclusion (Jer 7:9-11). So, the question isn't whether the court had become a den of robbers, that's pretty much established. But a better question might be what is considered a den and how had it become one?
The text tells us why he did it The money changers turned the temple into a den of thieves. And this made Jesus angry. Jesus overturned the tables because the Temple leadership had allowed the one place meant for prayer—especially for Gentiles—to become a commercial, exploitative marketplace, violating the very purpose of God’s house. That is the explicit reason given in the text. Mark 11:17
No. As we said before, turning the other cheek is meant to demonstrate that a follower of Jesus will not return evil for evil. Jesus was not returning evil for evil, he was defending God's house.
No. Jesus dealt with the problem in the appropriate way — and the text itself shows why His response was not impulsive anger but prophetic, measured, covenant‑anchored action.
A lexical definition is only a starting point, because most Greek words carry a wide semantic range that includes multiple possible nuances. The real question in exegesis is never “What can this word mean in general?” but “What does this author mean by this word in this context?” A dictionary lists potential meanings; the context selects the actual one. That is why responsible interpretation does not treat lexicons as final authorities but as tools—useful for mapping possibilities, yet always subordinate to the author’s flow of thought, setting, and rhetorical purpose.technically it wasn't a slap. The word used that we assume was a slap, in the greek means to strike repeatedly:
τύπτω týptō, toop'-to; a primary verb (in a strengthened form); to "thump", i.e. cudgel or pummel (properly, with a stick or bastinado), but in any case by repeated blows; thus differing from G3817 and G3960, which denote a (usually single) blow with the hand or any instrument, or G4141 with the fist (or a hammer), or G4474 with the palm; as well as from G5177, an accidental collision); by implication, to punish; figuratively, to offend (the conscience):—beat, smite, strike, wound.
Luke 6 :: King James Version (KJV)
Luke 6 - And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing [them] in [their] hands.
The word to slap someone is:
ῥαπίζω rhapízō, hrap-id'-zo; from a derivative of a primary ῥέπω rhépō (to let fall, "rap"); to slap:—smite (with the palm of the hand). Compare G5180.
G4474 - rhapizō - Strong's Greek Lexicon (KJV)
G4474 - ῥαπίζω rhapízō, hrap-id'-zo; from a derivative of a primary ῥέπω rhépō (to let fall, "rap"); to slap:—smite (with the palm of the hand). Compare .
Jesus' use of the word τύπτω týptō, toop'-to was far more than a smack in the face. a smack in the face would have been ῥαπίζω rhapízō, hrap-id'-zo.
But the difference is that at the cross and just before, He was being attacked personally. That was not the case in the temple. The "turn the other cheek" teaching applies to situations where others are attacking us. Passions? When Jesus was angry, it wasn't a matter of losing His temper, or passions taking over, as so often happens when we become angry.
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you, but are you really saying that Jesus was doing wrong when He drove the money-changers and sellers of animals out of the temple?
I would say it was to indicate the holiness of God.
Again, I have no qualms about what he did. I am asking a question that many young people growing in the faith would ask. As again, many of our young people (70% by the end of their second year at college) loose their faiths because of what they perceive as a contradiction. What would you say to one of these young people if they asked you this question? Would you give them the same answer you just gave me? If so then the answer to your question should be obvious.
John 2 seems to record other wise. In John 2 the Disciples paired his actions in the temple with this verse: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
Again, I did not say allow the injustice to continue. I asked couldn't the Son of God do what He needed to do another way?
I would say depends on the miracle. remember those who picked up the stones of the woman caught in the act of adultry.. All Jesus did there was write something (Presumably the sins of the accusers) on the ground, and they dropped their stones and went home.And @Ceph already told you, miracles don't change the minds if people bent on sinning and taking advantage of people who need to buy animals or change their money to the temple coin.
lol.. maybe.. or maybe not.. we will see.
I explained it. In my experience (Nearly 30 years of answering questions from atheists and people in the church alike.) i found the quickest way to break the faith of a young person just out of high school and in college is to under mine scripture with logical inconsistencies. Inconsistencies like Jesus demanding we turn the other cheek in the sermon on the mt, and at the same time whipping and kicking over money changers tables. This leads to other questions that if we are not prepared for we will loose a future member of the church.
We can not afford to loose many more as a recent poll shows that over 70% of our kids who grow up in the church loose their faith and walk away from the church by the end of thier second year of college. By the end of 4 years that number goes up to 90%
Why Do 70% of Young People Leave the Church in College?
I’ve often shared that two-thirds of young people leave the church—and few return. Why is this happening and what can be done about it?
Asking questions like this is where the enemy gets a foot hold into the hearts of our children. That means 'we' all need to be ready to one degree or another to respond to these questions.
If Christianity as a whole where as strong as those who come here and share their faith, then we would not have very much to worry about. However, with a 70% attrition rate, the church is set to collapse with in a few generations.
Again, I personally have no issue with what Jesus did. I am 100% ok with a do as I say and not as I do, as God/Jesus is in a position to truly know how his actions will play out, while we do not. This fact alone is reason enough to do as He says, and not everything He does.
I have stated many times in this thread that 70% of our christian youth going to college loose their faith and walk away from the church by their second year in school. by the end of the 4th year that number goes up to 90%. The mass exodus from the church starts with seeming inconsistent passages in scripture that when asked about (like this one) people like yourself take great offense to and often times threaten the person asking the question with their very salvation. (Calling Jesus a Hypocrite)
yes.
read a few of my responses, and the corrections I have made to some of the other commenters who where trying to set me straight.
where did I say He didn't need to deal with sin??
