Was Jesus a pacifist or a pragmatist?

I say neither.

adrian009 said:

Jesus appears somewhat different from the founders of other Abrahamic Faiths such as Moses or Muhammad. During His brief 3 1/2 year ministry, Jesus was never engaged in armed conflict unlike Muhammad who defended His people against the assault of the Quraysh tribe. Unlike Moses who killed a man, He never physically harmed anybody.

Jesus never advocated initiating armed conflict against the Romans. This could be due to Him being a pragmatist, in that He recognised it was unwise for the Jewish people to be provoking an enemy who would most likely defeat His people. Alternatively, He may not have believed in armed conflict under any circumstances and so was a pacifist. There may of course be other narratives.

So was Jesus a pacifist or pragmatist? How come?

Click to expand...

I voted the last category since pragmatist and pacifism are not necessary exclusionary to each other. It's hard to judge someone based on third person accounts written decades later. That said, I think Jesus was an idealist. Nothing is known about him between the age of 12 and 33 but given the quotes attributed to him, I think he traveled east and learned about Buddhism. The OT and the NT are as different as night and day but the words of Jesus dovetail nicely with Buddhism. I think Jesus was pragmatic in putting Buddhist philosophy into a Jewish setting....which upset those in control of both the Jewish religion and in military control of the country.

Comments attributed to Jesus paint him as leaning toward pacifism but I think he was pragmatic enough to realize the Jewish people couldn't go head-to-head with the Romans and win. The siege and deaths of the Zealots at Masada wouldn't take place for another seven decades, but there should be no doubt there were plenty of examples of what happens when Jews fought the Romans.

Firemorphic said:

I say neither.

Click to expand...

Feel free to elaborate. I accept it may not have been the best choice of words on my part for what I was wanting to explore, but as yet can not see a better alternative.

Road Warrior said:

I voted the last category since pragmatist and pacifism are not necessary exclusionary to each other. It's hard to judge someone based on third person accounts written decades later. That said, I think Jesus was an idealist. Nothing is known about him between the age of 12 and 33 but given the quotes attributed to him, I think he traveled east and learned about Buddhism. The OT and the NT are as different as night and day but the words of Jesus dovetail nicely with Buddhism. I think Jesus was pragmatic in putting Buddhist philosophy into a Jewish setting....which upset those in control of both the Jewish religion and in military control of the country.

Comments attributed to Jesus paint him as leaning toward pacifism but I think he was pragmatic enough to realize the Jewish people couldn't go head-to-head with the Romans and win. The siege and deaths of the Zealots at Masada wouldn't take place for another seven decades, but there should be no doubt there were plenty of examples of what happens when Jews fought the Romans.

Click to expand...

You make some useful points. Jesus and Buddha appear to be the most similar of the founders of the major world religions. It is important to realise in considering the historicity of either of these characters, its hard to have certainty. There is certainly a great deal we don't know of the life of Jesus. We do on the other hand know of the history of the Romans and Jews and there seems little doubt that the Romans conquered and subjugated the Jews. There is some overlap in the words pragmatism and pacifism. I doubt if Jesus would be an aggressor (apart from the incident in the temple) and would seek to avoid war and blood shed if possible. Thank you for your post.

dianaiad said:

Wait.

what?

Click to expand...

The definition of sadistic is killing for pleasure. Jesus must be passive because he is constantly super happy. The bible begins and ends with the abolishment of good and evil, or fighting in other words.

adrian009 said:

Jesus appears somewhat different from the founders of other Abrahamic Faiths such as Moses or Muhammad. During His brief 3 1/2 year ministry, Jesus was never engaged in armed conflict unlike Muhammad who defended His people against the assault of the Quraysh tribe. Unlike Moses who killed a man, He never physically harmed anybody.

Jesus never advocated initiating armed conflict against the Romans. This could be due to Him being a pragmatist, in that He recognised it was unwise for the Jewish people to be provoking an enemy who would most likely defeat His people. Alternatively, He may not have believed in armed conflict under any circumstances and so was a pacifist. There may of course be other narratives.

So was Jesus a pacifist or pragmatist? How come?

Click to expand...

apparently it was practical
to clear the Temple....using a whip

Thief said:

apparently it was practical
to clear the Temple....using a whip

Click to expand...

Agreed, especially if you are trying to set up your own execution.

at the onset of His ministry...the congregation turned on Him
they took him to a steep incline with intent of casting Him down

He turned about ...walked through the crowd
and no man was able to lay hold of Him

black belt here...…

and I understand what it would take to move through as crowd of angry people

He was far beyond training
kinda like Donny Yuen in the movie Ip Man
that scene where Ip Man takes on the Japanese in a dojo

adrian009 said:

I doubt if Jesus would be an aggressor (apart from the incident in the temple) and would seek to avoid war and blood shed if possible.

Click to expand...

How do you know? One who does not have power cannot be aggressive. Jesus learnt it the hard way. He tried to take on the lesser enemy (the Temple Jews) but that too proved too much for him. Such people can be aggressive only in their words (curse the cities, eternal hell, etc.).

adrian009 said:

It would make him a pragmatist, not a pacifist.



I agree there is great power in the act of turning the other cheek.

Click to expand...

I did a study once on the number of times in the NT where people were specifically slapped on the face. Not hit , struck, or slugged.

Quite a few. I learned that slapping in the face was a sign of contempt in that culture, at that time, not an a physical attack.

So, in essence, it was like being given the finger today.

It was not allowing yourself to be beaten, or worse.

Aupmanyav said:

How do you know? One who does not have power cannot be aggressive. Jesus learnt it the hard way. He tried to take on the lesser enemy (the Temple Jews) but that too proved too much for him. Such people can be aggressive only in their words (curse the cities, eternal hell, etc.).

Click to expand...

I agree its hard to be certain about many historic details in regards the Life of Jesus. I don't believe he instigated a physical rebellion against either Jewish orthodoxy or the Romans. He did strongly challenge with words the status quo of the way both groups viewed the universe.

Well, using a whip in the temple is one indication. He thought he would be joined by many people in his final journey against orthodox Judaism, but the crowd consisted only of curious onlookers (watching a supposed messiah coming to war riding an donkey and with just 12 disciples). Finding the whole thing funny, they dispersed. It was an unstable time in Judah and there were many messiahs and revolts.

adrian009 said:

Feel free to elaborate. I accept it may not have been the best choice of words on my part for what I was wanting to explore, but as yet can not see a better alternative.

Click to expand...

Firstly I don't take the synoptic gospels seriously as scripture even though I admire various of the sayings attributed to him, the only two synoptic gospels I give any thought to are Matthew and Mark but with a grain of salt. I take the Gospel of Thomas as far, far more authoritative in every sense of the word but still only a record nonetheless.

The "Jesus" I see in Matthew especially, is incredibly anarchistic and very much not a pacifist, in fact he does call for chaos at times. So many of his sayings are incredibly mystical, inward not outward, the Gospel of Thomas makes it all the more apparent.
In one sense he was, in originally teaching the gospel he received (as in the historical Jesus), it was a restoration of the original Torah given to Moses ("Oral Torah") so to speak, but he himself fell for the same thing of being turned into a commodity for the gain of Rome etc.
The Jesus portrayed and exaggerated by the New Testament I think is for the most part a very different Jesus in comparison to the historical Jesus.

I guess in some respect you could call Jesus more of a Pragmatist as the point of the Gospel itself was to bring and provoke the spiritual path back "to the people", much like the Qur'an later on.

But we're kinda stuck here in a web of textual references.

Whether he was a pacifist or not would also depend on the actual position of a Christian denomination. If one is a trinitarian and believes that HaShem and Jesus are the same thing, then the relationship between man and god has become more intimate and less distant, there are many many many conclusions I could come to regarding a hypothesizing of the trinitarian doctrine. People often interpret the HaShem of the Tanakh/OT to be evil and sadistic etc. If this is the case, then that very same god (hypothetically) incarnating would provide odd but quite intriguing insights into the overall nature of HaShem which may not be so one-dimensional.
When it comes to the Bible in general though, there is too much obfuscation on certain topics however again hypothetically, there may be great value in contrasting the obfuscated perspectives to a more nuanced greater perspective (as Hinduism has done with it's endless contradictions, but I guess the contradictions between the synoptic gospels themselves are very similar in nature to the contradictions between literally everything within Hindu scriptures....perhaps there's a seed of wisdom there).

While I am a Muslim and therefore ultimately hold the view we hold regarding all of it, I still don't shy away from actively theorizing and entertaining the Christian and Jewish points of view on their own scripture, it's entirely interesting.

But regarding pacifism again, I think Jesus' own assertive position towards justice and a kind of fearless view of both his own life and life itself (in the synoptic gospels) would suggest to me that he wasn't a pacifist but was also not a war-maker necessarily either. His position seemed to be 'fight for what is worth fighting for', the topic of injustice becomes relevant here because that is one aspect of how the synoptic gospels seem to frame his teaching. This perhaps also reflected more on later Christian denominations like Protestantism as a result.

MonkeyFire said:

The definition of sadistic is killing for pleasure. Jesus must be passive because he is constantly super happy. The bible begins and ends with the abolishment of good and evil, or fighting in other words.

Click to expand...

Constantly super-happy.

Wait. Do you read the same New Testament I do?

dianaiad said:

Constantly super-happy.

Wait. Do you read the same New Testament I do?

Click to expand...

The same NT that begins and ends by abolishing good and evil (hate, war, and fighting).

MonkeyFire said:

The same NT that begins and ends by abolishing good and evil (hate, war, and fighting).

Click to expand...

Definitely not the same one I read.

To my understanding Jesus was given a ‘prescribed mission’ by God and was acting in accordance with God’s overall Plan for the advancement both spiritually and materially of the human race.

Jesus received a revelation from God and was not acting on His own behalf but according to God’s will as in ‘not my will but thine’.

I don’t think we can limit a Manifestation of God to terms such as pacifist or pragmatist as They are perfect Beings endowed with perfect wisdom so each will act according to Divine Knowledge and wisdom depending upon what is best for humanity at any given point in history.

I believe the style and outcome of Jesus mission was designed by God and that Jesus was the willing Instrument to carry out God’s will and purpose.

His last Words are reported to be ‘not mywill but Thine’ indicating His entire mission and its style and direction were according to God’s purpose.

Aupmanyav said:

Well, using a whip in the temple is one indication. He thought he would be joined by many people in his final journey against orthodox Judaism, but the crowd consisted only of curious onlookers (watching a supposed messiah coming to war riding an donkey and with just 12 disciples). Finding the whole thing funny, they dispersed. It was an unstable time in Judah and there were many messiahs and revolts.

Click to expand...

To understand Jesus the man , we need to look beyond one recorded event in His life. The authors of the Gospels wrote a theological narrative as opposed an historical one. Did Jesus really rise from the dead and ascend through the stratosphere to be with His Father in heaven? Jesus spoke using allegorical stories called parables. His audience was invited to look beyond literal meanings. So it’s no surprise the apostles of Christ used allegorical story telling when it came to the story of the life of Jesus. Upending the tables in the temple was simply a metaphor of what was to come.

adrian009 said:

Jesus appears somewhat different from the founders of other Abrahamic Faiths such as Moses or Muhammad. During His brief 3 1/2 year ministry, Jesus was never engaged in armed conflict unlike Muhammad who defended His people against the assault of the Quraysh tribe. Unlike Moses who killed a man, He never physically harmed anybody.

Jesus never advocated initiating armed conflict against the Romans. This could be due to Him being a pragmatist, in that He recognised it was unwise for the Jewish people to be provoking an enemy who would most likely defeat His people. Alternatively, He may not have believed in armed conflict under any circumstances and so was a pacifist. There may of course be other narratives.

So was Jesus a pacifist or pragmatist? How come?

Click to expand...

Neither.
He came as the Son of God, to show people what manner of living was acceptable
to God and to offer Himself as the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Having said that Jesus was really no different to what we read of God in the Old
Testament. Jesus spoke of Jerusalem being surrounded and even her children
destroyed because the Jews did not know the time of their visitation. And of course,
there are the parables where Jesus enemies are taken out and burnt or cast into
"outer darkness."

adrian009 said:

................................. During His brief 3 1/2 year ministry,

Click to expand...

t
So you believe G-John hook line and sinker?
G-Matk reports it as a 11-12 month campaign at most. Oh welll......... on...... >>>>

Jesus was never engaged in armed conflict unlike Muhammad who defended His people against the assault of the Quraysh tribe. Unlike Moses who killed a man, He never physically harmed anybody.

Click to expand...

He didn't have that many close supporters, but he did demonstrate very aggressively in the Temple, and picketed the Temple Courts on two days in a row.

Jesus never advocated initiating armed conflict against the Romans.

Click to expand...

Why would he?
The Temple corruption and the Priesthood were his enemies. I think that Pilate quite liked Jesus.
Where did you get this stuff from?

This could be due to Him being a pragmatist, in that He recognised it was unwise for the Jewish people to be provoking an enemy who would most likely defeat His people.

Click to expand...

His enemy was a totally corrupted, greedy and hypocritical Priesthood.

Your thread title makes it look as if a pacifist cannot also be pragmatic. As it happened I don't think that Jesus was pacifist, just morally balanced.

Alternatively, He may not have believed in armed conflict under any circumstances and so was a pacifist. There may of course be other narratives.

Click to expand...

He was prepared to bring back the all the laws of Moses, and by the sword if necessary, and he needed his group to have some weapons before going to Jerusalem.

Matthew: {10:34} Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke: {22:36} Then said he unto them, But now, he that
hath a purse, let him take [it,] and likewise [his] scrip: and
he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

So was Jesus a pacifist or pragmatist? How come?

Click to expand...

That's a very strange question. Some pacifists are pragmatic. Some pragmatists are pacifists. Very strange options.....

The Reverend Bob said:

Pacifism in the face of oppression isn't very pragmatic.

How can anyone enter a strong man’s house and steal his possessions, unless he first ties up the strong man?Then he can plunder his house.

Click to expand...

Nonetheless Jesus taught non violent liberation theology.

In the Sermon on the Mount he is teaching the Jews to shame their oppressors.