I am indeed speaking simply in terms of His followers not Jesus Himself

I consider myself a pacifist though I will admit that in an extream example violence could be necessary. I think Christ would not approve of this Just War Theory, he never said anything in his teachings about killing people if the cause is "good".

I thought Christians fought wars on their knees, not with guns...?

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

Hmm... how do you fight even a just war without resisting the enemy and not reacting to his attacks?

"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Doesn't sound like there's a lot of wiggle room for "Just Sword Usage".

@The Prussian -

I am famous for having written several books and pamphlets that deal in large part with your question. I would recommend reading these, which are available online for free:
http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/a-confession
http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/kingdom-of-god/

"I would say no, Jesus was basically Gandhi but religious."

Gandhi was religious.

"Luke 22:36"

He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

Luke 19:27 – Jesus says “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.”

Heb. 11:32-34 - Paul praises numerous conquerors.

And naturally the only way you can claim Jesus rejects war is if Jesus rejects the entirety of the OT.

"Ex. 15:3 – “The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is his name.”"

Jesus greatly respected Roman centurions.

http://biblia.com/books/esv/Mt10.34-36

r“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. sI have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 rFor I have come tto set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 uAnd a person’s enemies will be those of his own household."

Jesus's intention was to bring violence on every family.

http://biblia.com/books/esv/Ec3.1

http://biblia.com/books/esv/Re19.15

http://biblia.com/books/esv/Mt24.6-8

In hoc signo vinces.

"Jesus says “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.”"

Good God. All anybody has to do is just read that verse in context and it's obvious you're full of crap. "Jesus says" that a king says that. It's one of those *parables*. The rest of your cites are even more dubious. Truly, have you nothing better to do?

Says the guy who is "famous" for writing screeds about a doctrine of a religion he thinks is inferior to Islam.

"The rest of your cites are even more dubious"

Prove it or shut up.

And I'm sorry did Jesus have some big problem with Samuel that I'm aware of?

SD you know what I mean.

Also Putin come on bro Jesus was pacifist. Why do you have to argue that you have nothing.

@ Putin,

Jezus speaks about two types of war, and i do think part of your agueing fails to make a difference between both.

first, a war between God and the Devil. In this
two, the so called 'worldly' kind of war. (between humans around states etc).

About the first he is very clear. That war will continue fiercely till the end of the world.
The second kind is more confusing for Christians, because indeed, he orders us to be pacifistic as saints, a very hard think to be.

to finish the 3th sentence, in this war, he will order to fight till the end of this world.

also, do you ever heared about the reason behind the difference between the OT and the NT? Because of Jesus his death, he takes the guild away from humans. That way, the punishing of people doing wrong is taken away. This is in a nutcase the reason between the difference of the violence of the OT and the order to 'love' from the NT.

"Also Putin come on bro Jesus was pacifist"

Which is why he was arrested for violently attacking the moneylenders in the Temple.

(John 2:14-15)

Seriously 1700 years of Christian dogma say otherwise, but I guess all those people were stupid and trendy Millennials have it right. How can anyone say Jesus was a pacifist when he tells his followers to buy swords to defend themselves?

"first, a war between God and the Devil. In this
two, the so called 'worldly' kind of war. (between humans around states etc)."

I think you all are confusing Christian dogma about private conduct vs the conduct of states. But whatever, Christians can selectively ignore anything and everything they want. They've been doing it for centuries.

" he will order to fight till the end of this world."

And how is that consistent with pacifism?

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. …From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty"

Furthermore, Paul instructs Christians to obey the state, saying the state is justified in using violence in impose its authority.

“Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.

Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it [government; the State] is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”

@ The Prussian,

To give some kind of answer to your first question; most Christian theologians points at the difference between the 'heavenly world' and the temporary worldly (?) world. The heavenly world being how it should be, and will become in the future, and this worldly world is the here we live in now. In the latter one, all decisions of violence are a matter of the state/goverment you belong to, saying, "the goverment is carrying the sword",
So Christians can agree with violence the goverment is ordering.

To amplify what SacredDigits said, Gandhi was so religious that he had a huge role in the division of the subcontinent. The iconography Gandhi adopted was pretty explicitly Hindu. Indeed, satyagraha is a pretty Hindu concept. The Muslims were numerous enough that they could get out and form their own explicitly Islamic state out of Sindh, about half of Punjab, the Pashtun lands actually "held" by the British, and the Bengal territory. The experience of the Sikhs in India has demonstrated that the Muslims were probably fairly wise to insist upon their own state after the departure of the British.

@ Putin, i see my last post to The prussian already gives most of the answer on the second part, further, the subjection to the authorities is not without limits. If its go's against the basics of our believe, you might reject listening to it. Like old Roman Christians refusing to call the roman emperors god like they requiered for a long time.

about the first part, Jesus orders us not to pick wars against each other. But why should he have a pacifistic stance agaisnt a Devil and the people who has chosen to follow that Devil?

The most important aspect is, he say the 'worldly' wars are futile while the heavenly war is important. Look at it in this way, If you believe God has created earth and mankind, you have to accept he doesnt want his creature to fight his other creature. But the Devil tries to take Gods creatures and chance them into his own, something he wont accept.

And it's left to us and our enlightened political leaders to determine who's working for that sneaky, sneaky Devil so that we know whom we can justly declare war upon.

actualy, we dont do the fighting, thats why we play diplomacy :)

"The most important aspect is, he say the 'worldly' wars are futile while the heavenly war is important."

He doesn't say this anywhere. This is your midrashing meaning where none exists.

"The prussian already gives most of the answer on the second part, further, the subjection to the authorities is not without limits."

Where are any limits mentioned? And how does this address the point about Christianity sanctioning the violence of the state? How does this address the point about Jesus asking his disciplines to buy swords, which wasn't in Revelations but rather right before he was arrested.

Fuck Paul, Pauline Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus' ministry.

Also, explain the "turn the other cheek doctrine" to me then if it's not pacifist.

Like.. Putin I don't get it.

I've read the whole Bible. I'm not Christian. It would simply delight me if Jesus was a huge asshole. But from the Bible at least he clearly was not.

Yes he overturned some money lenders' tables. Okay. That does not count as a "just war" lol.

"The Muslims were numerous enough that they could get out and form their own explicitly Islamic state out of Sindh, about half of Punjab, the Pashtun lands actually "held" by the British, and the Bengal territory. The experience of the Sikhs in India has demonstrated that the Muslims were probably fairly wise to insist upon their own state after the departure of the British."

Gandhi was wholly in the thrall of the Muslim League. Muslims favored the Congress Party, whereas Hindus backed the real hero of Indian independence, Bose. Gandhi offered to hand over India to Jinnah to avoid partition, and then consented to partition anyway. He wanted to make the national language "Hindustani" instead of Hindi in order to appease the Muslims. When the Muslim League was engaged in paramilitary violence against Hindus throughout India, Gandhi continued to talk with the Muslim League leaders. One of his last acts was a fast unto death on behalf of Muslims, he wanted Hindus to vacate the mosques they had occupied. He did not protest at all when Hindus were attacked by Muslims in the new "Pakistan".

"Fuck Paul, Pauline Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus' ministry."

Keep picking and choosing.

"Also, explain the "turn the other cheek doctrine" to me then if it's not pacifist."

Explain how his eternal hellfire for even thinking adulterous thoughts is consistent with his supposed pacifism. Or is torturing souls for eternity not violent?

"Okay. That does not count as a "just war" lol."

It doesn't count as pacifism. Keep picking and choosing.

Hello, Putin, I am not a Christian. I choose none of it.

I am just saying invoking Paul to prove Jesus believed something is high order nonsense.

Pacifism in the real world, because discussions of non-real worlds are functionally irrelevant unless they affect real-world recommendations. In this case the recommendation is don't lust after people. Ok. Still nothing about war.

And let's quickly define pacifism, if you are going to get nitpicky.

Pacifism - the doctrine that no one should ever fight wars.

This is not equal to non-violence, the doctrine that no one should ever be violent toward people.

This is still further not equal to non-action, the doctrine that no physical action should ever be taken against something, for examples see some Buddhists.

Jesus practiced non-violence and pacifism, not non-action.

I don't see your angle here Putin. What is the purpose of your line of reasoning.

Just to be clear, so far we have not gotten muddled, but just pre-emptively:

This is a question about Jesus' beliefs and action and teachings. Not Christian doctrine or action, not Pauline Christianity, none of that. Jesus of Nazareth.

You want to talk about Christian theology, fine. Just don't mix the two.

So to clarify = if you are the type of guy that won't even lock your house to prevent a killer coming in to kill some kid hiding in your house - you are a non-actor.

If you lock the door and try to bar it and call the cops - non-violent.

If you beat him down to stop him - you can still be a pacifist.

But if you blame his attack on his home country and lead an invasion, you cease to be any of them.

So if your definition is so narrow as to restrict the teachings to only war, where is the passage in which Jesus claims he is against all war?

Instead I see several parables in which Jesus is just fine with war, and several passages where Jesus is effusive in his praise of soldiers.

"I don't see your angle here Putin. What is the purpose of your line of reasoning. "

What is the purpose of your line of reasoning? How come only my motives & psychology are only ever on trial? What the hell is your purpose in portraying Jesus as a pacifist?

*To say nothing of the passages in Revelations in which Jesus is very war-like, or his mantra that he did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Nevermind, the Jesus-as-pacifist types will simply repeat themselves over and over again and question the motives of anyone who dares disagree.

@ Putin
"The most important aspect is, he say the 'worldly' wars are futile while the heavenly war is important."

Your right. Jesus never made that distinction. Like I said, later theologians made it. But Jesus did said that people should find choosing between God or the devil be more important than family ties (and i think most people will agree with me those are more important than wars.) He also said being on the right side in the spiritual war is more important than stuff from this earthy life.

Where are any limits mentioned? And how does this address the point about Christianity sanctioning the violence of the state? How does this address the point about Jesus asking his disciplines to buy swords, which wasn't in Revelations but rather right before he was arrested.

There are no limits mentioned. We have to figure it out ourselves. Like in the example given about the roman emperors claiming to be gods, One of the 10 commandments clearly states we have to honor God and him alone and to deny any other claim of godhood. So it goes against there knowledge of God to give in to the claims of the emperors.
About sanctioning the violence of the state, there are a lot of clues of it in the bible, like the installment of the judges by prophets, the introduction of laws at Sinai, the way Jesus accepted the romans during his life, ordering obedience. And he didn’t ordered them to buy swords to attack people, he was telling them they would need them later, because from then on, a lot of people would react aggressive toward them.(how fits self defence in your violence patterns?)

@ Tucy
Fuck Paul, Pauline Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus' ministry.

Also, explain the "turn the other cheek doctrine" to me then if it's not pacifist
How does Paul fits in this discussion so suddenly? I believe (not sure) it was Augustine who made the the two worlds distinction.
To explain the ; turn the other cheek doctrine, He didn’t said you shouldn’t use violence, he said it in a context of ; having to love your enemy. (Lucas 6 27-35) why? Because God will reward you for doing so. (and I do think most aggressive people would be so shocked by your that response they would loose a lot of aggression  )

@ eternal hellfire, no response, i just don’t know enough about hell to say anything sensible about it,

To finish, I do honesty believe all wars are against Gods commandments. But at the same time, I don’t think that means a duty to coldly accepting al kinds of mishap to preventing the use of force. Murder for instance, has to be punished an if it can be prevented? Most of the time, wars are this kind of events on a larger scale.

Putin:

I am interested in showing that Jesus was a pacifist because it would force people to either decide not to be Christian or stop killing people.

What about you?

I am interested in showing that Jesus wasn't a pacifist to demonstrate that you cannot sanitize religion by purging it of 2000 years of history and doctrine. It is inherently vile and oppressive.

Yo.

No one is talking about Christianity or Christian doctrine, or at least I wasn't. If I may quote myself:

"Just to be clear, so far we have not gotten muddled, but just pre-emptively:

This is a question about Jesus' beliefs and action and teachings. Not Christian doctrine or action, not Pauline Christianity, none of that. Jesus of Nazareth.

You want to talk about Christian theology, fine. Just don't mix the two."

So, what does that mean then?

It means you are trying to sully the reputation of Jesus just because he is associated with Christianity. Why not find out who he really was independent of Christian opinion on him, and then show your findings to Christians, forcing them to conform to his image or abandon their religion.

You can't separate the two. The only knowledge of "Jesus" comes from the foundational text of Christian doctrine. There are no independent sources citing his existence. You cannot talk of Jesus without speaking of Christianity, as Jesus is a Christian invention and likely never existed. He has no worth outside of his alleged founding of a new religion. All Jesus is quoted as doing is spouting doctrine. There is nothing else.

There is actually a great deal of scholarship, Christian and non-Christian, that attempts to ascertain who Jesus probably was and what he probably believed. This scholarship looks at as many near original texts as possible and ignores the "midrashing," as you called it, that has occurred over the last two millennia. You would be hard pressed to find a serious scholar that would contend that Jesus was not a pacifist, assuming there was a historical Jesus.

That said, this discussion opened with the question regarding the Christian just war theory, whether it was valid, and whether it meshed with Jesus teachings. While validity of a just war theory will vary depending on context and individual, the lattermost question is clear: Jesus would not approve of the Christian just war theory as it is believed today. And why should he? He never had the followers nor influence to start a war.

Why did you ask a question if you already determined that there is a supposed scholarly consensus that your view is correct? Also, your claim assumes that the entirety of the RCC (and probably most other significant sects) is/are bereft of "serious" scholars on this question, which is absurd on its face.

All the pacifist theorists have yet to address the point about Jesus claiming he did not come to bring peace but a sword.

"And why should he? He never had the followers nor influence to start a war."

Yet by all accounts (at least Roman & Christian) Christians started numerous riots in the 1st and 2nd century CE against Roman & Jewish authorities, so evidently those closest in time to his teachings didn't get Jesus's supposed message of pacifism. Or wait, I suppose somebody will rush in to claim that that somehow doesn't qualify either.

Putin, I think you have me confused with someone else based on your first paragraph.
As for what I wrote, I was very clear in what I said.
Jesus himself never had the followers nor influence to start a war. Yes, there were accounts of riots, but with one suspect exception in Josephus and the last week account in the gospels, none of these riots are connected to Jesus, the person.

Present me a serious scholar that says Jesus was most probably not a pacifist, and we can talk about the scholarship more. A simple google search will bear out the serious Christian *and* non-Christian scholarship regarding Jesus as a pacifist.

Here's a nice little list of everything we actually know Jesus said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parables_of_Jesus#Themes

He was an apocalypticist who just wanted everyone to chill out and be cool with each other. And he didn't seem to view war as just or unjust, but he DID view it as inevitable.

Actually, considering the parables of the Unjust Judge, and the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, it seems that Jesus more or less accepted that anyone involved in government was a jerk. Rich people were jerks too.

And everyone is going to die. Enjoy your stay in the Vale of Tears.

Haha word.