Originally posted by Badwater
Well, the accounting of using the whip is only in John and John's account very much has an agenda behind it. Plus, I don't read a witness of Jesus flogging the money changers and dove sellers to death. I would argue that the ministry of Jesus is indeed partly about pacifism; after all, in Gesthemane, when the disciples defend themselves and cut the Roman so ...[text shortened]... p and heals the ear. That's not exactly war mongering...in fact, I would call that pacifism.
Make no mistake about it, Jesus was engaged in a violent cause. When you shake the very foundation of the "powers that be" and cause them to engage you in such a violent fashion suitable for crucifixion, this is the only possible conclusion. Likewise, someone like Ghandi was engaged in a violent cause as well. He too shook "the powers that be" in such a way that it caused them to lash out in violence. You might even say that both Jesus and Ghandi were similar in their tactics because they did not return physical violence when it was displayed towards them, however, that is as far as the similarity between the two. The difference lies at the root of their fight. Christ's fight was spiritual as where Ghandi's was political. Case in point is that the only time Christ became "violent", it was because he was about the "Fathers business". For example, he called out the religious leaders and declared them hypocrites and verbally abused them. In addition, we see him getting riled up when the money changers were defiling a place of worship for the Father. In both cases we see an effort to attack those forces that come between God and the average Joe. In Ghandi's case, he was more about political change and once this was accomplished so wasa his fight complete.
As for why Christ forbade Peter from picking up the sword and defending him, again this interfered with "the Fathers business" which was to send his Son to the cross on the most violent endevour yet. Now had you turned the clock back thousands of years when the Israelites were fighting to form a nation the cause would have been to establish the nation that would produce the Messiah. Again, it is all about "the Fathers business". Therefore, this would have been in line with what Christ would have condoned. If you don't believe me, why then would some one so aquainted with the scriptures have not spoken out against the battles in the Old Testament?
You also ignore the prophesies of Revelation at a time when the age of grace has expired. The representation of Chirst as a lamb changes to that of a lion. Again, he is about "the Fathers' business" during this time in order to set things right once and for all.