True.
He may not have been physically violent toward other people, but he sure acted in a radical manner at the market.
Being atheist, I was arguing as Devil's Advocate.
Yes, not being violent where violence is necessary is a moral flaw.
Violence being "necessary" is a pretty ambiguous concept, particularly in the circumstances we speak of. How will you defend it?
He was defending traditional Judaism, which I disagree with. Defending one's self from terrorism, a bully, or Nazis is more defensible. Even Buddhist monks practiced martial arts, as a last resort when non-violence falls on deaf ears.
He'd be in the loony house.
Special unit in the total war video game series. Monk can be formidable in combat.
Probably.
Well, says you. I did not read that into it.
Look at the historical context, Judea was occupied by the Romans, who placed their own handpicked and paid off Jews to run things. Jesus and other similar rebels found this highly distasteful and disrespectful of their sacred space.
I can imagine him walking along, goes berserk when he see's the disrespect shown to God. No politics, temple in the right place at the wrong time.
That doesn't support your claim that any general violence is necessary in any context, nor that eschewing it is immoral.
IMO, it was exactly the opposite.
Nonsense. That is a modern Christian apologetic from the Roman Catholic Church, an effort to demonize Jews. Read Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan.
Here is quote from a reliable source?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 19&version=NLT
He did let his mouth go, so I think he deserved what he got.