It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
First of all, the placement of the temple comes with conditioning of the minds of the reader. For example, perform this quick exercise; Picture Jerusalem at that time, how large it seems to be and how many people you think lived there.
Originally posted by Al DavisonIf the money-changers had their own section of the Temple, which seems completely logical, then logic follows that this is where the strongest part of the Temple guards would be stationed. And the Roman soldiers, which were every where, would have been close at hand and it's hard to believe that the Romans weren't getting a piece of this action.
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Now the gospels here also add to the mystery. In Matthew he entered Jerusalem from where we don't really know, threw his fit and left for Bethany (which is 1.5miles away). Mark eludes to his arriving at Bethany before entering Jerusalem and again to Bethany after he leaves, John states he left Capernum after the marriage at Cana then went on to Jerusalem, and mentions nothing about Bethany. The Bethany reference just seems to make no sense at all and is inconsequential to his arrival in Jerusalem, where the fig tree parable is even more confusing.
Originally posted by RANT
Originally posted by Al Davison
The only way that could have been remotely possible would be if his disruption were so grossly exaggerated that maybe the truth was that he kicked over one stall of one vendor and ran like crazy.
I admit, that's the way I always imagined it.
Didn't we all have our own "Apostles" in high school to bear witness to the legendary events of our heroic deeds in stories all ending with...
Man it was awesome, you should have been there.
And so the legend grows.
Originally posted by Al Davison
OK, what do y'all think? What have you read about this?
Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Only if you believe that only Pharisees were high priests, and if you do, well, I am just not interested in providing your education from the ground up,
Originally posted by NygdanInteresting. What else supports this jesus as a high preist idea? Would this require that he be a pharisee? I do recall that its often mentioned that he talked with the preists as a boy and was considered a religious prodigy, which doesn't jive, in my understanding, with the rest of the sotry.
Originally posted by Al Davison
OK, I don't want you to think that I'm arguing against your main point - I'm not.
I'm seeking to understand the "stories behind the stories". However, I would be less than truthful if I didn't admit some delight in learning how to refute those who want to use their bible as a cudgel by claiming everything in it to be literally true - that's my sin and I'll deal with it. ;-)
Couple of points about your last post that I believe to be in error:
1) although Jesus was considered a rabbi by his followers, I do not believe he would have too many privileges in this Temple. I feel certain he would not have been welcomed because his feelings about the Temple leadership were fairly well-known considering the groups with which he associated (i.e. Nazorites, Essennes, and other Zealot off-shoots). These groups had as one of their main purposes, to "clean up" Judaism and the Temple's relationship with Rome. Additionally, Jesus had made himself pretty unpopular with mainstream Judaism at that time because of his preaching that the laws of kashrut need not be followed. There are other examples but, he was considered pretty radical and more than a little dangerous to the Jewish leadership at the time. There are some who want to paint a pretty picture of Jesus as some sort of "guest lecturer" in the Temple - the only way they wanted him as their guest was to invite him over to see their old pal Pontius Pilate.
The Barrabas part of that story is equally unlikely to have happened that way. To begin with, the tradition that some "criminal" was to be chosen for a pardon is in no way supported by historical accounts of the treatment of Roman procurate (what would be the plural of this?) - particularly not one as cruel, oppressive, and corrupt as Pilate. I've not been able to really figure this one out - why even include this in the story? There is also considerable speculation regarding whether that name was correctly recorded and subsequently correctly translated. It is equally likely that it meant "son of a rabbi" as in Bar Rebbi
OK, like I said, these are details and your point about the poetry and allegory is still quite valid. Even if I can't understand the allegory of the Barabbas thing.
(Spelling error edited - probably didn't catch them all)
[edit on 14-3-2005 by Al Davison]
Okay. If you wish to believe there is an (a) and a (b) to begin with, be my guest. Now what does this have to do with my statements?
Originally posted by JehosephatTHe account in (a)John is a differant "temple clearing" then the (b)one in Jeruselam after his "Triumphant entry"
Where did I say he was?
At no point was Jesus ever barred from entering a temple
Where in the scripture Jake, does it describe the temple he visited as such, and where does it say it is the main temple, the rebuilt temple of Solomon?
Originally posted by jake1997The temple was divided into three areas. There was the outer (which is where this event took place) , then the inner...and then the Holy of Holies...which is where the ark was.
So your super walmart is pretty much cut down to an A&P.
Oh shock! You follow me around like a dog looking for crumbs, and when confronted and called to exhibit your credentials, you show your true self and revert to vulgarity.
Originally posted by NygdanOh ok, well then just piss off then.