Jesus and the money changers at the Temple

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   

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.
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.

I would bet that you saw it as a small place equivalent to a village in size of people. This is what Bible teaching/Sunday school has conditioned us to think, and I would bet that those believing the story assume the temple to be the great temple itself. That only fits if all of the inhabitants of Jerusalem numbered in the hundreds, and if that were the case, then the Jesus story itself is insignificant. However, considering that Jerusalem was large enough to have a governor, an amphitheatre, and an army of Romans, it had to have inhabitants numbering in the tens of thousands, and therefore more than one synagogue. It is also true that there were different sects; Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, where each would have their own temples as the doctrines differed.

It is therefore only pre-conditioning that leads us to believe Jesus entered into the great temple, which is unlikely, for as you note, it is doubtful anyone would allow him or anyone else to cause a ruckus and just stand idly by until his tirade passes. Further, since he was already on the Sanhedrin's short list of bad guys, he would not be allowed to get away with it.

It stands to reason that he was in his own temple at the dais having a temper tantrum, if in fact the story is at all plausible.

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.

Given Clement's letter filling in the details of what happened in Bethany where Jesus supposedly raised a young man from the dead and spent the night with him, we have to wonder if he ever left Bethany to go to Jerusalem only to return later, in which case, the temple could have been in Bethany. It is highly unlikely that he presented himself or was allowed to present himself in the great temple as he was already being scrutinized by the Sanhedrin.



[edit on 3/14/05 by SomewhereinBetween]




posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Jeruselam was actually a backwaters of the roman empire. There are many accounts in the Bible of Jesus teaching and preaching in the temples. As well as his disiples after his death. One thing you need to remember that before his second clearing into the temples the people welcomed into Jeruselam as a King. (Which Chrisitans call Palm sunday.. which is coming up next sunday) if the High priests wrongly tried to arrest jesus they would have a riot on thier hands. That is why the confronted Jesus, but it was not the time for Jesus to betrayed so they ended up not doign a thing.

Honestly, it is all there for everyone to read.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

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.


THe account in John is a differant "temple clearing" then the one in Jeruselam after his "Triumphant entry"

At no point was Jesus ever barred from entering a temple



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   
I think you should picture any respected religeous leader of today walking into a church and turning things upside down. (jesus taught in the temple and synagogues from age 12)

I also believe the part about the troops is wrong. I dont recall anywhere in scripture about there being troops inside the temple.
The 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.


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.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Maybe he wanted a bigger cut



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
if you take the story in the context of "a temple" (and, of course there were many in the area) as opposed to "The Temple" (of which there was only one), then the Gospel's accounts become more believable.

I can't see how you can enter a discussion of whether or not the accounts of any story in the NT is credible by citing the facts or lack thereof in the Gospels of the NT as the "proof" of anything. What I'm exploring is whether the story makes any sense based on the historical context.

I'm of the opinion that most of the NT is historical fiction - neither more or less believable than any other good historical fiction. You can't have decent historical fiction if you get everything wrong but most of them break down if you examine certain specifics. That's all I'm trying to say. It just becomes a great deal more important to question the historical references of the Gospels when you have millions of people basing their belief system (and, in the course, teaching children based on it) on stories that are not plausible.

Every good idea should be able to withstand scrutiny and honest questioning.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Al Davison
OK, what do y'all think? What have you read about this?


It's not farfetched at all. First of all, the Temple was a gathering area for trade and for buying the items needed for sacrifice. Jesus was a Jew. It is hardly strange for him to be in the temple.

Jesus was a REVOLUTIONARY. When he saw the commerce in the temple of the Lord, it pissed him off. What's difficult in understanding that? I remember reading that story for the umpteenth time several years ago, and having an epiphany. Jesus was NOT some mild-mannered hippy guru! He was a man who was aggrivated beyond belief by the stupidity and sin he saw all around him. And he spoke his mind - truth to power - damn the consequences.

He did not care what man thought of him, and he did not cower from authority. To say He did not call them to account in the Temple, is to say basically, that you do not believe in His fire and power.

I for one, accept it, as it as written. The Jesus Christ of the Bible would shrink from no man.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

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.
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,

Oh ok, well then just piss off then.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   

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]


You are quite right, I think, to object to those that use the Bible as a cudgel. They've never heard that "blessed are the peacemakers". My big problem with the fundementalists is that the reduce the Bible to a list of rules, or even an instruction manual. God's handy little "How To" guide. The Bible takes a good deal of reading between the lines.

I didn't even began to get he bible untill I read a couple oof books by Canadian SCholar and literay critic Northrop Frye, "Words With Power", and "The Great Code". The title great code comes from a quote by WIlliam Blake, "The Bible is the Great Code of western art". Sometimea fter that the pieces began falling into place.

The Indian Epic Poet Vyasa, author of "The Mahabharata", described his work as 'the poetical history of mankind'. Isn't the Bible also? If the Bible is a poem, then it's structure, and arrangement, is much more important than the details. People waste much time trying to figure out whether such and such Biblical character was a historical person. They feel that would 'prove' the Bible literally true. It would also give them the great satisfaction of waving it in everyone's face and saying "there, you see! We were right!"

To me the Bible transcends mere fact. To get lost in the facts is like missing the forrest for the trees. There is such a thing as getting the facts straight and missing the point. This, in my opinion, is the trouble with many 'Bible thumpers'.

In fact God gave us brains, and intended that we should use them. This may be the idea behind the Genesis 'Garden of Eden' story. God said, "don't eat that apple", and then winked and turned his back. In the Garden man was merely innocent, and there is a difference between innocence and holiness ( I assume).

NOw Jesus himself always taught in parables. Whether or not there actually was a "Good Samaritan", doesn't change anything. If somebody had objected to the parables by saying, "Well who is this samaritan guy, so I can go get his side of it.", and Jesus repsonded by saying, "well it's a figure of speech, you know, to help illustrate something.", I think we'd know that the principle was no less true.

That's how I feel about the money lenders in the temple. Who doesn't get a bad feeling when some one tries top cash in on religion? Psychoanalist William Reich, founder of Orgone Therapy, used the phrase "truth vendors. Truth can even be used as a weapon. There are many dishonest ways of handling the truth. As W Blake said, "The truth, told with bad intent, beats every lie you can invent". IM my experince, it has a strange way of rebounding, too!

The moneylenders had no true religious spirit, and tried to cash in on the devotees. That was the asme thing that happened back in the 80's, with the TV evangelists, like Jimmy Swaggart, and the Bakers. Remember Tammy Faye's air conditioned dog house. She was on her way to an Imelda Marcos level of excess!

They got their come uppance, too. Many people felt that was due them. So I think that the general principle that money lenders in the temple turn God's House from a house of prayer, into a den of thieves does hold true.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JehosephatTHe account in (a)John is a differant "temple clearing" then the (b)one in Jeruselam after his "Triumphant entry"
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?


At no point was Jesus ever barred from entering a temple
Where did I say he was?



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

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.
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?

Exactly where Jake?

I say to you that that your programming has been a success.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NygdanOh ok, well then just piss off then.
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.

I am just so crushed, I think I will...

enjoy some apple pie now and rejoice that I no longer have to deal with your inanity.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join