Understanding the Historical Yeshua

Getting back on track..... I'm going to touch upon Paul here and his seemingly antinomian attitude for a second, before returning to Yeshua. Both Paul and Yeshua were deeply affected by the wrangling that went on between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai over the "Gentile question", though not exactly for the same reasons.

At issue were the questions - "What do we do about these Goyim in the Land? Further, how do we deal with these Goyim in general, whether they be in or outside of the Land?"

Bet Hillel was being very pragmatic about things. They felt that by taking a more liberal approach they might be able to schmooze the Gentiles and gently coax them into the Kingdom of Heaven a step-at-a-time ... or ... at the very least allow them to share in the spiritual commonwelath of the Children of Yisrael. How? Via an "open door policy" that would serve to nudge them away from paganism and toward becoming good Noachides or Gerim Toshav (Repentant Strangers) and onwards to increasing levels of Torah observance ... or ... at the very least to a level of appreciation for Jewish ethics (musar) and the Jewish people, etc.

Bet Hillel felt that this would serve them well in light of the "wrath to come" which their prophets KNEW was going to result in the Destruction of the Temple. Since the Holy Land was obviously not under the firm control of a Jewish Theocratic Monarchy ... let alone a Jewish King ... one HAD TO handle the Gentiles with kid-gloves.

Bet Shammai and their associates among the Zealots had a totally different approach. They wanted nothing to do with Gentiles lest they become FULL CONVERTS, end of story. In so doing, they were shutting off the Kingdom of Heaven from men. Worse yet, the Full Converts they did manage to make were sharing in Bet Shammai's hypocrisy. That's what Yeshua had a problem with! Creating a bunch of self-loathing Converts, who would only inflame their pagan countrymen with this new found piety.

"A circumcised Gentile in my Roman bath house? Zeus forbid!"

So, ... the reality of the geo-political circumstances in the Common Era was a challenge to both schools of Pharisaic thought. The debates over the "Gentile question" were very heated and ended in this split -- Bet Shammai adopted the "all or nothing" approach and Bet Hillel adopted the "baby-steps" approach.

Yes, ideally within the confines of the Holy Land there is but one Law that binds both Jews and Foreigners-in-residence. Outside the Holy Land ... Gentiles, regardless of their national or religious affiliation, are bound by the Laws of Noach, at least until the end of the Messianic Era.

One has to separate the Jewish acceptance of the Righteous of the Nations (Noachides) in the World to Come from the PROGRESSIVE work that the early Believers - like Paul - sought to bring about amongst the Jews and Gentiles living in and outside of the Holy Land through the advancement of Yeshua's Kingdom/Repentance movement -- not to mention the work of the Hillelites in paving the way for future, post-Destruction, relations with the Gentiles.

Originally posted by Al Davison
I can understand your frustration. However, I don't wish to be seen taking sides - I don't think you are making any claim to that, either. I just want to be clear.

I have read a bit about the ideas that Jesus and his men were armed and may have participated in some armed insurrections that fall outside the realm of self-defense. I've been trying to find the title/author of a book I read several years ago - it was loaned to me by someone with whom I've lost touch.

Could be you're thinking of the book entitled "James, the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls" by Robert Eisenmann ... or ... perhaps "Jesus: The King and His Kingdom" by George Welsey Buchanan. Both advance a theory that Yeshua was out to found a militant movement. There are a few other authors who've speculated about this, but ... I don't think they got the attention that Eisenmann and Buchanan did.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by smadewell]

Originally posted by Al DavisonThat author made some very interesting points about the whole "throwing out the money-changers from the Temple" incident. His POV was that it would have been impossible without having a fairly good-sized band of armed men with him at the time.

Yes, that incident does make it appear that Yeshua totally blew his cool and went ballistic. I've heard all sorts of "sermons" on this from Christians, who, in turn, justify Yeshua's actions in light of Temple corruption. The "justified Jesus" and the "anti-Temple Jesus" models don't wash any more than the "ballistic, militant Jesus" model(s) do.

Hengel has pointed out that it would have required an army to bring a halt to all buying and selling in the Temple and that's the assumption those who argue for the "Militant Jesus" use to support their model. This assumption - although very Hollywood-esque - can't be supported from the literature at hand.

I'll have to post on this at length later tonight, but the one scholar who actually took the time to look at all the angles here in order to come up with a more or less correct understanding of this incident is E.P. Sanders in his book, "Jesus and Judaism" (pp. 69ff).

Sanders argues that the incident was symbolic. Yeshua overturned some of the seats of those who sold doves and some of the tables of the moneychangers. Why? Because he was a prophet and prophets at times employed a "do something for shock value and then explain your actions" method to get their point across.

We see this with the prophet Ahijah who tears a garment into twelve pieces and after handing ten pieces to Jeroboam, explains that this is a symbolic gesture that indicates that ten of the tribes would be torn out of Solomon's hands and given to him, whilst the two tribes remaining would be reserved for David's line. (1 Kings 11:30ff).

We see another example of this with a prophet named Agabus, who took "Paul's belt, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, 'Thus saith the Holy Spirit, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'" (Acts 21:11).

All Yeshua did was overthrow some of the seats (symbolic of power and authority) of those who sold doves, which was controlled by the High Priest's family, and some of the tables (symbolic of the prosperity) of the moneychangers. Why not the tables of the dove sellers and the seats of the moneychangers? Was "Jesus" a member of PETA? Were the moneychangers too fat to eject from their seats? Hmmmm..... More on this later.

In short, he was predicting their fall; an end to their power and prosperity. How did he explain his actions? By using a teaching technique used by the proto-Rabbinic sages called a remez, which is where two or more verses from the Sacred Text are hinted at with a brief quote and tied together, so that the passages virtually explode into the minds of the audience, because they had these Scriptures committed to memory having learned them in their youth!

In the end, the Temple was destroyed because a Zealot priest refused to accept the sacrificial offering sent from Rome. There is no escaping the fact that the anti-Gentile sentiments of Bet Shammai and the Zealots (et al) played a role in the destruction of the Temple, which is something Yeshua hinted at in explaining his so-called "Temple cleansing" actions. I'll have to expound further tonight - Heaven permitting and the water don't rise.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by smadewell]

Thanks for all that! And I look forward to the "more" that I hope you'll find time to write.

None of the books you mention are the one that I'm thinking of...it might have been titled "Jesus the Jew" but I looked up that book and the author's name did not seem correct. Oh, well...there's certainly plenty more to read and so many of these authors draw on the research and writings of each other...

I'll wait to read more before I comment further but, I hope others are reading this, as well.

I shall attempt to tackle the so-called "cleansing of the Temple" incident. I'll work under the assumptions that -

1. The various gospel accounts of this event are historically accurate.
2. The divers accounts can be glued together to form a complete story.
3. That Yeshua, acting by himself, was responsible for this "disturbance."
4. That Yeshua's show of temper wasn't a tantrum at all.
5. That Yeshua used the technique of “symbolic gestures” employed by the prophets to deliver a sermon, a warning and a clarification as to his own person and work.

What I hope to demonstrate is that Yeshua was willing, wanting and waiting to actualize the soul of the Messiah, which, according to Jewish tradition is born into each generation.

However, he was resigned to the fact that he couldn't fulfill that role, because his generation hadn't sufficiently endeavored to actualize the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Rulership of G-d), which, he and other the proto-Rabbinic sages, felt was the only sure fire way to usher in the Messianic Era.

Without the Sinaic Ideal being realized (i.e., a kingdom of priests and a holy nation) there would be no king; without a messinaic era there would be no messiah.

It's not a question of the Jewish people rejecting Yeshua ... or ... Yeshua pontificating about his Messinaic role ... or ... Yeshua rejecting his fellow Jews ... or ... Yeshua going on a recruitment campaign to muster an army to overthrow the existing social order.

What grieved Yeshua was that the people weren't repenting of their Secularism and half-hearted Torah observance, in order that they might jump on the "Kingdom of Heaven bandwagon," in sufficient numbers and with sufficient haste to circumvent - let alone halt - the "wrath to come" that would result in the destruction of the Temple. More to come.... Stay tuned....

[edit on 17-6-2005 by smadewell]

Apparently, Yeshua entered the Temple, fashioned a crude whip, and began to drive out those who "bought and sold." Why? Because this symbolic gesture was meant to remind people of the passage "and in that day there shall be no more Canaanites in the house of the Lord Almighty" - Zech. 14:21.

What does that have to do with those who "bought and sold"? Well, the word "Canaanites" in Hebrew has a dual meaning - 1. the tribes that comprised the nation of Canaan; 2. merchants in general, because the Canaanites were known for being merchants.

What is meant by "in that day" in Zech. 14:21? It refers to the time immediately following the "Day of the Lord" in which G-d will gather all the Gentiles to Jerusalem to engage in a war that would result in the city being taken, the houses plundered and the women ravished (Zech. 14:1ff). Nevertheless, with G-d's help, this war would end with the subjugation of the Nations. The generally accepted view is that we’re talking here about the Messianic Era.

So, why did Yeshua put the cart before the horse, so to speak? Why run off the "Canaanites" before this war? If he wanted to start this war right then and there ... why didn't he? Anyway.... Wouldn’t the absence of ''merchants'' in the Temple be a natural consequence of this war – especially if, as Prof. David Flusser has argued, Yeshua agreed with the Jewish tradition that held that a new Temple – one made without hands – would replace the existing Temple? See ''Judaism and the Origins of Christianity'', pp. 88ff. Aren’t we talking about the Messianic Era here? So, why run the merchants out?

Was Yeshua angry because some greedy price gouging was taking place? That’s not part of the Gospel record and the Religious Sanhedrin had ways of dealing with any greed on the part of the Zadokite dove sellers and the moneychangers.

We read about Shimeon, the son of Gamaliel I (Paul’s teacher, Acts. 22:3), tackling greed most effectively.

''Once a pair of doves was sold for two gold dinars. Then said Rabbi Shimeon, son of Gamaliel, ‘By this dwelling (the Temple), I will not rest this night until I have made it so that they can be bought for one (silver) dinar.’ So he went into the court and taught thus: ‘In certain cases only one offering need be brought instead of the five strictly necessary’. (He was afraid that the high prices would prevent poor people from bringing any offering.) The same day the price of a pair of doves stood at half a silver dinar'' (M. Ker. 1:7).

There’s no need to use a crude whip to beat people into compliance when a simple religio-legal ruling (halakah) can do the trick and the Pharisees were well versed in manipulating the Zadokites through their halakhot (religio-legal rulings), especially when they had the ear of the people. So, I doubt Yeshua was upset about price gouging or greed in particular. To be continued....

[edit on 17-6-2005 by smadewell]

Originally posted by Al DavisonNone of the books you mention are the one that I'm thinking of...it might have been titled "Jesus the Jew" but I looked up that book and the author's name did not seem correct. Oh, well...there's certainly plenty more to read and so many of these authors draw on the research and writings of each other.

I've got it! Or rather, it's one of the books that was so far fetched and refuted by scholars that I clean forgot about it. I think the book you're thinking about is S.G.F. Brandon's "Jesus and the Zealots - A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity". Personally, I think the Alien Jesus model is more probable than the Zealot Jesus model. It's a very slick presentation - or should I say, slippery? - and people are always keen to read something revolutionary, no pun intended. I just didn't find it very convincing.

heheheeee....nope that wasn't it either. I'm just chuckling about your Alien Jesus comment.

Actually, I got the book from a very well-read, well-educated Presbyterian minister. Now, a lot of that book was not about a Zealot Jesus or the "Jesus Army" stuff. It actually presented a lot of different points of view. But, trying to guess the book isn't getting us anywhere...I'll go to a book store and browse the shelves.

You bring up at least one point that is very important to me...life is too short to read a lot of "disreputable" books and authors (though I don't mind reading a few because I also read the Sunday funny papers). The thing is, I'm always checking as well as I can before I commit to reading an entire book - I usually Google the author at the very least and look for commentaries.

It is pretty hard, sometimes, to figure out who to believe. A lot of people only read things that support their POV but I usually go in search of materials that challenge my POV.

Before returning to the so-called "Cleansing of the Temple" incident, I really need to address something Al brought up in the "Why did the Jews kill Jesus Christ?" thread.

Originally posted by Al Davison... the Sanhedran, technically, cannot even convene until after Passover....

The key to understanding what went down regarding the events leading up to and including the crucifixion is this.... There was more than one "governing" Sanhedrin during this period.

Solomon Zeitlin has argued in his book "Who Crucified Jesus?" - which BTW is most informative and an easy read - that one must make a distinction between the Religious Sanhedrin of Seventy-One that was controlled by the Pharisees (Separatists) and the Zadokite (Sadducean) controlled Political Sanhedrin, which operated under their own set of rules (or lack thereof).

This Political Sanhedrin basically functioned as a Secret Police, if you will, for the Roman authorities. Their job was to keep the peace - and in the words of Malcolm X - do so "by any means necessary." Still, these Zadokites did have to contend with the Separatist sages, who had the ear of the people and could at a moments notice move the masses to action.

Hence, this Political Sanhedrin frequently had to work on the sly and if things got too hot to handle ... they'd have to turn to Rome for back-up and/or an "out" from whatever jam they'd gotten themselves into. Then, just as today, it was a delicate juggling act that had to be preformed by the Powers-That-Be.

Another curve ball in this episode was the role played by those members of the House of Shammai, who, like the Zadokites, had a vested interest in keeping things running smoothly, because they too had a good deal of wealth to protect - to say nothing of their social standing amongst the provincial landowners and patrician aristocrats.

So, the Shammaites weren't opposed to working with the Zadokites where protecting their mutual interests were concerned. Further, the Shammaites absolutely loathed their Gentile oppressors.

I'm not saying the Zadokites or the Shammaites were anything like the Jewish Capos (prison leaders) that worked for the Germans in the Concentration Camps, but ... since they were kowtowing to Roman demands ... they probably hated the Gentiles as much as the Capos hated the Germans. That's why both of these factions had ties with the Zealots, but ... that's a whole other thread. Anyway.... To be continued....

[edit on 18-6-2005 by smadewell]

Opposite the Shammaites were those members of the House of Hillel, who had suffered greatly under the heavy handedness of Shammai, since his having usurped control of the Religious Sanhedrin of Seventy-One with a little help from his associates among the Zealots.

The House of Hillel, which sought to bring about a renaissance of the "school of the prophets" (2 Kings 2:5; 4:38), had a number of its prophets slain by Zealots, whom Shammai had moved to action (circa 10 B.C.E.). Because of this bloody ordeal, Menachem the Essene stopped serving as the Av Bet Din (Father of the House of Judgment; Vice President) of the Religious Sanhedrin of Seventy-One and departed to Damascus with his disciples and with more than a few of Hillel's disciples in tow.

Shammai then usurped the office of Vice President and took control of the Religious Sanhedrin of Seventy-One. He allowed Hillel to continue serving as its President (Nasi/Prince), but only as a mere figurehead and because he was a scion of King David - like his distant kinsman, Yeshua ben Yosef - and also because Shammai feared Hillel's popularity with the plebeian horde.

Hillel died around 10 C.E. - some twenty years after the aforementioned coup d'état - and his son, Shimeon ben Hillel, took over the presidency of the Religious Sanhedrin of Seventy-One under the ever watchful eye and heavy hand of Shammai and his disciples.

Sadly, Shimeon's leadership appears to have been rather lackluster judging by the fact that not much is written about him in the rabbinic literature. It was against this backdrop in Pharisaic and national affairs that Yeshua comes to the realization that SOMETHING has to be done! More on this in a moment....

You can find all this information about Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai set forth in Rabbi Harvey Falk's book "Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus". It's going to be a little difficult to follow for those lacking a basic knowledge of the rabbinic literature and Jewish history, but ... it's not unreadable. Fact is, it contains a lot of sections that are easy to read. To be continued....

[edit on 18-6-2005 by smadewell]

I don't agree with R. Falk's final conclusion though. Sadly, like so many Jewish scholars writing about the Jewish Jesus, R. Falk concludes that Jesus is merely something for the Gentiles. How so? Because he believes that Jesus was a pawn (more or less) in a grand Hillelite-Essene conspiracy to create a religion for the Gentiles (i.e., Christianity) that would help the Nations better observe the Seven Laws given to the Sons of Noah, while at the same time serve to give non-Jews a new found respect for Judaism.

It's odd to hear a Jew talking about a Jewish conspiracy, but ... there you go, eh? Anything to wash one's hands of that pesky Jesus character!

Be that as it may, R. Falk does give a very informative account of the differences that existed between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai and does paint a more or less accurate picture of Yeshua being a plebeian, Hillelite-inclined sage, who strongly opposed the Shammaites.

What R. Falk failed to see was that Yeshua - frustrated by the goings on of his day and age - actually sought to (directly or indirectly) bolster the School of Hillel and its renaissance of the "school of prophets" via his own grassroots Repentance/Kingdom movement, which sought to restore the Secular Jews and the not-so-Torah-observant Jews to the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the proto-Rabbinic Separatist sages and their associates among the Chasidim.

For Yeshua, there was only one path to take -- actualize the Sinaic Ideal and move the people to repentance and hope this would be enough to usher in the Messianic Era ... or ... die trying. I find this picture of the historical Yeshua very laudable. Conspiracy nuts who take issue with the road our own leaders are pushing us down ought to appreciate the historical Yeshua's position and praise the stance he took -- even it did end up killing him.

Martyrs can't be silenced and this one's voice - despite all the crap that's been heaped upon him and all the distortions and lies and misconceptions - continues to sing out, "Repent! For the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!"

So, I guess we could view Yeshua as a sort of religio-social activist, who sought to change the social order - not by violence - but by changing the hearts and minds of the people that they might actualize and manifest a new social order - the Kingdom of Heaven and thereby pave the way for a better and hopefully brighter tomorrow.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by smadewell]

Originally posted by Al DavisonIt is pretty hard, sometimes, to figure out who to believe. A lot of people only read things that support their POV but I usually go in search of materials that challenge my POV.

Ditto that! My POV regarding Yeshua is more or less fixed at this point, though I'm always open to having my caged rattled by new information.

I probably have at least 3,500+ books that directly and indirectly relate to the Judaisms and the early Christianity of the Common Era (et al). Many are reference and source books in Hebrew, Greek and/or English. About half of my personal library is comprised of books from scholars arguing their POV about Judaism, Jesus, Paul, early Christianity and Gnosticism, etc., etc., etc. I've read pro and con from just about every corner at one time or another over the past (going on) twenty-four years of my quest for the historical Yeshua.

The problem with scholars is that one is seldom able to find good, defensible and largely unbiased (i.e., non-dogmatic and non-skeptic) works that inform at a level the Average Joe - among whom I number myself - can easily read. I've taught myself to read works written by scholars for scholars, but ... reducing the insights I've gained into the common vernacular for others to graze upon? ARGH!

I mean.... How does one reduce the verbose and eloquent writings of scholars (particularly those from one hundred plus years ago) into the sound-bite media format of today’s world - being ever mindful that our attention span runs about a commercial's length at best? ::::sigh:::: Still.... One tries to inform and educate and learn along the way.

Originally posted by smadewell
All Yeshua did was overthrow some of the seats (symbolic of power and authority) of those who sold doves, which was controlled by the High Priest's family, and some of the tables (symbolic of the prosperity) of the moneychangers. Why not the tables of the dove sellers and the seats of the moneychangers? Was "Jesus" a member of PETA? Were the moneychangers too fat to eject from their seats? Hmmmm..... More on this later.

Symbolically, I agree that a seat is a "seat of power". But, I tend to see the table as a "table of beliefs". Though I can see the prosperity of the money changers being affected, I would tend to say this would be because of the change in the hearts/beliefs of people.

Taken literally, I was always intrigued that Jesus didn't take actions that would "damage the merchandise".

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

Originally posted by smadewell All Yeshua did was overthrow some of the seats (symbolic of power and authority) of those who sold doves, which was controlled by the High Priest's family, and some of the tables (symbolic of the prosperity) of the moneychangers. Why not the tables of the dove sellers and the seats of the moneychangers? Was "Jesus" a member of PETA? Were the moneychangers too fat to eject from their seats? Hmmmm..... More on this later.

Symbolically, I agree that a seat is a "seat of power". But, I tend to see the table as a "table of beliefs". Though I can see the prosperity of the money changers being affected, I would tend to say this would be because of the change in the hearts/beliefs of people. Taken literally, I was always intrigued that Jesus didn't take actions that would "damage the merchandise".

You could well be right! I took the table to mean "prosperity" or perhaps "fecundity" only because one usually puts food on a table -- the bread of life, the fruits of one's labor, etc., etc., etc. Beliefs.... The worship of mammon.... Prosperity.... All of these might be symbolic of tables. One's beliefs or opinions or ideas can be "tabled", so to speak. That's an interpretation I hadn't thought of before.

Beliefs of the people will in fact play into understanding this incident. More on this later....

Yes, I too have always been intrigued by Yeshua not seeking to damage the merchandise, which is what first starting me down this path of viewing his "flare up" as being nothing more than a symbolic act, which led me to connecting this incident with what the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh and the prophet Agabus of Judea had done.

Why didn't Yeshua knock over the tables of those who sold doves? Were the doves on these tables in cages? Was Yeshua an animal lover or something?

And why didn't he knock over the chairs of the moneychangers? Were they too fat to move from their seats? Why overturn their tables? Was he playing the role of Fagin to his disciples' Artful Dodger and Oliver Twist? Was this a ruse to pinch a few coins?

I just don't see how his actions could be anything but a symbolic gesture which was staged in order to convey a message to the masses - if not the Powers-That-Be themselves. More to come on that.... Still pecking away at my next installment on this incident.

Did Yeshua have a problem with "buying and selling" as part and parcel of the Temple cultus? Did he feel that Sacred Ground was no place for commerce? That's not very likely, because Jews of the Common Era saw this service as a convenience for Temple goers?

Honestly! No one wanted to schlep livestock across country and risk being told upon arrival at the Temple, ''Oops! Sorry there, Mate! This creature's blemished; it can't be offered up to the L_RD.'' It'd be far easier to sell a dove (or what-have-you) in one's home town, take the money, and buy a creature certified as being unblemished at the Temple!

Same goes for the money-changers. Wasn't it easier to change one's money at the Temple, rather than exchanging it abroad and then face an emergency and have to change it back again? Further, no one, including Yeshua, seemed to object to the authorities demand that coins used at the Temple be free of an image of an emperor or a king, etc. After all this is the man who said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto G-d the things that are G-d's" - Mat. 22:21.

So, if Yeshua didn't have a problem with the necessity (or convenience) of this service, why does he tell the dove sellers, ''Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise'' (John 2:16)? Take what things hence? The doves and animals? The seats he just overturned? Aren't these words evidence that Yeshua took issue with the Temple being used as an emporium?

Well, if these words stood alone as Yeshua expressing his opinion, then ... yes. The problem is that these words are tied to other statements and actions, which are the "symbolic gestures" of a prophet, so one must examine the whole event in order to put it into perspective.

In addition to saying, "make not my Father's house an emporium," Yeshua further explains, "'It is written, ‘My house shall be called the house of prayer'; but ye have made it a den of thieves.'' Here Yeshua is alluding via this rabbinic method of teaching called remez (hinting), to Jer. 7:11 – ''Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the L_RD." However, this remez (allusion) isn't limited to just verse 11, because that whole section of Jeremiah would have exploded into the minds Yeshua's audience.

Yeshua's problem wasn't with the Temple cultus itself or the convenience of "buying and selling" in the Temple compound. Yeshua's problem was with the Zadokites who controlled the dove selling and the money changing and THEIR belief system regarding the Temple cultus. To be continued....

[edit on 18-6-2005 by smadewell]

In short, these Zadokites were encouraging an attitude that one of my friends, a Catholic priest, has complained about on a number of occasions -- the "revolving door" confessional. Time and again he's told me how frustrating it is to see the same people confessing the same sins over and over and over again - using the confessional as way of gaining moments of absolution in their otherwise sin-filled life.

In short, they lack any resolution to stop sinning! So, the confessional is reduced to a mere "revolving door" because the Sacrament of Penance takes a backseat to the next sinful pleasure that comes their way.

In like manner, the Zadokite approach to the Temple cultus, was sort of like fast-food forgiveness, which is why Yeshua appeals to the words recorded in Jeremiah:

"Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the L_RD. But go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh, where I set my name at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel. And now, because ye have done all these works, saith the L_RD, and I spake unto you, rising up early and speaking, but ye heard not; and I called you, but ye answered not; Therefore will I do unto this house, which is called by my name, wherein ye trust, and unto the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I have done to Shiloh." - Jer. 7:8-14

In short, Yeshua was saying, "G-d has had it with this fast-food approach to forgiveness you Zadokites are encouraging here. You guys don't care about advancing the actual Rulership of G-d in the hearts and minds of the people. You guys aren't preaching repentance. You guys aren't encouraging others to stop sinning! So, expect to be laid to waste for not actualizing the Sinaic Ideal! Your prosperity, your authority, your beliefs and your automated, mechanical approach to the Divine are about to come to an end!"

And that pronouncement is what sealed Yeshua's fate. Still, you've gotta admire his chutzpah for telling it like it was and wanting to jar folks out of their robotic approach to Judaism and the Temple cult. And again, Yeshua wasn't opposed to Judaism or the Temple cult itself. He simply had a problem with the Zadokite apporach and he wasn't the only Jews who felt that way! To be continued....

[edit on 18-6-2005 by smadewell]

this is really great stuff! Many thanks for continuing to present this information and perspectives.

Of course, even you (Smadewell) encourage us to read and study rather than simply accept, without question, your materials. I truly respect that attitude of "challenge everything, see what is still standing at the end of the day".

So, I take it that my extremely simplistic and unsubstantiated post in that other thread "why did the Jews kill Jesus..." may not be too far off the mark even though I lacked enough of the detailed information to really know why I was getting close to the real story - lucky guess? Actually, to avoid false modesty, all of that was written after many years of studying and thinking and reading. As a rank amateur, regular Joe, kind of guy I just don't have all my sources catalogued and cross-referenced and such. So, I frequently can't quote all the chapter, verse, version, author, publish date, etc. I don't have enough spare time to even begin that kind of work and I doubt I ever will.

None of that is meant to be an apology or to pat myself on the back, either. All I'm saying is that I'm happy that there is room enough in these discussions for a guy like me to participate at the level I'm able and continue questing for the story behind the story behind the story....

As long as you and the others are willing to write, I'll be reading! And, of course, I love to see challenges - I just prefer that they be in the form of respectful discourse.

Smadewell: I found the book I to which I was referring!

I thought I had returned it to my friend who has long-since moved away but, it turns out that I still have it because he actually gave it to my wife as a gift. She didn't read it, though.

Anyway, it is "Jesus the Jew" by Geza Vermes. Have you (or anyone else reading this) read this book or this author? What do you think?

Originally posted by Al Davison
Smadewell: I found the book I to which I was referring! I thought I had returned it to my friend who has long-since moved away but, it turns out that I still have it because he actually gave it to my wife as a gift. She didn't read it, though. Anyway, it is "Jesus the Jew" by Geza Vermes. Have you (or anyone else reading this) read this book or this author? What do you think?

I have all of Vermes' books.... Can't say I recall HE HIMSELF advanced the Zealot Jesus model. Yes, Vermes does a wonderful job of trying to view the man in light of his culture, etc. Sadly, he does tend to marginalize Yeshua a little. Nevertheless, he does much to present Yeshua as a typical miracle working, prophetic sage of his day and age. There's no debating that. I like his books! Lots of good information in there. I especially like his explanation for the use of "Lord". It doesn't mean "L_RD Jesus" (i.e., G-d Himself or some Three-In-One combo thereof). It's simply a polite honorific - Mar Yeshua - meaning "Revered Teacher Yeshua". Other sages were called MAR So-And-So, rather than RABBI So-And-So.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by smadewell]

Of course, it's possible that I am mis-remembering that I read about this Temple cleansing part in this particular book. I'll try to find it later or report back that I'm just wrong about that.

Anyway, I'm glad I found this book (accidentally) because I think I'll re-read it at some point.