The Scourge That Cleansed the Temple

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

Does it need defending? 

The number of wars throughout history between different religions and individual religions denominations seems to indicate that 'spiritual' folk think that it does.

Well that and all the Christians here on ATS that deny/attack evolution.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Fair enough. Idk you can read, study and preach until the cows come home if you want. Each of us have unique ability, but nothing creates positive change like living one's ideals by setting good examples.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I already told you that I'm not entirely sure that he existed.

Exactly. And you also said "I can only accept Jesus as 100% human if he existed" - so you obviously do not accept him as human, and seemingly are arguing just for another opportunity to bash the entire Teachings of Jesus because you believe you have found yet another inconsistency.

Of course there are inconsistencies - the Bible is a collection of writings over many many years by various people. But the essential message of Jesus is beautiful and true in so many ways. No need to throw out the baby with the bath water as seems to be your agenda when it comes to Christianity.

When I said "So I have no problem defending his actions in the temple", you responded:

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Naturally, that is the way people blinded by charisma act when confronted by the immoral actions of the charismatic person they are blinded by.

That is a lame accusation on your part. We have already agreed that Jesus' actions in the Temple were not necessarily immoral.

Please try to free of yourself of this anti-Christianity agenda you tend to promote so you can approach these specific matters with a bit more free attention next time. Thank you.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

Does it need defending? 

The number of wars throughout history between different religions and individual religions denominations seems to indicate that 'spiritual' folk think that it does.

Well that and all the Christians here on ATS that deny/attack evolution.

Do I need to defend my faith because I deny the evolution "science" that offers soft language on the reality of human beings not being animals when the same exact methods placed on less human zoological species is not applied to humans?

Do I need to defend it when your side calls scientists who do not agree with their consensus as not being scientists, even though they have had many peer reviewed articles published and judged and passed by the secular committees?

I want to hear for once someone on your side say "Yes, this person with a PhD is as qualified as my chosen expert". Will your side ever say that?

I don't have to defend Christianity just to prove anything, I have freedom of speech to exercise my rights as a religious person, and not a religion that has been established by the government. And by God I'm going to exercise my right of religious expression and freedom of speech.

I am now defending my right to my religious expression, no matter how much you might find it insane to your own world view. And THAT is what Christians defend on these threads, their RIGHT to freely express and speak.

Even if I disagree with Muslims all day long, even THEY have the right to express it and speak it. Is that Islamaphobic? It most certainly is not when Christians become the defense for Muslims and Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and even Satanists.

And not only that, WE defend your right to express non-belief and your freedom of speech. Defense of our religion includes defense of your rights. So what really are we defending?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Not only were they exploiting the poor with the commerce, but then the very temple authorities would deny them salvation if they didn't beggar themselves buying sacrificial animals through the exploitative vendors. I'm sure the priests received their generous cut.

People talk about the pedo priests today, but I'll bet they talked about the temple priests and the money they made off the backs of the poor having to buy sacrifices. Remember, the Law was the only Covenant, and the Pharisees had gotten legalistic rather than ruling in the spirit of the law.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh, you are taking the tack of the Devil during Christ's temptation in the wilderness. Try Matthew 4. The Devil tempts him to turn the stones into bread, and He refuses because man lives by the word of God. And the Devil took him to the top of a mountain and said, "If you're really God's Son, jump off. God will save you." And Jesus refused because you don't tempt God. And that's when the Devil showed Him all kinds of riches and glory, and said this is yours if you just worship me. And Christ said step off! I worship God and God alone.

This is paraphrased, but the account might answer why Jesus didn't just conjure up a miracle. God didn't have Him do it.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

It's a good bet they deserved everything he doled out. We need someone to do it again.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: WarminIndy

Not only were they exploiting the poor with the commerce, but then the very temple authorities would deny them salvation if they didn't beggar themselves buying sacrificial animals through the exploitative vendors. I'm sure the priests received their generous cut.

People talk about the pedo priests today, but I'll bet they talked about the temple priests and the money they made off the backs of the poor having to buy sacrifices. Remember, the Law was the only Covenant, and the Pharisees had gotten legalistic rather than ruling in the spirit of the law.

And that is why He said they had made it a den of thieves.

It's like they don't like Jesus doing something about a real problem, but then complain about the same issues going on today. Jesus took care of it once and He will again.

Exploitation of the poor was really wrong then as it is now. But Jesus scourging, somehow that's worse to them.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Deut. 14:24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away),

25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose.

26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice.

If the Torah expressly says to take your tithe money to the temple to buy for yourself cattle, sheep, wine, etc. then Jesus was obviously busting up what the Torah required. Obviously against the Law.

Doves were needed for firstborn redemption sacrifice.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I already told you that I'm not entirely sure that he existed.

Exactly. And you also said "I can only accept Jesus as 100% human if he existed" - so you obviously do not accept him as human, and seemingly are arguing just for another opportunity to bash the entire Teachings of Jesus because you believe you have found yet another inconsistency.

Of course there are inconsistencies - the Bible is a collection of writings over many many years by various people. But the essential message of Jesus is beautiful and true in so many ways. No need to throw out the baby with the bath water as seems to be your agenda when it comes to Christianity.

If there are admitted inconsistencies then it can't be the divine word of god.

When I said "So I have no problem defending his actions in the temple", you responded:

That is a lame accusation on your part. We have already agreed that Jesus' actions in the Temple were not necessarily immoral.

Actually, all we know is what is presented in the bible. We don't know the other side of the story. For all we know, Jesus' charisma inspired the writers to gloss over some of the more nasty details.

Please try to free of yourself of this anti-Christianity agenda you tend to promote so you can approach these specific matters with a bit more free attention next time. Thank you.

It's called exploring every angle. If I shutdown the possibility of disbelief in that the books are incorrect, then I can't find the real answer to what is going on. I allow for belief and I see hypocrisy and contradiction, therefore, I cannot allow that it is true as written.

a reply to: WarminIndy

The Catholic Church has been exploiting the poor since it was founded. They haven't been stopped yet. And they aren't the only denomination of Christianity that does that either.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Deut. 14:24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away),

25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose.

26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice.

If the Torah expressly says to take your tithe money to the temple to buy for yourself cattle, sheep, wine, etc. then Jesus was obviously busting up what the Torah required. Obviously against the Law.

Doves were needed for firstborn redemption sacrifice.

Except the temple had not been built yet.

because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away

Does that mean far away in time or far away in location? I see it says WILL put His name.

There is no temple now.

But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe

I talked about exploitation. You have to remember that not all people were shepherds and there were a lot of poor people who could not afford sacrifices.

Leviticus 19:35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. 36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. 37 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the Lord.

And again with Micah

6:6 Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? 7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? 9 The Lord's voice crieth unto the city, and the man of wisdom shall see thy name: hear ye the rod, and who hath appointed it. 10 Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable? 11 Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights? 12 For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth. 13 Therefore also will I make thee sick in smiting thee, in making thee desolate because of thy sins.

Jesus said they had made it a den of thieves because they were unjustly weighing false balances. They knew that the law required of them to deal with justice and not overcharge the poor for sacrifices.

Jesus kept the word in Micah. He smote them.

Who kept the law here? Jesus did.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Except the temple had not been built yet.

Deut 12:5"But you shall seek the LORD at the place which the LORD your God will choose from all your tribes, to establish His name there for His dwelling, and there you shall come. 6"There you shall bring your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the contribution of your hand, your votive offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock.…

This verse is written to indicate an apparent future time in which a particular spot was to be chosen by the national deity.

Not all Israelites regarded Jerusalem as The Place. The Northern Kingdom had a temple not in Jerusalem.

The Samaritans had a temple in Shechem until Johanan Hyrcanus destroyed Shechem & burned the temple on Mt. Gerizim (127 BCE).

Shechem has more going for it than Jerusalem. Abraham's Alter, Jacob's Well, Joseph's Tomb.

Read the conversation between Jesus and the Woman at the Well (John 4)

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WarminIndy

Except the temple had not been built yet.

Deut 12:5"But you shall seek the LORD at the place which the LORD your God will choose from all your tribes, to establish His name there for His dwelling, and there you shall come. 6"There you shall bring your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the contribution of your hand, your votive offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock.…

This verse is written to indicate an apparent future time in which a particular spot was to be chosen by the national deity.

Not all Israelites regarded Jerusalem as The Place. The Northern Kingdom had a temple not in Jerusalem.

The Samaritans had a temple in Shechem until Johanan Hyrcanus destroyed Shechem & burned the temple on Mt. Gerizim (127 BCE).

Shechem has more going for it than Jerusalem. Abraham's Alter, Jacob's Well, Joseph's Tomb.

Read the conversation between Jesus and the Woman at the Well (John 4)

Sir, I perceive that thou art more than a prophet. Are you Him that the fathers said would come?

Neither in Jerusalem nor in this place any more, now in Spirit and in Truth.

PS..for those who don't know the woman at the well, Eliezar meeting Rebeccah at the well was a type and shadow of what was to come. I've read it

a reply to: WarminIndy

Neither in Jerusalem nor in this place any more, now in Spirit and in Truth.

Eliezar meeting Rebeccah at the well was a type and shadow of what was to come.

So basically, Jesus put no importance in the temple anyway. Whether Jesus actually said such things as "You have made my Father's house ..." or if the gospel writers put those words in his mouth, essentially they a quotations of scripture which may or may not reflect his actual opinions.

Compare also the crucifixion scene in Matthew 27. Were there actually people casting lots or is that put into the story because Jesus started reciting the Psalm "My God, My God" which includes casting of lots?

If Eliezar and Rebeccah are viewed as types of the Christ, that would put him in the role of servant fetching a bride for someone else. Rather than marrying the bride, he hands the bride off to be married to another. Kind of like Lancelot and Guinevere.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WarminIndy

Neither in Jerusalem nor in this place any more, now in Spirit and in Truth.

Eliezar meeting Rebeccah at the well was a type and shadow of what was to come.

So basically, Jesus put no importance in the temple anyway. Whether Jesus actually said such things as "You have made my Father's house ..." or if the gospel writers put those words in his mouth, essentially they a quotations of scripture which may or may not reflect his actual opinions.

Compare also the crucifixion scene in Matthew 27. Were there actually people casting lots or is that put into the story because Jesus started reciting the Psalm "My God, My God" which includes casting of lots?

If Eliezar and Rebeccah are viewed as types of the Christ, that would put him in the role of servant fetching a bride for someone else. Rather than marrying the bride, he hands the bride off to be married to another. Kind of like Lancelot and Guinevere.

He did say that the temple would no longer be there and the veil of the temple was torn in half, now man no longer needed any other mediator except for Himself.

Remember, the kingdom is not meat or drink. To keep thinking of it in natural terms, the temple was there for the purpose of Him becoming the last sacrifice.

There is no more need now of the temple there, because WE are now the temple with Christ as the High Priest and sacrifice.

Behold the tabernacle of God is with man.

Eliezar's very name means "Help from God" and the Bible does say that Jesus was the suffering servant. And Jesus did come for the gentile bride, because Rebecca was before Judaism and through her marriage to Isaac, brought her into the direct line of ancestry for the entire population of what would become the Jews. I don't remember if you already quoted Galatians 4, but here it is in case you hadn't.

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Neither in Jerusalem the natural city, but Jerusalem the spiritual city.

Types and shadows, the natural showing what the spiritual would be.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

So what's the deal here? Was Jesus sinless? Did he get a free pass? Did he forgive himself later? Was it OK because it was divine justice? Is the passage poorly translated? Is the story false?

After thinking about this scene and the way this scene and similar scenes are portrayed including the cued quoting of the scriptures, I'm thinking that it's a play, an acting out.

Hypocrite

2.
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

1175-1225; Middle English ipocrite < Old French < Late Latin hypocrita < Greek hypokritḗs a stage actor, hence one who pretends to be what he is not, equivalent to hypokrī́ (nesthai)

So there are two possibilities:

1) Jesus felt himself to be placed in a role either by his choice or his society's choice or from a deity he referred to as Father.

2) These events did not happen, and some writer retroactively created them.

Either way, Jesus as portrayed is a hypocrite.

a reply to: WarminIndy

There is no more need now of the temple there, because WE are now the temple with Christ as the High Priest and sacrifice.

I'm trying to remember all this. Letter to Hebrews, the true tabernacle (tent), his body.
1 Corinthians: There is one body with many members.
probably Ephesians and Colossians also.

So would you say that the Church (body of Christ) is married to the greater deity through sacrifice?

Remember, the kingdom is not meat or drink. To keep thinking of it in natural terms,

Then the kingdom is now? Coexisting timewise and locationwise(body, where two or more are gathered in the name). Then it's a matter of flesh and spirit working together. "What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"

If so then you believe in mystical union. Then to insult you is to insult Christ, because you are his. That could be a conversation breaker.

Please excuse me while I adjust my attitude.

a reply to: pthena

Personally, I believe it's option two. The gospels aren't even consistent with when the event took place. In John it's early in Christ's ministry. In the other three gospels, it's near the end of his ministry.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Different gospels written by different authors. John's gospel puts it at the beginning for a purpose, and the Samaritan woman shortly thereafter. For the purpose of emphasizing the relative non-importance of the physical stone temple.

It get's deeper. Jesus is to us the penultimate Stranger. No amount of attempting to construct an actual biography is possible.

Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven—only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’

All the claiming to know him that goes on is ultimately useless. Even doing marvelous deeds in his name are useless.

People take him different ways. The question becomes, what exactly is his role.

1) Did he supplant the Old Testament Law and it's deity and reveal a different deity (Father)?

2) Or was his purpose to use fine morals and a better way for people to treat one another as a hook in order to drag people to the Old Testament and its deity?
These are tough questions. If 2) then the Old Testament deity must be judged upon his own merits, before someone chooses to follow Jesus.

In any case Jesus is said to have said that the Law and the Prophets would be around for the foreseeable future. Therefore what is written can stand as a witness against the Old Testament deity.

People should be very careful about Jesus.