Were John the Baptist and Jesus Really Gung Ho about the Ancient Temple of Jerusalem? Real Jock Author Discusses this with Bart Ehrman

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2014 1:08 PM GMT
    Bart Ehrman:
    In both cases – as with the case of Jesus – the opposition was almost certainly not to the idea of a temple or of a practice of sacrifices to worship God. Those things were prescribed by God himself in his Torah.

    Steefen:
    John the Baptist offered peace of mind via repentance and baptism as opposed to via having a bird or some other animal sacrificed at the Temple. Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist. John the Baptist and Jesus recognized God was in the Wilderness, just as God was in the Wilderness for Moses. The Temple was some sort of public show of reverence to God. Jesus spoke against the way some Temple priests were religoius: doing things in public for the rewards of publicity.

    Remember: God didn’t want a temple but David insisted and Solomon built it. Jesus, John the Baptist, and Stephen the Martyr remembered that part of scripture. They remembered God’s original stance on the Temple.

    Bart Ehrman:
    According to the earliest accounts, Jesus enters the temple, overturns the tables of those exchanging money, and driving out those who were selling sacrificial animals. In our first account, Mark’s, Jesus actually shuts down the entire operation of the entire temple.

    I have already shown why Aslan’s reconstruction of that event as a historical incident can’t work. Mark’s Gospel simply can’t be taken as historically reliable at this point. If Jesus really shut down the Temple cult, how could he not have been arrested on the spot by soldiers stationed there (both Jewish temple police and Roman soldiers, brought in for the occasion) precisely to quell any possible violence?

    Steefen:
    The whole Temple is shutdown at the “cashier’s booth” temporarily for about five minutes. After Jesus leaves the cashier’s booth he then goes to where they are purchasing animals and sets a few animals free–10 minutes max of that. His whole protest is no more than 15 minutes. There was no standoff. He just made a statement not a revolt. He had spiritual authority. He wasn’t looking for a fight. They allowed him his time to rant.

    Was it a parable in action to make a prophecy that Religion with Integrity (Purity) will have this establishment destroyed and God would free animals from such sacrifice? I can accept that at the moment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2014 1:12 PM GMT
    Jesus was an important prophet (correction: teacher and healer) at the beginning of the Age of Pisces (Fish). The Temple was not a place of fish. The Temple of slaughtered land animals was not a relevant icon for the Age of Pisces.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2014 1:16 PM GMT
    StephenOABC saidJesus was an important prophet (correction: teacher and healer) at the beginning of the Age of Pisces (Fish). The Temple was not a place of fish. The Temple of slaughtered land animals was not a relevant icon for the Age of Pisces.


    Jesus was an important prophet...
    Correction: Jesus was an important teacher and healer. He wasn't a prophet by my definition of prophet: one who makes a prophecy that comes true. Jesus' major prophecy did not come true unless it came true through Vespasian being the Son of God. It would work this way: God was angry with the Temple Establishment for rejecting Jesus. God was angry with Jerusalem for killing James, the brother of Jesus. So, Justice had to come from outside of Jerusalem in the form of Roman destruction of the Temple.

    If Jesus was not to be the first Son of Man king of the Kingdom of God, WHY WOULDN'T JAMES BE THE NEXT PRINCE IN LINE to be king of the apocalyptic kingdom?