Gospel of John

[polonius]

There are disputes about who really authored the Gospels. One of the most interesting is the Gospel of John.

Is there evidence against his authorship? If so, what evidence?

[oldbadger]

Not one of those scriptures mentions the words "money changers" or "permission granted to be in the temple", so no my friend, it is not "done" by a long shot.


JW

Ah..... but do you think that Herod had cared about what you want to see?
Herod the Great controlled what the weight and purity of the coin would be, in fact he closed down the mint in Tyre and built a mint near Jerusalem (19BC) where these coins would be made, and although they were poorly struck (by comparison) they were consistent in weight and purity, which is all that he cared about. That mint continued until circa 67AD.
Herod killed lots and lots of priests in his time, so they mostly did what he wanted.
The surviving priesthood didn't care about all that, because the Temple takings made them all very rich.

Jesus did what the report say..... he visited the Temple on three successive days, once to look around, once to cause mayhem and picket, and once to picket and try to draw the crowd to insurrection? But he failed.
One of his discipl;es gave him up, for 30 silver coins, probably full shekels, about $3000 in today's money.

But Pilot didn't really care.... I think he helped Josseph get Jesus down and away.

Obviously a Christian must believe and have Faith in G-John before G-Mark, but the historians might take interest in other possibilities?

[oldbadger]

Enough for someone unreasonable perhaps, but having a whip (or a knife or a gun) is not proof you used it on someone. Jesus was scattering the animals, and livestock usually need some prodding to get moving... there is absolutely not evidence that he used the cord on the people. Feel free to highlight the any part of the verses that say anything to the contrary, otherwise, you have pure assumption, which is only proof you can .... assume.

No! Actually I don't necessarily believe that Jesus even had a whip, but Christians MUST believe because G-John says so.

But if he had one, then it's presence was enough...... the threat.

We know about this in the UK, because a burglar will receive a small sentence or be confined top home, whereas an armed burglar will get a life sentence, just for being armed. But that's us, here.

If you needed to know that Jesus's crucifixion was righteous... justified, then Pilate would say 'No'.... the priests just wanted him dead because he threatened to disrupt their nice little earner...... which is why Jesus may have been spared!

Christians have tio believe that Mother Mary and John BarZebededee were right there, but historians might believe that only Magdalene and Salome watched..... with other strangers..... FROM AFAR!

[JehovahsWitness]

Enough for someone unreasonable perhaps, but having a whip (or a knife or a gun) is not proof you used it on someone. Jesus was scattering the animals, and livestock usually need some prodding to get moving... there is absolutely not evidence that he used the cord on the people. Feel free to highlight the any part of the verses that say anything to the contrary, otherwise, you have pure assumption, which is only proof you can .... assume.

But if he had one, then it's presence was enough...... the threat.

Well that's one way to look at it. I concede that there is the possiblility seeing a man with a whip in his hand, who was visibly angry, the traders may well have suffered mental anguish at the thought he might turn on them (*cough* snowflakes *cough*)... and I don't doubt that there was the possibily a trader with bad reflexes who lunged the wrong way may have gotten a lash or two meant for a sheep's hide , who knows... we can speculate all day, in the end, all we know for sure is that there is no report of Jesus physically assulting anyone.

I won't go beyond the things written,

JW

[oldbadger]

Well that's one way to look at it. I concede that there is the possiblility seeing a man with a whip in his hand, who was visibly angry, the traders may well have suffered mental anguish at the thought he might turn on them (*cough* snowflakes *cough*)... and I don't doubt that there was the possibily a trader with bad reflexes who lunged the wrong way may have gotten a lash or two meant for a sheep's hide , who knows... we can speculate all day, in the end, all we know for sure is that there is no report of Jesus physically assulting anyone.

I won't go beyond the things written,

JW

Thankyou for your reply... and the picture...

Whoa! Is Jesus about to use that whip?
Like I have said, I don't think Jesus necessarily used a whip. But he didn't just clear the Temple and picket the Temple courts on his own! I know that Christians can only believe what the bible tells them to, but historically nobody could have cleared the Temple alone. There were Levite Guards everywhere and they had the right to act against any transgressors, so there had to have been a lot ofd force used.

Could it have been a riot? Could Jesus have been Jesus Son of the Father? Jesus Barabbas?

[JehovahsWitness]

Well that's one way to look at it. I concede that there is the possiblility seeing a man with a whip in his hand, who was visibly angry, the traders may well have suffered mental anguish at the thought he might turn on them (*cough* snowflakes *cough*)... and I don't doubt that there was the possibily a trader with bad reflexes who lunged the wrong way may have gotten a lash or two meant for a sheep's hide , who knows... we can speculate all day, in the end, all we know for sure is that there is no report of Jesus physically assulting anyone.

I won't go beyond the things written,

JW

Thankyou for your reply... and the picture...

Whoa! Is Jesus about to use that whip?
Like I have said, I don't think Jesus necessarily used a whip. But he didn't just clear the Temple and picket the Temple courts on his own! I know that Christians can only believe what the bible tells them to, but historically nobody could have cleared the Temple alone. There were Levite Guards everywhere and they had the right to act against any transgressors, so there had to have been a lot ofd force used.

Could it have been a riot? Could Jesus have been Jesus Son of the Father? Jesus Barabbas?

You're welcome, I like the picture. All I can say about Jesus' actions is... well done, bravo!



"But he didn't just clear the Temple and picket the Temple courts on his own!"


- Does the bible actually say Jesus "cleared" (as in emptied) the temple?



MARK:

While Mark says, that he (Jesus) "would not let anyone carry a utensil through the temple". I doubt if Mark meant the entire temple area, including all the courtyards which would have taken an army to block, indeed the merchants would not have been allowed in the entire temple area. So when he said "the temple" he was probably refering to part of the Courtyard of the Gentiles. Even though, this too was massive, Mark probably simply meant Jesus wouldn't let anyone past HIM.

If Jesus stood at the exit to one of the stairwells refusing to let anyone with utensils through, or even just stood at one of the collonades, refusing to let those that usually set up their tables for business there do so, it would have caused quite a commotion, not throughout the temple area of course, nor even even in the entire courtyard but enough of a commotion for word to have spread about it.

[oldbadger]

You're welcome, I like the picture. All I can say about Jesus' actions is... well done, bravo!



"But he didn't just clear the Temple and picket the Temple courts on his own!"


- Does the bible actually say Jesus "cleared" (as in emptied) the temple?



MARK:

While Mark says, that he (Jesus) "would not let anyone carry a utensil through the temple". I doubt if Mark meant the entire temple area, including all the courtyards which would have taken an army to block, indeed the merchants would not have been allowed in the entire temple area. So when he said "the temple" he was probably refering to part of the Courtyard of the Gentiles. Even though, this too was massive, Mark probably simply meant Jesus wouldn't let anyone past HIM.

If Jesus stood at the exit to one of the stairwells refusing to let anyone with utensils through, or even just stood at one of the collonades, refusing to let those that usually set up their tables for business there do so, it would have caused quite a commotion, not throughout the temple area of course, nor even even in the entire courtyard but enough of a commotion for word to have spread about it.

I stray from the thread title really.
My point is that Jesus and his followers caused mayhem and 3 or 4 (?) days later he was convicted and sentenced , Imo
G-John does not include any of the temple visits in his week and takes Luke's Lazarus to an ultimate miracle, not mentioned by zLuke and this becomes the cause of Jrsus's demise. Most objective observers would throw this account, and most of this gospel, G-John, in the waste bin.

I understand that for Christians, both Trinitarian and Unitarian, it has to be the gospel, along with Pauls and the other letters.

[Tetragrammaton]

Don't know why you guys are still debating on the attack on the merchants.

Anything short of an army could not do what the gospels says it did.

The moment Jesus would attack the first merchant, he would be subdued and arrested by the roman army stationed in the Gentiles Court to prevent exactly such a thing from happening.

No chance of stopping anybody from entering the temple.

The Temple was considered as the white house.
If during tourist visits one starts destroying things, he would be subdued in seconds.
If Jesus acted violently he would be subdued in seconds by the roman guards.

The idea that not only is Jesus left to do what he wants but also stops people from getting in, is so ridiculous that leaves no room for doubt that the author wants the reader to think this is comical and thus look for a deeper meaning.

The author of Mark clearly intends the reader to not take this passage literally.

That does not mean that the hypothesis of Jesus getting arrested for this crime is not valid though.
If we assume the author is on purpose inserting multiple meanings(literal/physiological/allegorical) in the same text, then it is very likely that Jesus getting arrested is one of the intended meanings.

This is a fine example of allegory to either a historical event/prophecy or a way for the author to send a message.

It probably has to do with Jesus prophecy of the temple being destroyed and not one stone is left on top of an other.

A lot of g-mark has to do with the Temple Destruction in 70 AD by Titus Flavius.

[Wootah]

This was one of the most dishonest misquotations I have ever seen.

Moderator Warning

Let's assume error instead of implying dishonesty and demonstrate such in debate.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JehovahsWitness]

The author of Mark clearly intends the reader to not take this passage literally..

Yes that's my point exactly I don't think Mark was saying Jesus literally wouldn't let anyone with a utensil through the entire temple, but he wouldn't let anyone past HIM... they had but to go round and take another entrance ...which they probably did, but he cleared the area where he was ... he would have caused a stir in his immediate area... no more and certainly not enough to get himself arrested. I'm pretty sure, like the New York Metro system, on any given day there was at least one "crazy" causing some kind of a disturbance somewhere in the temple area ...

[Monta]

[Replying to Monta]

Well, that's maybe true about God per se. But we're not concerned with God directly here. We're directly concerned with some written accounts of events, by human beings, which do contain major discrepancies and contradictions.

There are many contradictions in Scripture. For example, 2 Sam. 21:19 says that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. So who did? David or Elhanan? Just saying that if we knew more about God, this contradiction would vanish would be an absolute cop out here.

As Swedenborg only gave us the internal sense of Genesis and Exodus I do not have the answer to that. Judging by his other writings it would depend on what Elhanan and Goliath represented even what Goth represented. I doubt it would have any refference historicaly; quite possibly it never happened.