TedM

Causing a commotion is all that was needed to create or add to a motive for arrest. 'Clearing the place' is unnecessary.


These are arguments from silence. I don't recall the story saying Jesus rejected temple sacrifice so see no reason for that to be considered when the reason was given--he didn't like how the money was being handled. How much should one EXPECT the gospels to mention Jesus' defense at the trials when he is said to be silent in the face of his accusers? How much should one expect Paul to discuss such an incident in his writings when it is clear that what mattered was the fact of crucifixion and not the where or how? How much should we expect his followers to leave Jerusalem and not worship at the temple when we have no indication that Jesus instructed anyone to do so. These objections are absurd, as is the claim that it is improbable that a historical Jesus caused a commotion in the temple which helped lead to his arrest.





I didn't say they did. They brought him before Pilate to do so. What is improbable about that?



Why do you like to word your questions in such a manner, Toto? You appear to be intentionally provocative. I'm simply saying the motives given make sense: Jealousy and dislike by the Jewish leaders. They justified bringing him before Pilate by what they considered to be blasphemy by Jesus. GMark says many accusations were made, with emphasis on his claiming to be King. The clear implication is that they made him out to be a political troublemaker. Pilate is said in GMark to not find wrongdoing but letting the crowd decide. He had more important matters to attend to. Unless you can find evidence that Pilate would not behave in this manner, there is no justification for rejecting it.



And its a good one. Yet you reject it as being improbable. On what basis? Is it more likely that the followers would have rejected Jesus, stopped admiring, loving, caring for him upon his crucifixion? How can anyone say that with any certainty? Would it have been unlikely that they or someone else saw a connection with the Suffering Servant--a known Messiac passage, especially if he had talked about the coming kingdom of God and/or salvation from sins? Or if he had been crucified during Passover--the time sacrifice was made for the sins of the people? How can anyone say 'yes that would have been unlikely' with any certainty?

You've given no good reasons to reject the premise in the OP as reasonable, nor the reasons I've given for belief in his resurrection to have arison.

Toto

The event is not historical. You are assuming that something happened that was sort of like the gospel event. But a mere disturbance would be met with an arrest by the Temple police.


The objections are not absurd. They are made by a peer reviewed scholar, based on the works of other scholars, most of whom have a commitment to believing in a historical Jesus.

Your motive to dismissing them is that you don't like them.

Everything. The trial at night, the confused charges, the varying accounts of what Jesus said, the obvious theological motives behind the tale. The Pilate that Josephus and Philo describe bears little resemblance to the wishy washy guy who bends to the Jewish leaders / mobs' dislike of Jesus.

I find your question provocative. It ignores just about everything that has been written on these issues to ask a seemingly innocent question. It tries to force everyone to assume the existence of the facts that you like, without looking into the critical problems with those assumptions.

In other words, you have convinced yourself that the gospel account is plausible, and that therefore it must be historical. But you haven't convinced everyone else that it is plausible, and there is no reason to assume that every barely plausible story is automatically true.

The most probable explanation of the gospel story is that it was written several generations later to provide a backstory for the new religion.

If there really had been a crucified preacher, you would have expected his followers to be killed, or to move on to the next charismatic preacher, especially since the gospels (your only real source of information) continually emphasize how clueless the disciples were.

Your mind seems to be made up on the question of how reasonable your explanation is, and not even peer reviewed scholars can shake it.

And your underlying assumption is that plausible means that it happened. That just does not follow.

So this all seems to be an exercise in you agreeing with yourself.

Have a nice day.

outhouse

I can tell you with certainty, that it was a mad house with people packed in as deep as could fit. Over 30 acres would have been wall to wall people with the whole city packed to capacity.

the size of the crowd would have been the only way jesus could have escaped a bank teller and guard.


How much of a disturbace or the size of such is unknown, some claim minor some claim major, either way it would have been a no! no! with pailate and Caiaphas only wanting peace.

and that "want" of peace would not matter who you were

He would have never cleared the place period, but mention of it to a temple guard or witnessed by such would have caught managements attention and there would have been repercussions. and logically, a arrest by night to stop a "now" known trouble maker would have been in order.

Put on a crosss is only a example of what not to do, for the rest of the unruly crowd

TedM

You always have wrongly assumed this about me. I've never known why. I don't think it is historical just because I think it is plausible. I find the objections to plausibility to be flimsy and close-minded.

outhouse

there are questions to it

mainly due to a semi simular story in the OT BUT most scholars do place a temple incident as having historicity.


it has always been viewed as the reason why jesus was put to death. and it also at the VERY same time, explains how so many people knew about jesus and why he became so popular after his death, and not before.

the possibility of 400,000 witnesses goes a long way over claiming his common peasant theology gave him popularity

outhouse

toto is right in the fact he probably never even got close to Pilate and may have never had a trial at all.

and pilate was a bood thirsty killer who would not waist his time with a peasant jew or even given him a trial.

outhouse

toto is right here as well

true they had no place in this other then sending out temple guards to arrest him, to turn him over to the roman goon squad for instant execution

TedM

But what if Jesus had won the hearts of many people? Wouldn't the Jewish leaders preferred to have the Romans kill him to avoid a backlash? Makes sense to me.

outhouse

False

because he was executed lol


peasant or not, you cause trouble during passover while tensions were high and the money A flowin YOUR a dead man.



this icident is exactly the catalyst for jesus fame and fortune and martyrdom, that all of the oral legends grew from.


I will give you mythology was added to fill in theology as needed and some metaphorical, but here is the kicker.

the death of a peasant jew sticky up for the common man fighting against the corrupt jewish governement due to the roman infection in the temple as the legend GOES! has historicity and probability

outhouse

jesus never won any hearts over ever. he was a small village traveling teacher healer who never had a large gathering or crowd. he heaked for dinner scraps in small poor poverty stricken Galilean villages where we know he had to yell! LISTEN! listen to me! as he would go into his speeches trying to win over dinner scraps



you dont understand, this guy was a nobody while alive. no one knew anything about him while alive as he traveled through poverty stricken places. he lived a life below that of a common peasant, BELOW. and he didnt have 12 people follwoing him, that is added mythoogy to match the 12 tribes. he probably had his inner circle of fishermen which were also dirt poor peasants living in squalor. they had nothing to give up when jesus said leave everything and come with me.