Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 08-14-2004, 10:41 AM

JW:
Mark 11: (KJV)
15 "And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.
17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
19 And when even was come, he went out of the city."

In order to demonstrate that this is Impossible one only need demonstrate that any part of it is Impossible. Of course as you add information to the account it can approach the Possible, such as assistance from disciples/crowd, but as written the implication is that:

Once Jesus entered the Temple area he did not allow anyone to carry vessels through the Temple complex while he sat or stood and taught for an extended period.

Since descriptions of the Temple indicate courtyards comparable to the size of football fields with a Temple sanctuary structure in the middle and several access gates on all four sides, in my opinion it would be Impossible in a Supernatural use of the word for one stationary person to prevent anyone from carrrying vessels anywhere in this complex. Even allowing that Jesus had perfect 12/12 sight the Structure in the middle would always be obstructing his sight no matter where he was.

Origen was a relatively honest commentator by Church Father standards, as Church Fathers before Christianity took power were forced to be, and his critical commentary on Jesus' Temple Tantrum indicates that it would have been Impossible for Jesus Literally to have done what was described. Origen was still a Liar For Jesus in that he started with the Assumption that the Christian Bible must be true in some sense so if an area such as the Temple Tantrum could not be Literally true then it must have been Figuratively true. This was typical of the Early Church Fathers to have primarily Philosophical arguments as opposed to detailed, logical, evidential arguments as they were forced to acknowledge the weakness of their arguments from an evidential standpoint.

Origen though, in line with mainstream Christian Bible scholarship to this day, dishonestly only considered figurative explanations with a Supernatural context, ignoring figurative explanations with a Natural context, such as feeding thousands with a single fish had a figurative Natural meaning that there was no limit to the number of individuals who could take in and prosper from Jesus' teachings or that "Resurrection" just meant that Jesus' teachings survived after he died.

Here is Origen's take on the Temple Tantrum. He's erroneously conflated the accounts since he also starts with the assumption that all accounts are complimentary but here it works against him as "Mark" does not indicate that this event was shortly before a Feast where there would have been significantly less people around the Temple grounds. Keep in mind that "Impossible" can be used without a Supernatural reference and this is in fact how the word is normally used. Enjoy!:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/...#P7095_1381858

"16. The Story of the Purging of the Temple Spiritualized. Taken Literally, It Presents Some Very Difficult and Unlikely Features.

...If any one objects to this interpretation of the passage and says that it is only pure animals that are mentioned in it, we must say that the passage would otherwise have an unlikely air. The occurence is necessarily related according to the possibilities of the story. It could not have been narrated that a herd of any other animals than pure ones had found access to the temple, nor could any have been sold there but those used for sacrifice. The Evangelist makes use of the known practice of the merchants at the times of the Jewish feasts; they did bring in such animals to the outer court; this practice, with a real occurrence He knew of, were His materials. Any one, however, who cares to do so may enquire whether it is in agreement with the position held by Jesus in this world, since He was reputed to be the Son of a carpenter, to venture upon such an act as to drive out a crowd of merchants from the temple? They had come up to the feast to sell to a great number of the people, the sheep, several myriads in number, which they were to sacrifice according to their fathers' houses, To the richer Jews they had oxen to sell, and there were doves for those who had vowed such animals, and many no doubt bought these with a view to their good cheer at the festival. And did not Jesus do an unwarrantable thing when He poured out the money of the money-changers, which was their own, and overthrew their tables? And who that received a blow from the scourge of small cords at the hands of One held in but slight esteem, was driven out of the temple, would not have attacked Him and raised a cry and avenged himself with his own hand, especially when there was such a multitude present who might all feel themselves insulted by Jesus in the same way? To think, moreover, of the Son of God taking the small cords in His hands and plaiting a scourge out of them for this driving out from the temple, does it not bespeak audacity and temerity and even some measure of lawlessness?"

Joseph

SCRIPTURES, n.
The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Ted Hoffman · 05-02-2007, 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

I'd color it gray. I've contacted Paula Fredriksen, who has been quite helpful in previous correspondence, to inquire as to whether she can see any difficulties in the merging of Brodie's argument with her own. As near as I can tell, it's the nail in the coffin, though again I haven't fully reviewed Brodie's book yet.

Did she respond Rick?

08-14-2004, 10:41 AM	#151
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Impossibility/Improbability Of Markan Temple Tantrum JW: Mark 11: (KJV) 15 "And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; 16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. 18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine. 19 And when even was come, he went out of the city." In order to demonstrate that this is Impossible one only need demonstrate that any part of it is Impossible. Of course as you add information to the account it can approach the Possible, such as assistance from disciples/crowd, but as written the implication is that: Once Jesus entered the Temple area he did not allow anyone to carry vessels through the Temple complex while he sat or stood and taught for an extended period. Since descriptions of the Temple indicate courtyards comparable to the size of football fields with a Temple sanctuary structure in the middle and several access gates on all four sides, in my opinion it would be Impossible in a Supernatural use of the word for one stationary person to prevent anyone from carrrying vessels anywhere in this complex. Even allowing that Jesus had perfect 12/12 sight the Structure in the middle would always be obstructing his sight no matter where he was. Origen was a relatively honest commentator by Church Father standards, as Church Fathers before Christianity took power were forced to be, and his critical commentary on Jesus' Temple Tantrum indicates that it would have been Impossible for Jesus Literally to have done what was described. Origen was still a Liar For Jesus in that he started with the Assumption that the Christian Bible must be true in some sense so if an area such as the Temple Tantrum could not be Literally true then it must have been Figuratively true. This was typical of the Early Church Fathers to have primarily Philosophical arguments as opposed to detailed, logical, evidential arguments as they were forced to acknowledge the weakness of their arguments from an evidential standpoint. Origen though, in line with mainstream Christian Bible scholarship to this day, dishonestly only considered figurative explanations with a Supernatural context, ignoring figurative explanations with a Natural context, such as feeding thousands with a single fish had a figurative Natural meaning that there was no limit to the number of individuals who could take in and prosper from Jesus' teachings or that "Resurrection" just meant that Jesus' teachings survived after he died. Here is Origen's take on the Temple Tantrum. He's erroneously conflated the accounts since he also starts with the assumption that all accounts are complimentary but here it works against him as "Mark" does not indicate that this event was shortly before a Feast where there would have been significantly less people around the Temple grounds. Keep in mind that "Impossible" can be used without a Supernatural reference and this is in fact how the word is normally used. Enjoy!: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/...#P7095_1381858 "16. The Story of the Purging of the Temple Spiritualized. Taken Literally, It Presents Some Very Difficult and Unlikely Features. ...If any one objects to this interpretation of the passage and says that it is only pure animals that are mentioned in it, we must say that the passage would otherwise have an unlikely air. The occurence is necessarily related according to the possibilities of the story. It could not have been narrated that a herd of any other animals than pure ones had found access to the temple, nor could any have been sold there but those used for sacrifice. The Evangelist makes use of the known practice of the merchants at the times of the Jewish feasts; they did bring in such animals to the outer court; this practice, with a real occurrence He knew of, were His materials. Any one, however, who cares to do so may enquire whether it is in agreement with the position held by Jesus in this world, since He was reputed to be the Son of a carpenter, to venture upon such an act as to drive out a crowd of merchants from the temple? They had come up to the feast to sell to a great number of the people, the sheep, several myriads in number, which they were to sacrifice according to their fathers' houses, To the richer Jews they had oxen to sell, and there were doves for those who had vowed such animals, and many no doubt bought these with a view to their good cheer at the festival. And did not Jesus do an unwarrantable thing when He poured out the money of the money-changers, which was their own, and overthrew their tables? And who that received a blow from the scourge of small cords at the hands of One held in but slight esteem, was driven out of the temple, would not have attacked Him and raised a cry and avenged himself with his own hand, especially when there was such a multitude present who might all feel themselves insulted by Jesus in the same way? To think, moreover, of the Son of God taking the small cords in His hands and plaiting a scourge out of them for this driving out from the temple, does it not bespeak audacity and temerity and even some measure of lawlessness?" Joseph SCRIPTURES, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660 http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.