Freethought & Rationalism Archive

semiopen · 04-13-2010, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

I didn't know about the doves before.

This bird sacrifice is a late addition to Leviticus. Milgrom says this was inserted because of the high cost of offering a cow, sheep, or goat.

Leviticus 1:2 goes

Leviticus 1:14

If one is going to offer birds, he probably doesn't own them, so it must have been convenient to pick some up before going into the temple.

What was Jesus' problem with this? That the guy offering birds might have paid too much? Is he telling us that if he wants to offer a bird, he should buy it cheaper some distance away from the temple, and that because he got a deal, this will make God happy. It does seem to be a stereotypical Jewish concept.

This inane criticism fails to acknowledge that it was not the "moneychangers" ripping people off that set off Jesus, but the greed and lack of respect for doing it in the Temple as the Gospels say, similarly to other disrespectful actions such as when Nehemiah found an unclean person living in the Temple, kicked him out, then forbade the selling and buying during the Sabbath to the point of threatening traders, and finally when the insults to the commandments in the Torah had become too many, resorted to beating those who had married foreign, pagan wives (Nehemiah 13; very typical of the Jews who barely 50 years ago had had their nation restored and was barely being rebuilt).

As far as your comment about doves being cheaper than bulls, this would have been realized not long after Moses or whoever you believe penned Leviticus, so the redaction would probably have been so close to the time of composition that the most likely scenario is that the author of Leviticus foresaw the expensive bulls himself (doves not being unclean as per Genesis 6 - the Flood and Noah's sacrifices; shows it wasn't an ad hoc "authorization" of the sacrifice of birds).

Sorry, my comment may have been inane but it wasn't meant as criticism.

The doves in Leviticus are probably a later addition, and on initially looking at this, I found it difficult to imagine that people actually had birds like this as pets, so it makes sense that they had to buy them from someone prior to offering them. Since these things are disgusting to carry around, it further makes sense that one would want to buy them as close to the temple as possible. The ideal procedure would be to buy the dove and not to have to touch it at all.

Was Jesus problem that they were too close? Based on the movie in the OP, the business seemed to take place within the gates but outside the temple. This seems more like a technicality than something to totally freak out about... I must be missing something.

Your second paragraph was obscure to me.

The reference to Noah is apparently Genesis 8:20

Quote:

Noah built an altar to Yahweh, and took of every clean animal, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar

Your reference to Genesis 6 was not clear, is this Genesis 6:12?

Quote:

God saw the earth, and saw that it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

Here, the Hebrew for corrupt is hishchit, this is different than tamei which would make an animal unfit for eating or sacrifice.

Are you saying that these verses were written before Leviticus? I'm not sure that assumption is correct.

Sorry for not understanding, your point may be quite profound but I'm not able to follow it.

Chili · 04-14-2010, 06:06 PM

The temple scene has nothing to do with money but is the evidence of metanoia. It has nothing to do with money or people but just that Jesus nee Joseph ended religion right then and there an dnever entered the temple again.

Note that this reaction is very normal as every 'reformist' has the same anger including Luther and Pete's friend Arius. The only difference is that Joseph had a better lineage than the others who so became imposters because there remained baggage in their mind (not the full three days in the netherworld as Jesus was).

semiopen · 04-15-2010, 06:36 AM

Thanks Chili,

I thought I was asking a simple question, but now see that the temple scene is key in the subsequent prosecution of Jesus. As recently as last week. I thought this stuff was crap but now think it is worthy of looking at.

This is difficult to google because the hits are all feel good xian sites, but there are abundant scholarly discussions of this in the Journal of Biblical Literature, etc.

Mars Man · 04-15-2010, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

This is difficult to google because the hits are all feel good xian sites, but there are abundant scholarly discussions of this in the Journal of Biblical Literature, etc.

A pure question here, semiopen, are you subscribed to JBL?

semiopen · 04-15-2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mars Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

This is difficult to google because the hits are all feel good xian sites, but there are abundant scholarly discussions of this in the Journal of Biblical Literature, etc.

A pure question here, semiopen, are you subscribed to JBL?

I subscribe to SBL and they give access to JBL. A benefit is that there is access to JSTOR to search the archives. Those guys in the late 19th early 20th century were pretty sharp.

bacht · 04-15-2010, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XOVER

I have always viewed Jesus' actions of turning over the tables of the money changers and his other anti-social behavior that day as the reason he was crucified.

This seems to be the most obvious reason for the story, as an explanation of the Passion arrest and execution. There's also the prophecy about "My house has become a den of robbers" [Jer 7.11]. In Acts Stephen is accused of consorting with the man who threatened to destroy the temple (Jesus) [ch 4.8-14]

semiopen · 04-15-2010, 10:52 AM

Since I glanced at an article or two...

The temple was an economic institution and served as a bank. This was common in many different regions at that time.

Yoshke's strong reaction to this activity seems clearly excessive and might have caused the Sanhedrin to treat him harshly.

Interesting...

Chili · 04-16-2010, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Thanks Chili,

I thought I was asking a simple question, but now see that the temple scene is key in the subsequent prosecution of Jesus. As recently as last week. I thought this stuff was crap but now think it is worthy of looking at.

This is difficult to google because the hits are all feel good xian sites, but there are abundant scholarly discussions of this in the Journal of Biblical Literature, etc.

Well of course it is in 'knowing who you are' to the innermost depth of your being that the ego can be crucified and that is why the lineage that was present at the Cana event is the revealing evidence of who 'you' are in the netherworld that heretofore was the subconscious mind and thus 'nether' here now occupied to be explored.

Note please that the 'lineage in Luke was revealed as opposed to recorded in Matthew. To this add that if the 'thousand year reign is already in our midst' it must be found in the 'incarnate slate' (or TOL) that is opposite to the 'blank slate" (or TOK). Ie, Cana is real but not for Matthew and many or most 'lukewarm' Christians who are engaged in the great commision because they may have seen a flash of light (cf Mt.28:16- and Jn.20:21).

And yes, the crucifixion was a victory and therefore 'it is finished' with triumphant Mary standing at the foot of the cross. See "the Trinity" by Masaccio)

Trinity

In WE, Zamjatin writes about this in detail and clearly refers to 'behind the green wall" that was the great divide before.

neilgodfrey · 04-21-2010, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

It wasn't Hollywood. It was British TV.

The programme was faithful to the Bible. Millions of people watched it and none ever questioned how this crowd listened to the teachings of Jesus when there would have been rioting and looting if tables loaded with money had been knocked over.

The only problem with the film was the casting of an actor with a normal voice for Jesus. If Jesus was able to thunder a few decibels lower and come across more like God on Mount Sinai, or even a Russian bass, it would make all the difference, I'm sure.

It was all in his voice. Remember that in John the guards sent to arrest him returned empty handed explaining that no-one ever spoke like Jesus spoke.

I recall once being compelled to stop everything to listen to Barry Charles sing with a voice like that.

Neil

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

04-14-2010, 06:06 PM	#32
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	The temple scene has nothing to do with money but is the evidence of metanoia. It has nothing to do with money or people but just that Jesus nee Joseph ended religion right then and there an dnever entered the temple again. Note that this reaction is very normal as every 'reformist' has the same anger including Luther and Pete's friend Arius. The only difference is that Joseph had a better lineage than the others who so became imposters because there remained baggage in their mind (not the full three days in the netherworld as Jesus was).

04-15-2010, 06:36 AM	#33
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	Thanks Chili, I thought I was asking a simple question, but now see that the temple scene is key in the subsequent prosecution of Jesus. As recently as last week. I thought this stuff was crap but now think it is worthy of looking at. This is difficult to google because the hits are all feel good xian sites, but there are abundant scholarly discussions of this in the Journal of Biblical Literature, etc.

04-15-2010, 10:52 AM	#37
semiopen Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Hillsborough, NJ Posts: 3,551	Since I glanced at an article or two... The temple was an economic institution and served as a bank. This was common in many different regions at that time. Yoshke's strong reaction to this activity seems clearly excessive and might have caused the Sanhedrin to treat him harshly. Interesting...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.