lying for Jesus

[Minimalist]

That majority of NT scholars have a vested interest in pretending that this crap was written in the first century, though.

Again, the earliest xtian canon was Marcion's...c 140 AD. Coincidentally, (or not) this is about 5 years after the end of the bar Kochba revolt which ended with Jerusalem being actually leveled, as "predicted" in the so-called gospels. Within 20 years we have Justin writing to Antoninus Pius and the whole scam is off an running.

I don't like coincidences.

[ThomM]

So when the biblical narrative contains contradictions and inaccuracies and miracles that strain credulity, the most likely explanation is that it started off with someone lying for Jesus.

I have no doubt that this group can furnish many other instructive examples, both ancient and modern, of lying for Jesus.
[/quote]

Actually - until the christ can be proven to be something more than a MYTH - something NO xtian has EVER done with testable and verifiable proof - much less that a non human supernatural god exists - which no religion has ever proven - they are not LYING for jesus - they are lying for their religious institution - which remains nothing more than the worlds largest PONZI protection racket.


However - today - religion LIES all the time when they claim their religions contain TRUTH.

All of this so called Truth is actually unprovable and unproven belief = and to claim it is true is a LIE

[rightcoaster]

Do you think the "cleansing of the Temple" story was a fabrication? If so, what purpose might it have served, since it reflects so badly on Jesus?

I incline to the view that the cleansing of the Temple had a factual basis. I take for granted that Jesus was a real itinerant teacher and also that he really was crucified. So the disturbance in the Temple would be the cause of his trial and execution. The story is found in all 4 gospels, which means it is independently attested and thus more likely to be historical.
...

Probably MIN: What's curious here is that the temple complex was an enormous area and the commercial aspects were conducted in the outer courtyards - not the holy of holies. Why wouldn't a "jew" know that? For that matter, why wouldn't a "jew" know that the temple tax had to be paid in the half-shekel coin?

Even more to the point, why was this act of sacrilege not brought up while the priests were questioning jesus? The gospel accounts...bullshit though they may be....suggest that the priests were searching around for a charge but they ignored this violent disruption of the temple operations just a few days before? Sorry. That doesn't make any sense at all.

XP or MIN: What does make some sense is the general Roman aversion to usury and the suggestion that Jews were the primary usurers of the day.

This is good progress. The notion of usury is of course nonsense, just an added sliming: the moneychangers were there properly, as were the offerings-sellers. Both were essential to the smooth operation of the Temple, and had been for a very long time. However, the point about the gospels-ignored act of sacrilege (really, an insult to the Temple cult) is a good one, and it's what led me years ago to consider this issue, one totally ignored by each and every writer (Ehrman, Vermes, Crossan, even Sanders, and others included). Once we agree on the historicity of the Temple micro-riot initiated by Jesus there arises the issue of the remarkable silence of the gospels and the rest of the NT on actual crimes committed. It seems that any reasonable review of the situation shows that Jesus was arrested alone because he alone was accused of a crime or crimes. Crime(s) certainly committed were, in addition to the insult to the Temple, the assault on both the moneychangers and the offerings-sellers, the destruction of the property of both types of merchant, and causing or risking a riot. The notion of "sedition" is implausible at best. Sedition does not explain away the utter silence about the actions against the merchants and against the institution and civil order that would be crimes today. Further, a sentence of death by crucifixion for sedition would have made the removal of the corpse before sundown on the day of the crucifixion equally implausible -- the corpse of a rebel would have been left to feed the crows, but the removal of a dead Jew "from a tree" for interment would have been required by the Torah, which would trump even the insult to the Temple. The gospel stories of trials were therefore also a complete fabrication. A magistracy proceeding by a low-level Temple authority, remanding for trial to the Romans the accused, with a bill of particulars (such as eye-witness verification of identity) would have sufficed. No Sanhedrin on a holy day night, etc. This is an Occam's Razor solution that explains all possible facts, requires no imagined "trials". That plus my prior explanation of the myth of the resurrection covers all of the Passion Week. Pretty good, I say. Over to you ...

[Losty]

I didn't read it either. I got to intrigued by some bullshit Drich said and got an instant headache

[Minimalist]

the moneychangers were there properly, as were the offerings-sellers. Both were essential to the smooth operation of the Temple,

Yes, but again R-C, this would have been known to jews. But 'mark' is the first gospel and the others are derived from it and mark, according to the scholarship from non-fundie types is that the work was written in Greek to a gentile audience in an area which had been under Roman rule for quite some time...possibly Antioch seat of the governor of Syria. Those citizens might well have reacted to the concept of "money changers" as usury and as X-P said right off the top, just as a little more anti-jewish propaganda meant to separate xtians from jews in Roman eyes.

[xpastor]

This is good progress. The notion of usury is of course nonsense, just an added sliming: the moneychangers were there properly, as were the offerings-sellers. ... That plus my prior explanation of the myth of the resurrection covers all of the Passion Week. Pretty good, I say. Over to you ...

As Min emphasizes, even the earliest gospel (Mark) was aimed at a Gentile audience, who would know nothing of temple routine. Just as an aside, the gospels grow increasingly anti-Semitic as time goes by. There is more and more of an effort to exculpate Pilate and the Romans and to blame the death of Jesus on the Sanhedrin and the Jews in general. In the first 3 gospels Jesus' opponents are said to be the scribes and the pharisees; in the last one (John) they are called simply "the Jews" another reason for disregarding the traditional ascription of the 4th gospel to the apostle John—supposedly a born Jew is using the term "the Jews" to mean the bad guys!

As I recall, your theory of the resurrection involved Jesus surviving the crucifixion—forgive me if I am wrong about that. I think that would be giving the resurrection scenes in the gospels entirely too much credit for any historical veracity.

Consider this gem from the Weekly World News (THE WORLD'S ONLY RELIABLE NEWS) explaining the empty tomb at Graceland apparently known to be empty by psychic means.

Possibility 3: Elvis was resurrected from the dead and taken directly to heaven. And though it may sound farfetched, there is compelling evidence to support this theory. Since the King died or disappeared in 1977, thousands of fans claim to have been healed after they mentioned his name in prayers, meditated over his picture or came face-to-face with his spirit.

[rightcoaster]

...
So, as I was saying, a sincere hillbilly preacher could be outraged at those moneychangers skimming 5% on each transaction or whatever they took.

"Hillbilly preacher" is fine, but Jesus was a 30-something adult when this happened. This would not have been his first trip to J'lem and the Temple. So, while we agree he "lost it", this Temple trip was almost certainly not a novel situation for him and it's unlikely the exchange rate on a half-shekel worth of whatever coin he had would have done it. Ehrman shows Jesus as being hot-tempered, any perceived insult could have set him off.

Since several scores of moneychangers would have been present to handle the crowds, his mini-riot was necessarily a highly local event -- indeed, it may have just been a gratuitous insult directed at him for being a hillbilly with a funny accent. Pictures of such moneychangers today, side-by-side, imply that there is competition that drives the rate down.

Even the most casual reader of the Mishnah (you do read it, don't you? A real page-turner throughout) knows that the half-shekel tax for Temple maintenance was collected annually from each Jewish male. The particular transaction involved here may not have been for that, but maybe for buying a bird for an offering.

Finally, "skimming 5%" and "anti-usury protest" continues the Jew-sliming, from which I thought you were liberated. If you are in the cambio business then or now you need to profit from the transaction. I hate to change money at the airport or wherever, except at a bank or to charge transactions and get the Visa exchange rate -- plus a 3% fee. I resent the charges, but not enough to start a riot. The very use of the word "usury" contaminates the discussion, and is either a deliberate mis-use of the word or ignorance of its definition. There is, by definition, no usury involved in a currency exchange, regardless of the exchange premium.

---

...

As I recall, your theory of the resurrection involved Jesus surviving the crucifixion—forgive me if I am wrong about that.
...

No, my explanation is that the dead Jew must not be allowed to remain on the "tree" overnight, otherwise those responsible would be cursed; that's from the Torah -- and the Sadducees were literalists. Thus Jesus' corpse was removed before sundown on Shabbat. As mentioned just before, this removal with the required Roman permission is the best argument against an execution for rebellion or sedition.

But because the crucifixion was on a day when no work was done no grave would have been dug, and it's reasonable that (since the crucifixion was not previously scheduled) there was no permanent place to bury him according to Jewish law. So an existing tomb could have been used as a temporary holding place overnight. The next day was Shabbat, obviously no graves could be dug then. But once the third star appeared in the sky Saturday the gravediggers could get back to work, by torchlight. By the time the followers or whomever showed up Sunday AM, the graveyard crew would have had plenty of time to inter the body properly. An anonymous burial for an executed criminal, and an empty tomb.

[xpastor]

I am not anti-Semitic. I was trying to explain to you, along with Minimalist, that the gospels are indeed anti-Semitic and show very little knowledge of the Jewish milieu in which they are supposed to be set. As for the historical Jesus, if he did provoke a disturbance in the temple, it might show that his understanding of the temple procedure was very limited. Yes, he was a Jew and should have known better, but consider how utterly stupid contemporary rednecks are on the subject of taxes, as if the government just took the money and provided no services whatsoever.

Sorry, I had forgotten your reasoning on the empty tomb. It no doubt fits with Jewish law. I still see the empty tomb story as a fiction written a generation later. First, the Jews say, your Jesus was dead and buried, and then the Christians counter with a story about an empty tomb. So the Jews respond, the disciples must have stolen the body, and the Christians make up a story about a Roman guard on the imaginary tomb. Even if Jesus had been buried in the dirt, we would have got the same story of resurrection and apotheosis, just as we do today with Elvis.

[rightcoaster]

I am not anti-Semitic. I was trying to explain to you, along with Minimalist, that the gospels are indeed anti-Semitic and show very little knowledge of the Jewish milieu in which they are supposed to be set.

Sorry, I had forgotten your reasoning on the empty tomb. ... I still see the empty tomb story as a fiction written a generation later. First, the Jews say, your Jesus was dead and buried, and then the Christians counter with a story about an empty tomb. So the Jews respond, the disciples must have stolen the body, and the Christians make up a story about a Roman guard on the imaginary tomb. Even if Jesus had been buried in the dirt, we would have got the same story of resurrection and apotheosis ...

I assume you were referring to " "skimming 5%" and "anti-usury protest" continues the Jew-sliming ..." I didn't really mean to imply anti-Semitism, but rather an unconscious absorption of the pervasive anti-Judaism of the NT, that without special effort to expunge finds its way into your premises. Just learned a new concept that seems to apply: a "meme".

As to the other story, I think it's helpful to recall that for a while the only Christians were observant Jews, not Hellenized Jews or gentiles. I think the resurrection story could have originated and probably did originate with his modest following of observant, Judean or Galilean, Jewish followers. There were OT resurrection stories: (I Ki 17:17-24) son of the woman of Zarephath raised by Elijah; (II Ki 4:20-37) then, not to be outdone, the son of the Shunamite woman raised by Elisha; (II Ki 13:21) man raised by contact with Elisha's bones ergo God did it. So by my version of the story the tomb was used briefly for practical reasons and emptied ASAP. The chagrined, perhaps embarrassed followers of this apocalypse-predictor needed a cover story, the tomb was empty, and resurrection both had precedent and served the purpose. Highly speculative, but requires no newly minted miracle concept alien to Jews. They would have blamed the religious authorities also for the death of the "messiah", as the Temple was surely a principal complainant; therefore, the seed for the rest was planted. If they did not believe in his predictions and teachings they would not likely have continued to follow him after his death .... the most recent messiah is Rabbi Schneerson, and his Lubavitcher followers predicted he'd return from the dead (I think they have given up on that by now) and they do carry on his works and teachings quite assiduously, globally.