• qyron@lemmy.pt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The passage where the man expels the people from the temple, accusing them of betraying the teachings seems very much subversive.

    Here is a single man going against status quo and establishment. If that is not a good exemple of subversion, there is none.

    • Rambi@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t it because they were commercialising the temple as well? US mega churches could learn something from that.

      • qyron@lemmy.pt
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t really know. I’m aware such a depiction exists but precise details are moot, for what I care.

        I think it revolves around the temple grounds being used as a market and/or being a place where moneylenders were present, thus, again, going against the teachings advising against greed and materialism.

      • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        oh how i fuckin WISH they’d ‘learn something’ alright. I wish they’d learn it HARD and BITTERLY.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is a lot of argument about that incident in the “Jesus was not supernatural but he existed crowd”. A few main solutions:

        1. It was understood that the next Messiah would build the 3rd temple, but you can’t exactly rebuild the temple if there is a temple. So he was trying to bring about the events.

        2. Roman coinage was dicey for strict monotheistic people to use hence the need to change it before you entered. It was a sore point for the holier-than-now crowd. Oh you use forbidden currency normally but change it at the temple? Morality when it suits you.

        3. The temple had a dual-aristorcracy structure. The outside was run by one and the inside by another. The outside was more politically acceptable to attack. It definitely wouldn’t have been the first time one of the other Jewish factions had gone after how the Temple was run. By attacking the outside one he could set himself up as the quite a few “restorers of the Temple”.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The passage where the man expels the people from the temple, accusing them of betraying the teachings seems very much subversive.

      Please see: Jeremiah 7:9-15, Jeremiah 23:11-15, Isaiah 1:10-17, Isaiah 66:1-2, Isaiah 59:1-2, Isaiah 56:7-8, Amos 5:21-24, and of course Micah.

      The Jewish theocratic state had divisions of power. At that time it was mostly Pharisees and Temple. If Jesus had existed, he would definitely been on Pharisees side. Biblical Jesus was at least. It’s a bit like claiming any political commentary is subversive. There is a difference between being willing to take pot shots at the other political team and being against established order. The references I gave are only the ones that have survived. Most likely there were quite a few authors being very critical of how the Temple was run.

      Here is a single man going against status quo and establishment. If that is not a good exemple of subversion, there is none.

      I thought you Bible literalists believe he had 12 apostles plus over 500 camp followers. Which is it?

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pharisees and Sadducees are, in very broad terms, like Democrats and Republicans today. Sadducees tended to be wealthy and conservative, while the Pharisees were more about the common folk. At least on paper. In practice, maybe not so much. Like the way a lot of modern leftists hate the Democratic party, historical Jesus could very easily have hated the Pharisees while aligning somewhat with their stated positions. That certainly comes through in the literary version of Jesus.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I am going to reject this analogy right off the bat.

          Also not sure why you are bringing the Sadducees into this. They were a rival sect not a political faction.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Political and religious faction was not that separated at the time. Or even now, for that matter.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You are allowed to back down from an argument btw.

              No the analogy between Pharisees and Sadducees and DNC and GOP does not work.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Can you please spend some effort in your responses instead of just little quips. You made a really bad analogy and you won’t retract it or defend it. Me being a bad debate partner in your eyes at least doesn’t mean you have to be worse.