When Did Jesus Cleanse the Temple? Supposed Contradiction #35

John says Jesus cleansed the temple early in his ministry, but the Synoptic Gospels say it occurred at the end. Who is correct?
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
inspiringphilosophy.locals.com/

[@shamounian]

Proud of you, young lion.

[@jim3769]

Ayo it's sam🔥🔥🔥

[@AceDiamaric]

Being praised by Sam is how you know you're a real smart cookie

[@ralphw530]

SAMMMMMM

[@kingclerocheel8443]

What a privilege ❤

[@kels--]

You don’t even know how close I was to joining Islam before I found you

[@derekwoodley4084]

You've done it again, IP! I was perfectly happy to accept that John was just writing topically and not chronologically and now you've gotten me convinced there are two cleansing. Stop educating me!

[@red20753]

Assuming the cleanse of the Temple from the Synoptics and John are the same event: one of the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis states that the elder John (who may or may not be the apostle) said that the Gospel of Mark was not fully written in chronological order. Matthew and Luke being very obviously dependent on Mark would explain why they also portray the event late in their texts. Since John is the only one not to follow Mark's position, it seems more likely for it's placement for the cleanse of the Temple to be the right one

[@Frodojack]

Good point.

[@DrakonPhD]

Doesn't work with Matthean Priority (which I still find far stronger then Markan priority, the evidence of Mark being first is surprisingly slim.) And even if Markan priority is right, why would Matthew place the cleansing later when he knew he it was earlier and he didn't see it? Same with Luke, who cared a lot abut good history.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@DrakonPhD Why are there so many narratives around the Synoptic problem, and if there is no proof one way or the other about all this stuff, how do skeptics get to claim that Mark wrote first? And that John was written late? Even though John memtions the five sided portico pool in the present tense as being intact, when we know that Jerusalem and the pool were utterly destroyed in 70AD? The narratives change, but the skepticism remains. Odd..

[@red20753]

​@@DrakonPhDI'm not really sure about matthean priority nowadays, would be happy if you recommended someone with good arguments about it :)

[@jessicaharris1608]

It never crossed my mind that the Lord could have cleansed the temple TWICE. I've been in church every weekend for nearly my entire 30+ years and I don't recall this ever coming up. Thank you for the explanation!

[@stephenrice2063]

I think there were two separate events. The first (Johannine) event truly was a cleansing, preparing the Temple (and by extension Israel) for his ministry. The second (synoptic) event was not a cleansing: it was the Messiah coming to the Temple (and Israel) in judgement because of their impenitence. They wanted a deliverer, not a Savior. (This doesn't mean he rejected all Israel, as the converts at Pentecost demonstrated.)

[@jackshadow325]

Some OT scholars have equated the two temple cleansings and the destruction of the temple in AD 70 with the issue of house leprosy described in Leviticus 14.33-53.

[@soulcatcher770]

Oh, hey. IP just happens to make a video with the verse I've been struggling to study. Thank you!!

[@spdomingoo]

I saw Alex O’Connor debate Dinesh recently and dinesh couldn’t answer this

[@JaidenYoon]

@@spdomingoo yeah ik in the past alex and miachel debated, but i wanna see it again.

[@ryankohnenkamp8946]

"Why not both?"

[@IsaiahINRI]

I verbally said exactly that at the beginning lol

[@MyBelovedIsMine-org]

Another interesting support for his is Leviticus 14:33-47 and the description of the cleansing of the a leprous house. The house was visited by the priest 3 times and if it was still malignant after it had been cleansed it would be destroyed. Jesus visited the temple twice during his ministry and then a third time in AD 70.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

AD 70? The NT doesn't go that far.

[@reginaldmudford9722]

It predicts it many times.​@@sliglusamelius8578

[@RobMcTaggart]

Thanks. This makes a lot of sense and I haven't heard it before.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@RobMcTaggart Jesus was not alive in AD 70..

[@MyBelovedIsMine-org]

@@sliglusamelius8578 ​ Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem, within that generation, which happened 40 years after his death in 70 AD. That judgement would have been seen as the 3rd time. God came and Jerusalem had not repented, and it was judged.

[@LydiaMcGrewChannel]

I'm glad to see that you seem to reject dyschronological narration (except for one phrase, which I'll mention in a moment). Dyschronological narration, advocated in the work of Michael Licona (often promoted on IP's channel), is *changing* the time of an event. The discussion here implicitly *rejects* dyschronological narration by tacitly arguing that *since* John is clear about his chronological indicators, Jesus probably cleansed the Temple twice. I strongly agree with this. However, unfortunately the theory of *dyschronological* narration would be that John is clear about chronological indicators because he is narrating *contrary to fact* that Jesus cleansed the Temple early. Here you are almost entirely consistent in tacitly rejecting that suggestion and hence taking John's chronological indicators to mean that probably the Temple cleansing happened twice. There is only one inconsistent phrase, where you say that some scholars think that John "moved the Temple cleansing to the beginning of Jesus' ministry for theological reasons" and then reject this idea due to John's chronological language. That shows a lack of awareness of the fact that those scholars are *literally* saying that John *moved the Temple cleansing to the beginning of the ministry*, i.e., contrary to fact. In other words, they are suggesting *dyschronological* narration. The distinction is very important in our ability to understand each other and agree or disagree with various theories about Gospel narration. See here for more on this: jgrchj.net/volume17/JGRChJ17-3_McGrew.pdf

[@jameswoodard4304]

In the John incident, he merely chases out sellers of animals, the animals themselves, and money changers. He then aswered the challenge of the Jewish leaders and departed. In the synoptic incident which was the day after the Triumphal entry, He takes over the temple mount and stays there for some time preaching and teaching authoritatively while His disciples control access and activity across the location. He also embarrassed and silenced the authorities in their own domain while He himself continued to teach in authority. This is why the first led to animosity, but the second would have seemed closer to an emergency or uprising requiring involving the Romans and killing Jesus. The Jesus Movement declared Him the arriving Messianic King with a dramatic procession and then occupied the Temple mount on Passover and in direct opposition to the priesthood and the sanhedrin authorities. The first event was embarrassing and disruptive, but the second would have been seen as an insurrection which the Sanhedrin and Chief Priest would have to either support or have aggressively supressed. It was a "join, fight, or get out of the way," situation. It is only the relatively non-violent nature of Jesus's takeover that likely avoided having the Roman garrison stationed in their fortress on the Temple Mount itself from stepping in as they would later with the riot in which Peter was arrested. Remember, the Chief Priests and Sanhedrin were the *political* and *legislative* authority in Judea at this time under the watchful eye of the Romans, and Jesus and His "multitudes" just walked in and took forceful possession of their capital building, offices, treasury, and sacred temple, all while actively denying their authority and publically humiliating them. In the incident recorded in the synoptics, in other words, religious zeal and personal honor were joined by dire political necessity in the Jewish leaders' minds. The issues of supposed blasphemy had been there since the beginning, but the will and perceived necessity to have Jesus removed only came as Jesus became an increasing political threat. Only then were the always-available ammunition of blasphemy charges used against Him. And they needed the Romans who would require political/military motives to act, not religious, which the Triumphal entry and occupation of the Temple provided far more than any teaching Jesus ever gave. Jesus knew that the Triumphal Entry and Clensing of the Temple would directly precipitate His crucifixion. That's why He left it to the end.

[@TheLlywelyn]

Agree fully but you've given a much richer exploration of the issues than the path for my initial view that this occurred twice and the multiple visits to Jerusalem. I first saw it in probably the best parallel rendering of the gospels I've seen. It made me aware of how much material there is, gritty detail between the four accounts. Love your work, you're building a systematic and substantial defence. My wife has regained her faith (lost in liberal theology at Bible school) through my nightly reporting to her of these defences of the traditional authorship. You're bearing fruit in people's lives.

[@Jerome616]

Thanks man. It’s good to have short form apologetics works available for these often sighted questions.

[@ElectroPikachu]

I recently saw a debate over whether or not the Bible was true. Honestly wish they got someone like you for the debate, as the guy they got made it clear he did not know the Bible and could not answer the questions posed

[@malirk]

Even Christians are mad at Dinesh. Dinesh peddles in election lies. He wasn't ready for a scholarly debate.

[@JoeBuck-uc3bl]

Although you can certainly get a person who both really knows their stuff, and is good in a debate…they are still two different abilities. Some people can write brilliant books (where time is not a factor, and they can spend all day collecting and refining their thoughts and words)…yet they would get tongue tied in a debate. Or just not present the most effective replies in a debate (as opposed to if they had all day to brainstorm on a reply). Yeah Dinesh is definitely someone who I wouldn’t be choosing if I could put together a debate dream team.

[@malirk]

@@JoeBuck-uc3bl Dinesh really showed he is nothig more than a political hack who panders to those who are deceived by election lies.

[@user-jy6hd9uw8h]

​@@JoeBuck-uc3bl Yup, it's like saying medical knowledge equals skills in surgery lol

[@UnashamedofJesus]

I never knew this was a issue...I always assumed everyone knew Jesus cleansed the Temple twice... good work and God bless!

[@lanpham7855]

Continue on series like these 💪🔥

[@AaronJediKnight]

King Henry of England ordered the martyrdom of a high-ranking dissident named Thomas, who was later canonised by the Catholic Church twice in history St Thomas Beckett and St Thomas More under Kings Henry II and VIII

[@brandonp2530]

Great stuff mate. God bless!

[@Itstoearly]

To take this one step further, I would argue that not only did Jesus do 2 cleansings, but He was fulfilling Leviticus 13:33-45

[@stevenbell4066]

I think Leviticus 14:34-54 illustrates this point a little better since it refers to a plague in a house rather than a person and parallels with Jesus cleansing the the temple or the "the house of the Lord. Either way, i'm glad you mentioned this and I believe you're the second person I've seen point this out.

[@stevenbell4066]

Not to mention that since this cleansing happened twice, the temple was eventually destroyed as Jesus prophesied in the olivet discourse in the synoptic gospels.

[@OrthosAlexandros]

​@@stevenbell4066You're not the only one though. "Not a stone shall be left upon a stone". That's a direct allusion to the law of house leprosy. And Leprosy in the Bible is a typical penalty for theives and those who take upon themselves inappropriate duties. For example, Miriam in Numbers 12 who rises up against the prophetic authority of Moses and also King Uzziah who tries to steal the prerogative of the priesthood to burn the incense. Hence in Zechariah 5 we see the that the Holy place (of the tabernacle) sized flying scroll (the Word of God) enters into the house of a thief and the one who swears falsely by God's name, shall evaluate it according to God's law (similar to priestly ritual inspection and evaluation of the house in Levticus 14, echoing the language of ritual inspection ("seeing") of the Cosmos, macrocosmic house, by God in Genesis 1) shall consume the house with the timber and the stone. Again, a reference back to Leviticus 14. And in Zechariah 5, it's in this context that we see the false Babelic Tabernacle being sent out to Shinar, the place of exile, where Babel was built. Because this prophecy is given in context of the one mentioned above (and since man is the image of God, his house is his Temple, just as God's temple is his house. Thus David has his secular priests in the palace, just as God has his own palace servants in his Palace-Temple (the words for both are identical)), we must see the Babelic house (Babylon didn't even exist at this point and in Zechariah 1 we see that it is false worship and the Babelic altar of the nations in the center of Israel that cast her out of the Land) as a leprous house of a thief and a robber which is cast out to the unclean place beyond the city mentioned in Leviticus 14 which in terms of Tabernacle symbolism corresponds to the outermost space in relation to the Tabernacle (Holy of Holies (Heaven of Heavens, Deuteronomy 10:14), Holy place (Heavens, Deuteronomy 10:14), courtyard (Earth, Deuteronomy 10:14)), that is, the wilderness which in terms of Cosmos corresponds to the waters under the earth, the waters of death and destruction as it is presented in Psalms. Hence we see why these waters are linked to Sheol symbolically and Azazel in Leviticus 16 is a quasi-personal name for the Devil (we even see the mention of goats-demons in Leviticus 17. This is not to say that the scape goat has solely univocal meaning, since it has to do with exile), the Great Serpent and false god (serpents are explicitly associated with false gods in Deuteronomy 32) who dwells in these waters in Isaiah 27 and the defeat by the sword of God (reference to Isaiah 34 (fallen hosts of Heavens) and Deuteronomy 32) of whom guarantees the redemption of the remnant, restroation of Israel and the filling of the whole world with fruit. Since the context of Zechariah is also the Day of Atonement, the sending out of the false house in the wilderness of Shinar (as the place of exile corresponds to the wilderness, as in Deuteronomy 32:10) corresponds to the scape goat subjected to the exile in the wilderness in Leviticus 16. Hence the destruction Jerusalem and its Temple (Microcosm in which the Mosaic world and Old Heavens and the Old Earth are symbolized) in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 is described in terms of standard prophetic language of destruction of Babylon (Isaiah 13, reference to stars falling, sun, moon etc.), destruction of Egypt (Isaiah 19) and even the language of conquest is used (for example, the trumpets which is a reference back to Jericho and 7 trumpets in Joshua 6 which will be also used in Revelation in regards to Destruction of Jerusalem, the Great city and the liturgical-symbolic center of the world which is named as Egypt, Sodom and Babylon in Revelation and it becomes a den for unclean spirits and demonic in Revelation 18)). This is why the whole point of Hebrews is that the converted Christians need to stay away from Jerusalem-Egypt as it is about to be destroyed and it was in 70 AD in the coming judgment of the Lord which began the parousia (presence) of Christ as the enthroned King of kings and the Lord of lords whose authority was manifested to the whole earth in the destruction of the rebellious system, hence in Matthew 25, in an unfolding reality, he separates the sheep from the goat, discerns good from evil, and this will reach its climax at the climax of parousia in Revelation 20, at the Great white throne. What happens in 70 AD (40 years after the New Exodus, resurrection) is the destruction of a leprous world, not the world, and the progressive rebirth of the Creation, creation of New Heavens and the New Earth, when the presence of God breaks out of Holy of Holies and fills the whole earth (the explicitly stated purpose of conquest in Numbers 14 and the same exact language is used in Isaiah 65-66 for the whole world), just as Daniel 2 states that the rock cut without hands will progressively fill the whole earth and Jesus states when he talks about the nature of Kingdom of God and its progressive expansion in terms of a mustard tree. Jesus the New Joshua devotes the whole world to destruction, the wicked stay dead and the righteous remnant is raised up, as in Isaiah 66 (which states how the whole world is consumed in the sacrificial sword and the fire of God (reference back to Leviticus 1, sword divides, fire unites), but simultaneosly all flesh comes to worship God). Sorry for thr length, but this is really the position of the house leprosy law and its significance in the Bible. I'll also note that there's a link between the body and and the architechture in Leviticus 14, and the Tabernacle and the Temple are described in bodily terms and it is even defiled when Israel is defiled by sins. Hence the Tabernacle is a architectural representation of the people of God and that's why in Matthew 21 we see the curing of the blind and weak as the renewal of the stones of the leprous house on the second inspection.

[@beebarfthebard]

Hey weird question, but, I was at a Jesus March in Minneapolis yesterday and it was raining. Before the march, they had a stage and a nice band and prayer and an altar call....all good stuff, however, the guy leading the worship started talking about us praying for the rain to stop like Elijah got God to close and open the heavens and.....so I've only been a Christian for a couple of years and the situation didn't sit well how he was saying it...am I over thinking or are prayers like that ok? I guess it's not so much the ask, but the bible verse didn't seem to fit the situation. It was a peaceful march and meet up, we weren't like, mocking baal or ashera.....It definitely kept raining and I was more than happy to enjoy it,but the way he lead the prayer was.....it uneased me.

[@thecrazyslopoke]

Some people believe the "name it and claim it" stuff. Obviously, it didn't work.

[@ericbarlow6772]

Praying for good weather is not blasphemous depending on your heart. It doesn’t mean you will have good weather because we acknowledge the sovereign God has power and we don’t. If he were saying our faith will drive the rain away, that’s a different thing. Word of faith is a heresy as it breaks the sovereignty of God and has Gnostic tones.

[@ethanmiller5487]

Prayer for a specific thing isn't wrong. Noticing similarities isn't wrong. Maybe your feeling comes from the "why" seeming selfish? It might have been a "good" thing for the rain to stop for you, but God does "good" for all, all the time. It could be that the best thing to happen is rain. But we will never know, and it's super arrogant for us to assume that we would be able to understand if God told us. Also, hello, fellow Minnesotain!

[@dclaiche]

I’m also uncomfortable with the idea of “praying with expectation”. I think Elijah had the ability to do it because he was a prophet, and God probably told him beforehand what would happen or that Elijah could ask for something like that and it would happen. Jesus does say to ask and will be given to you, but elsewhere in the Bible that statement is qualified by saying that the prayer must be in accordance with God’s will. It would appear that this person was praying presuming that he knew God’s will in that situation when in reality he didn’t. I wouldn’t accuse the worship leader of doing something malicious but I do think you are right to feel uncomfortable about that prayer. I would advise the worship leader that God takes false prophecy seriously and encourage him to not make such a statement unless he was 100% sure it was God’s will.

[@lennoxnderitu3659]

Nothing fails like prayers, nothing was going to happen anyways

[@JSAmember]

It's possible there are two cleansing like you suggested and I am not opposed to that. However, at the beginning you said that most ancient biographies arrange their stories based on topics and not chronological order. You then gave supporting evidence that John clearly gives a chronological timeline. However, nothing you presented in this video suggests that the synoptics gave their story in a chronological way. This could just be one event that's arranged different because it's by topic in the synoptics and is chronological and John. Or as you mentioned it could have happened twice

[@zvonimirstipic9844]

Hi IP! Thank you for all of your work! When someone raise an objection against Bible based on some of these contradictions or just wants to learn something about bible contradictions, I usually send them link to your "Supposed Bible Contradiction" playlist :) So, can you please update your YT playlist? Playlist contains #31 videos, and you make #35 :) God bless you and your family! Greetings from Croatia :)

[@PresidentChristopher]

There is one problem, however. In the Synoptic Gospels, when the Jews were bearing false witness against Jesus, the SYNOPTICS bring, "This fellow said that He would tear this temple down, and raise it up in three days without hands." Only in John does Jesus say, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," speaking about His resurrection. Therefore, there had to be ONLY one cleansing of the temple.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

How does that prove anything?

[@mickeylax9975]

What you said doesn’t follow. IP literally uses this fact to point out it would make more sense that them saying this referred to a first temple cleansing a couple years ago rather than one just a week before.

[@Avenlane]

Commercialization, profiteering and lucrative business practice were all running rampant at the time of Christ's ministry, so it would make sense He had to cleanse the temple at least twice.

[@StephanASmith]

This gon be great, cannot wait 🙏🏾

[@picklerick.n.666]

God bless you and your work sir I.P. ❤❤❤ respect form Croatia-Europe ❤❤❤

[@hochmeisterulrichoffrankfu8207]

Hi IP, could you please do a biblical archaeology video on Esther?

[@Xavier-ww9zy]

Amazing

[@benjaminbrkic5088]

Hey can you make a video refuting Kant and mentioning the philosophers that refuted him and other possible refutations

[@rdendelacruz4332]

Awesome!.....

[@Triggerman1976]

Hadn’t thought of it that way. Makes sense though.

[@Terabapu3156]

God bless ❤❤😊

[@SuperSpieth]

I always thought it happened twice!

[@bacontheclown2502]

Nice 👍

[@BurandisshuMyu]

❤

[@ivanos_95]

It makes sense that the first cleansing would be a warning, directed only at the goods, and the whip wasn't meant for the people, but for the animals, while the second cleansing would be ultimate, and directed at the people, who owned the goods.

[@NickSandt]

They persecuted or killed their prophets who prophesied about Jesus so why wouldn’t they do the same to Jesus? Plus, he called them devil worshippers.

[@adamstewart9052]

I can tell AP inspired your design of the thumbnail.

[@user-wv7iw4lk2r]

You probably get this question a ton but could you make a video on praying to the saints and icon veneration

[@peterjs007]

I believe Gavin Ortlund's channel Truth Unites has videos on these topics (from a Protestant perspective).

[@user-wv7iw4lk2r]

@@peterjs007I’ll check it out

[@user-jy6hd9uw8h]

IP does a lot of apologetics against Atheism not much against fellow Christians lol

[@ChopStickRick]

😂😂😂 this is some crazy gymnastics

[@sliglusamelius8578]

The question is not exactly when it happened, but that it happened, and why. The Synoptics don't give dates anyway, they tell events that seem only minimally connected to actual timelines.

[@Quack_Shot]

Because you cannot admit to their possibly being a contradiction you have to create up a very unlikely scenario to where it happens twice. The bar for apologetics is so low that it’s ridiculous.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

A). What difference would it make if it happened at the beginning or end of Jesus' ministry? B). It's entirely possible that it happened more than once, how would you know??

[@Quack_Shot]

@@sliglusamelius8578 The difference is it’s a contradiction, which doesn’t matter to me, but it matters to one’s who has to have the Bible be inerrant. The one’s that need it to be inerrant come up with ridiculous theories like it happening twice. Which is possible, but highly unlikely. But that’s all apologetics need is for there to be 1 possibility even if it’s highly unlikely.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@Quack_Shot It's not "highly unlikely", and if they colluded, they would have colluded better, and it's not really a material contradiction. If a biography of Lincoln said that he gave the exact same speech in 1862 and another said it was 1863, does that change the meaning of the speech? Holy cow you guys are insufferable..

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@Quack_Shot "Inerrant" does not mean what you think it means. It refers to moral and philosophical truths, and not the details of dates and places, although you have yet to prove a place or date to be wrong.......

[@rdendelacruz4332]

I wish you had a book so i can read them.....

[@mytwocents7481]

Yes, most likely Jesus cleansed the temple twice. And naturally none of his four biographers thought that was worth mentioning.

[@boonga585]

Will you cover prayer?

[@adoge1175]

I like this video, but Im confused on the part where you pointed out how it was unlikely that the accounts in the synoptics were different to the one in john. You tried pointing out diffrencess between them, but isn't that the technique some atheists use to say that a part of the bible contradicts itself because they don't talk about the same event? Like the 2 accounts in Genesis, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (I know there is a good argument against that, but I couldn't think of a better example, sorry)

[@josephang9927]

I would argue that many of the priests probably supported Jesus doing this project test because they agreed that the temple was not a place for merchants. That is probably why he was allowed. Priests were not always all in the same page, so it makes sense a faction of them supported this.

[@freddurstedgebono6029]

Could the reference to how long it took to build simply be a factual remark and not actually an indicator that the temple was finished that year?

[@TommyP.]

Yo could you do a video explaining the proof of the martyrdom of the saints.

[@itsjuicenotwine]

Hi! Can you please debunk nonstampcollector?

[@Charles-tv6oi]

I wouldn't even be surprised if he had to cleans it a second time

[@harveymoore4852]

I have another question about a date contradiction: Matthew states Jesus was born just shortly before the death of Herod the Great (around 4BC-1BC), whilst Luke states Mary and Joseph were travelling to Bethlehem for Qurinius's census (in 6AD), before the birth of Christ. Secondly, it is unheard of for a Roman census to call for people to return to their birthplace, as it would be pointless in finding out tax amounts and assets in the region and would pause the economy for months. I can only understand this as being a mistake on Luke's part, but if you can explain this, I would be willing to listen.

[@Hofer2304]

For Luke it was important to stress that Jesus was a descendant of David. So he wrote a crazy story. It should be obvious, that this story is not a historical report. If you read the genealogy of Jesus in Luke, it should be even more obvious, that a literal interpretion is very absurd. I asked Claude 3 how many generations are between Jesus and David according to Luke. It said 42. These are about 1000 years.

[@WilliamJohnson-ft4du]

A compelling explanation! There are two different accounts of Jesus miraculously feeding the multitude. But they are obviously two different events: one with 5000 and the other with 4000.

[@Spicychiliboi_21]

Inspiring Philosphy can you PLEASE do a video on Holy Koolaids video that talks about a so called verse that debunks Christianity.

[@BoundyMan]

Never thought of Jesus Cleansing the Temple twice. Still wonder how he got away with it.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

There weren’t any meddling kids with a talking Great Dane.

[@1-Corinthians-15-33]

​@@InspiringPhilosophy IP, can you expose iimatheen's new videos please. 😊 I like your content.

[@grahck4391]

I can't believe that this needs to be explained. I always thought it was stupidly obvious that there were 2 times when Jesus cleansed the Temple.

[@karlhuber1210]

According to the Talmud (Sheqalim) money exchangers were in the Temple only after 25th of Adar and stopped their work before 1st of Nisan. According to the synoptic gospels Jesus entered Jerusalem only a few days before his trial i.e. later than 1st of Nisan. Thus there were no money exchangers in the Temple any more. I prefer the solution that there was only one cleansing of the Temple. John reports it in the chronologically correct place. The synoptic gospels mention only the last visit of Jesus to Jerusalem. That's why they tell about the cleansing of the Temple in that context although it had happened two years earlier at the passover 28 AD.

[@anharmyenone]

What about 1 year vs 3 year ministry?

[@timothy209]

Is this a response to Alex O Connor's recent video about why he doesn't believe in the Bible? He also talked about the story of the adulterous women not being in the original manuscripts

[@ricksonora6656]

It sounds like he fell for the all-or-nothing extreme. There’s a middle ground position called “minimal facts.” In this case, the minimum conclusion is that at least one cleansing did occur and Jesus had an intimate relationship with God. Other minimal facts include man’s fallen state, the crucifixion, the bodily resurrection, and the necessity of trusting God rather than Self. If the Holy Spirit establishes the gospel in a man’s heart, he will seek answers instead of excuses. The doubts will take care of themselves.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Christians never stoned adulterers, so I'd say that the manuscripts that are missing the story dropped the story rather than vice versa.

[@midimusicforever]

The Bible is true!

[@Frodojack]

Recently watched a video where Mike Licona discussed this topic. He goes with the view that John made alterations for theological reasons, but I think you made a better case. Someone else noted that Papias said that Mark did not write everything in chronological order and that Matthew and Luke may have used him as a source. So it may be that John's version of the cleansing is the only one that's chronologically correct.

[@malirk]

Or... hear me out... They made this up from partial truths. So maybe Jesus went in to a temple at one point and caused a stir. They then all used a Q source to create M and other versions of the story. So basically they're all a story and only parts of the story happened but none of these stories really happened as they were written.

[@Frodojack]

@@malirk Or...hear me out... everything in your comment is made-up from x, y and z sources that happened in your mind. So basically what you wrote says more about your anti-Christian bias than anything connected to actual history or reality.

[@mickeylax9975]

@@malirkthat’s overly skeptical.

[@malirk]

@@mickeylax9975 It's overly skeptical to think the church made things up? Why?

[@mickeylax9975]

@@malirk it’s uncharitable and overly skeptical. We Christians believe these things are true. Don’t want to believe them? Fine, don’t. But then to propose that Christians just lied about it is so very unkind and cruel and judgmental. Just say you don’t agree and move on. Don’t project things onto the church that aren’t true.

[@paradisecityX0]

John's gospel was not told in order. Simple

[@karlhuber1210]

The renewal of the Temple by Herod started 20/19 BC. How do you arrive at the year 30 AD as date for the Temple cleansing according to John?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

How are those ideas even connected?

[@karlhuber1210]

@@sliglusamelius8578 If the renovation of the Temple started in 19 BC and the cleansing of the Temple took place 46 years later the date in 30 AD is far too late.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@karlhuber1210 Herod has nothing to do with the story. The cleansing is not about renovating the temple lol, it's about chasing out the money changers.

[@karlhuber1210]

​@@sliglusamelius8578 Please read the text. The Jews said that the Temple has been built for 46 years. At that time the renovation was still far away from being finished. It lasted till the 60s AD.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@karlhuber1210 False. There was an operational temple that Herod expanded, I have no idea where you got the idea that there was no functioning temple, there was..

[@godswarrior45]

Jesus cleansed the temple twice just like the priests had to do in the Old Testament. Jesus is our high priest.

[@chriscruz1879]

@inspiringphilosophy I just wanted to say that I'm currently struggling with a moral issue in 1st Samuel chapter 15 verse 3. God seems to be making a very immoral action when he says to kill children and women who might be innocent in this situation. I really do hope that you could respond to this.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

This might help: kzbin.infopKBAGv5XCD8?si=G9nYoFifZuKrmw77

[@sm2z24]

Briefly,these passages tend to be more exaggerating to its details.The Amalekites were not 'literally' annhilated.They were mentioned again and again in the following chapters e.g 1 Samuel 27:8,30:1,16,18, 2 Samuel 1:1,1 Chronicles 4:43. Most interestingly,Agag(Defeated King in 1 Samuel 15:8)was left alive and Later on the book of Esther 3:1 Haman the antagonist was called an Agagite!

[@sedevacante0027]

They were carrying the corrupted impure genes of the tainted Nephilim.

[@AJBulava]

How does this comment show up 4 days before the video was posted?

[@TrivialCoincidence]

@@AJBulava He's a channel member, and gets early access to videos.

[@BlastHardcheese194]

It seems like one of the authors would have mentioned that he did this twice. Especially with John already familiar with the synoptics.

[@mysotiras21]

Maybe, but maybe not. Every Gospel writer spotlighted the things he thought were most important, while ignoring the rest. As John himself pointed out (21:25): "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

[@BlastHardcheese194]

@@mysotiras21 their brains worked differently than ours. What I get from John (and the author of Revelation, coincidentally,) is that he makes zero effort to string a timeline together. I’ve been in John for 6 months, chapter 9 today, and it seems to me that the Johannine guys pasted snippets together like a quilt. Just today, how does work while it is day fit into the story of the man blind from birth? I’m sure Jesus said it, but maybe not just then.

[@mysotiras21]

@@BlastHardcheese194 , IP touched upon this. Ancient writers frequently organized their material thematically rather than chronologically. I have come across ancient writings that did not appear to have any discernable organization.

[@BlastHardcheese194]

@@mysotiras21 yes, that is what is hard about pinning John’s events into a calendar. In Revelation I was not open to this non-linear organization, but in John I am starting to see it. It might even be a clue that the same person wrote them both, but I understand that the writing is quite different. It is not hard to believe that John (or his associates) pasted this story into the beginning to set the tone. It does seem like the kind of action that would lead to arrest and punishment, rather than a welcome back.

[@mysotiras21]

@@BlastHardcheese194 , agreed. The Bible is extremely complex. Bad idea to assume that ancient writers approached their subject matter the same way modern writers do.

[@user-fn9hb6je9z]

Hey IP is sin to watch superhero films and horror and also playing video games

[@user-jy6hd9uw8h]

Hmm, depends on what kind of video games lol! If it's blood thirsty you probably should avoid it! And for the other questions I can't help you (read your Bible)

[@velkyn1]

yep, it's a contradiction that these christains try to lie about. Curious how the gospels don't agree on this don't agree onhow long Jesus' ministry was, who ws first in the tomb, what happened with jesus and mary, etc It's even more fun when jesus cleansed the temple where him/his father required people to exchange money to get holy money to buy the sacrifices this god demanded. It shows that jesus was completely unaware of what he/his dad wanted.

[@connerdozier6689]

Your statement is blatantly dishonest. The men selling animals were turning what was supposed to be God’s house of prayer into a marketplace! It was not just a marketplace, but a place where, supposedly those selling items/animals and exchanging currency were ripping off those trading and purchasing, thus the “den of robbers” statement by Jesus. The purpose was the same; to drive out the merchants, who in cooperation with the priests cheated visitors to Jerusalem by forcing them to purchase approved sacrificial animals and currencies at high prices. In those times, “A pair of doves could cost as little as 4p outside the Temple and as much as 75p inside the Temple.” This is almost 20 times more expensive. This alignes with God having his temple be a house of prayer in Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11 calling it a den of robbers.

[@JaylenIrving]

Michael Jones can you do this video there is this atheist? I did a video like a couple years ago and this is criticizing the Abraham, it, God, and this you to where is I forgot the name but I had a number in the channel. I’ll respond to the number once I find it but the video is how to imitate God.

[@cariboubearmalachy1174]

This explanation is a lot less convincing than the idea that this is a story of the same event told two different ways, which is much more consistent with how oral traditions develop.

[@mysotiras21]

You may be right.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Oral traditions? Why do people believe that baloney? The Synoptics are so similar that people claim collusion based on a written text called Q, something never found but needed to explain the collusion theory. You can't have it both ways, collusion vs contradiction..

[@mickeylax9975]

I don’t know, he gave lots of compelling reasons why it should be two separate events. The chronological point was fairly strong.

[@franciscorodriguez4897]

IP RULES

[@montymcconomy1]

@InspiringPhilosophy when are you going to refute @quranandbibleblog about child marriage and his other videos?

[@dennisravndal]

If God created us through evolution, do you think he did that with angels too?

[@WaylonElstad]

No because they were created before everything

[@dennisravndal]

@@WaylonElstad I know, but then my question will be, why did he not create us in the same way, wouldn't that have been better? (Btw, I am a Christian)

[@WaylonElstad]

@@dennisravndal idk, im not smart enough for that.

[@catalyst3713]

Good question. I've speculated about that as well.

[@ricksonora6656]

Jesus said angels don’t marry, so they wouldn’t reproduce. Without reproduction, evolution isn’t possible. Also, angels are spirit, not biological. So, they wouldn’t have DNA that could evolve.

[@qanaqa33174]

Thought he never cleansed the physical temple? 🤔

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Why?

[@djashovel]

I have a question. What's your advice for Young christian man That are Waiting for marriage ( I should say i'm done waiting for marriage, really) I am twenty-two years old, and i've never had a girlfriend or been in a relationship. With a girl( I'm Autistic so it has hindered my life for a very long time, and it hindered me from going places to meet girls) And I have always hated being a Virgin for a long time.And this has been going back-and-forth in my mind.For many year since I became a christian when I Was 15 years old. It Has drove me crazy over the years I get so sick of being alone. So sick of not being in a relationship. Even last night I just felt so empty. Inside and just wanted. To be in a relationship but I do have to say I probably wouldn't marry a christian girl or be in a relationship with one Because they're not marriage material The same thing goes with most modern women in the culture in the west Even among conservative girls I'd have more luck if I married a buddhist a hindu or muslim

[@sraveiryorkshire5770]

Brother, I have, and I am sure many of us have struggled with the same thing. I ask what is important to you? Do you trust in God? Brother, I tell you to be faithful. Pray for guidance in this situation and I will pray for you as well. I am actually in a VERY similar situation as you, I also became Christian at 15 and autistic. I would say that if you desire a woman then you could try going out somewhere, if God stands with you who can stand against you? It is as Paul puts it, he says that if a man feels that he needs a wife then he should get one, however Paul remained abstinent his entire life! And remember that our Saviour never married. Our glory comes from a faithful God. 🙏

[@sraveiryorkshire5770]

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 by the way.

[@randywise5241]

I didn't get a wife till I was in my 30's. Sometimes God keeps you alone for a reason you do not yet understand. Becomes someone worthy of it first. Pray only for Gods will in your life and knowledge of it. Stay penitent and do the work at hand. God knows you suffering and will not leave you in that situation when you find sex is not all it is made out to be. "Think first of God than do." If there is someone out there for you, it will be something that bless your life more than fill a desire of the flesh. Some never find that person, they have other duties to preform for God. Like the priest or monk. Christ Himself spoke of being single has a good thing for some. Hang in there, you are still young and have much to learn before you are ready for a commitment to another. That lesson may be that you were never meant to have such a relationship because He wants you to stay pure.

[@thiagoemanuel8607]

Man, i can understand why you would be sad, and i don't know much in particular about your situation. But one thing i know. Sin doesn't make things better. Ever. And fornication is CLEARLY a sin. There is no argument even. That should be enough for you to at leat be sure of the right path, and to not sin just because things are put up against you. Some women suck, not a reason to reject God's will though. Knowing the right path, the only choice is, will you trust that God knows better than Satan?

[@catalyst3713]

First off, trust in God, that he may have bigger plans for you. Perhaps recite the Serenity Prayer frequently. Second, have you got your life in order, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, physically, and financially? If not, get those in order first. Go to the gym, and harness any negative energy you have into that. Good women will take notice, and pursue you when you do those. As for autism, look into broccoli sprouts. It's rich in sulforophane, which has been shown to reduce signs and symptoms of autism, by reducing brain inflammation associated with it. I eat them myself, because I'm high-functioning, so I know they work. Hope that helps brother. God Bless.

[@Michikonthcheuhchad]

200 views in 5 minutes? Bro fell off

[@everettpeabody8024]

400 views in ten minutes? This channel is doomed

[@jonathandutra4831]

A contradiction would be one account saying he didn't cleanse the temple, Who cares when he did it, Both are saying he did it 😆

[@user-jy6hd9uw8h]

That's true lol

[@sethcaro]

Couldn't someone say that the accounts provide different details of the same event and therefore the contradiction stands?

[@randywise5241]

Only if you want it to for some reason.

[@ricksonora6656]

Only if the details are mutually exclusive. That’s never the case. To the contrary, 100% agreement shows either a single perspective or collusion. You should read the books by J Warner Wallace.

[@mysotiras21]

Yes, and some experts take that position.

[@TrevorSTL79]

"Good good, this floor could use a good mopping". -Creedicus Brattonicus probably

[@gavinjames1145]

Solution: It's literature, not history.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Nobody in real historical studies believes that. How or why would fictional accounts be both a collusion and a contradiction at the same time? Your hypothesis makes no sense at all..

[@gavinjames1145]

@@sliglusamelius8578 What on Earth is "real historical studies"?! What is "real" history, anyway? History is all about building evidence based *narratives*. Narratives also change. I tell you that the solution to the contradictory biblical narratives regarding the 'cleansing' of the Temple is literary, but you frame it as historical. You're stuck in a false paradigm! The gospels are literature. You can't deny that! However, just because something is literary doesn't make it fictional, either: fiction is only one literary genre amongst many others. Perhaps an applicable sub-genre would be historical fiction, in which fictional events or characters may be set within a particular time period, location or culture. (Think: Sherlock Holmes.) The closest literary parallel to the gospels may be the tales of Robin Hood. Robin Hood never lived, but his character is based on various people who _did_ live in the times and places where the narratives about him are set. The different narratives about Robin Hood, because they were composed for different audiences by different people in different times and cultures, may agree on the *core* narrative details, but may also vary in any number of ways on *other* details; which may themselves be contradictory or incoherent when compared to each other, or when harmonised (similar to how the gospels were harmonised by Tatian in the _Diatesseron_ ).

[@gavinjames1145]

@@sliglusamelius8578 Ask yourself why Historians talk about the *historical Jesus* as being distinct from Jesus of the gospels. It's because they recognise that Jesus was most likely a real person who lived at some time in 1st Century Judaea-Galilee, but that the gospels are variant narratives _about_ Jesus (written for different audiences by multiple authors, in different times, places and cultures, each expressing their own theological perspectives). Hence, they may agree on core details, but disagree on others.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@gavinjames1145 That's the skeptic's narrative, agreed. But their problem is that IF the events recalled are true, what then? How would the gospel writers prove that to you? And how would their narratives be any different? The problem for your premise is that the NT was likely written "in total" by the year 70AD. Paul was killed by AD 64, there is no mention of that event in Acts of the Apostles, so it probably happened after the completion of that book. Also, there is no mention of the utter and complete destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD. John's gospel mentions a five-sided portico pool IN THE PRESENT TENSE, as though it were still intact, but it was destroyed in 70 AD. Therefore, the texts pre-date 70 AD.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@gavinjames1145 That's the skeptical narrative, belied by the fact that the gospels were written before 70AD, as evidenced by no mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD in the texts, and no mention of Paul's martyrdom in 64 AD, and Paul's testimony which corroborated the events, for which he willingly gave up his life......

[@hamobu]

This is nonsense. Rome had laws and order. You can't just go destroying people's property and taking their money with no consequences.

[@manbearpig3507]

u will do anything to avoid admitting contradictions if it happened twice y do no gospels say it happened twice simply because it happened once and John's chronology is different hence contradiction its basic logic

[@curtthegamer934]

A contradiction is an explicit mutually exclusive statement. Saying that Jesus cleansed the temple at the beginning of his ministry and saying that he cleansed the temple at the end of his ministry, are *not* mutually exclusive. A mutually exclusive statement would be if John said something like "Jesus never cleansed the temple again after this event." But John says no such thing.

[@manbearpig3507]

@@curtthegamer934 u r just trying to play word games to get way from the fact the gospels contradict on when the temple was cleansed. Synoptics say it happened at this point in his ministry John says it happened at a earlier point in his ministry. John also changes the day on which Jesus was crucified so in light of that the logical conclusion is John changes the timeline for theological reasons creating a contradiction between his gospel and the other 3

[@curtthegamer934]

@@manbearpig3507 Answer me this: - Do the Synoptics rule out another cleansing happening? If so, how do they do so? - Does John's Gospel rule out another cleansing happening? If so, how? - If John did indeed move the time the cleansing happened, then why? His Gospel is clearly written to supplement the other three (it says as much within the book itself), so why would he have written such a blatant contradiction to what he's telling people to read? - John doesn't place the Crucifixion on a different day.

[@curtthegamer934]

@@manbearpig3507 Both the Synoptics and John have the Crucifixion occurring on 15th of Nisan.

[@manbearpig3507]

@@curtthegamer934 here go flat out deny what the texts say. in John he dies at same time as the pascal lamb in the synoptics they eat the Passover meal its 1 of the most glaring contradictions in all the bible

[@joelbecker5389]

Doesn't your argument at 5:10 presuppose that Mark was arranging this material chronologically instead of topically? And isn't that part of the whole question here? There are some other issues, but I'll just say that this isn't conclusive. I'm not saying that for sure it didn't happen twice, but these arguments don't seem all that strong to me.

[@curtthegamer934]

Mark's Gospel is more chronological than the others. I have closely examined where all the Gospels use terms like "then," "after this," "at that time," etc. By examining these, it appears that Mark most closely follows the timeline of events out of the three Synoptics

[@MessianicJewJitsu]

The Bible starts and ends on the heels of major cleanings. Jesus being God in the analogy. The Younger Dryas flood legends and some solar action in a few thou(sand) as the age/world/season changes/ends.

[@cariboubearmalachy1174]

This is like watching Star Wars fans spinning a ridiculously long and unconvincing story to explain how Han Solo's line about "Kessel Run in 12 parsecs" makes sense.

[@maxalaintwo3578]

“This is like StAr WaRs • 0•” that’s not a rebuttal to his claim, man

[@mysotiras21]

Not remotely similar. Whoever wrote that silly line in Star Wars thought that a parsec was a unit of time rather than a measurement of length, roughly equal to 3.26 Light-years. You don't find similar mistakes in the Bible.

[@misterauctor7353]

Apples and oranges.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Even if there was only one cleaning, so what? What does that prove?

[@malirk]

It's possible that Jesus went in to table flipping mode twice but upgraded it to making a whip the second time at the end of his ministry. It's also possible that these are just stories and details were changed between them and neither ever happened. The contradiction is just because John (Who made Jesus more of a God) didn't follow the script perfectly.

[@jessebumann]

John’s not the only gospel who came to the conclusion that Jesus was God, check out IP’s video on Mark. Super short, and they run through references in nearly every one of the first ten or so chapters that attribute things mentioned in the OT that only God can do to Jesus

[@malirk]

@@jessebumann I'd go with David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie who point out in their scholarship that Jesus was portrayed with human characteristics. Mark is more focused on the idea of a "Suffering servant" and then there the problem with Mark regarding the long/short ending which clearly points to the texts being added to.

[@mickeylax9975]

Sounds like you’re just determined to be skeptical and therefore won’t read the gospels with charity.

[@malirk]

@@mickeylax9975 I've read the gospels more times than most Christians. I first read them while I was a Christian and believed them. I definitely read them with charity when I was going through confirmation. I own over 20 Bibles and have been obsessed with hermeneutics. It's this obsession which has lead to my deeper understanding of the context and original writings (As best we can determine). How about I just say: *Sounds like you’re just determined to not be skeptical and therefore won’t even consider alternatives.* What you've done is label me as "bad faith". Ironically, this makes you not charitable towards my position.

[@malirk]

@@mickeylax9975 Also, I'm the only one quoting scholars here. People are just telling me to be less skeptical or go watch some videos. Amazing rebuttals! /sarcasm

[@chrisazure1624]

Back and to the left - JFK was shot from the front.

[@SatansApprentice69]

But which source actually says he cleansed the temple twice? Just because John records different details doesn't mean he didn't move it and change the details! You've just made up your own version of events that no gospel actually says took place. 😂

[@bikesrcool_1958]

Uh… you don’t look smart right now

[@SatansApprentice69]

@@bikesrcool_1958 Huh? Have you found a source that says Jesus cleansed the temple twice?

[@DamePiglet]

​@@bikesrcool_1958i don't know why you'd even engage with someone using that moniker; he's obviously a 14 year old "edge-lord" not a sincere seeker.

[@maximgruner]

The early Christian writers mentioned at the beginning say he cleansed the temple twice. Thats the source.

[@SatansApprentice69]

@@maximgruner Which gospel says that?

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

Look up: *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

[@mysotiras21]

YAWN.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

If they made it up, how or why would there be supposed contradictions? Do writers of fiction make contradictions to their stories? You do know that that Bible is a collection of books?

[@mysotiras21]

@@sliglusamelius8578 , uneducated skeptics don't know jack about the Bible, but pretend to be experts.

[@user-jy6hd9uw8h]

​@sliglusamelius8578 Yup, and I still don't understand what part of the OT is political lol 💀 "They're a rebellious people" Romans 13 refutes that... The theory surrounding the NT is just so absurd that whenever I entertain them we have a bunch of 1st-century Jewish conspirators with probably the highest recorded IQ 🗿

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@user-jy6hd9uw8h You really made no point against the NT other than you think it's icky. Make an actual argumentative point.....

[@cariboubearmalachy1174]

It you want a Bible free of contradictions, you end up with a more convoluted and unconvincing story. Jesus' attack on the money changers loses a lot of dramatic and rhetorical power when it turns out to be a do-over.

[@curtthegamer934]

You are looking at it as a literary work rather than a document of historical events. In terms of literature, yes, repeating the same event in a story would lessen the impact and be repetitive. But real life frequently has repeated events. That's no surprise. Jesus traveled to Jerusalem more than once. It's not a stretch at all that he encountered this problem there more than once.

[@cariboubearmalachy1174]

@@curtthegamer934 The fact that this biography of Jesus' life does not clear up whether his attack on the money changes was a single event or a regular occurrence demonstrates that this is a literary work and not a document of historic events.

[@curtthegamer934]

@@cariboubearmalachy1174 Do I have to mention every single time I eat a burger? If I only mention one time that I eat a burger, does that mean that I only ate a burger once? John does say "There are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if they were all written down, I suppose that the world couldn't fit all the books that would be written."

[@cariboubearmalachy1174]

@curtthegamer934 Oh, for crying out loud. Was Jesus' attack on the money changers a dramatic event that caused a scandal big enough to mobilize all of the most powerful people in Judae, or was he doing this all the time, like eating a burger? You can argue that the second scenario might be consistent with the gospels, but you are completely upending the traditional narrative to do so.

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

[@Se7enStars369]

Why the funk are you spending your time with a personage that never existed? Don't you know that Jesus is The Sun?

[@tyrannosauruszeppelin2205]

Nahhhh not this claim again💀

[@BongBing11]

Do you realize how dumb this claim is? How is Jesus Christ the sun?

[@Usman_K]

Its a universal consensus among historical Jesus scholars of ALL RELIGIONS that Jesus was real. Whether they be Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists OVER 95% (maybe more) THEM AGREE that JESUS WAS REAL

[@Se7enStars369]

@@Usman_K Ask a Jew, he knows the story, that's why they don't believe in Messiah of so called Christians! They know the story before Christians. There is no historical Jesus, Jesus is The Sun.

[@Se7enStars369]

@@BongBing11 Sit down!

[@beebarfthebard]

❤