True and it depends on the context....
What does that really matter though? Jesus was not the first preacher who was killed during Passover. He was not the first to be arrested during a festival such as Passover. It's not like it would have been a unique thing for Jesus to be arrested, and executed.
So in context, what I said still stands, as we see this happening to others in the same situation.
heres where we have a problem....
There are far more than two camps on the subject. There are many different perspectives. Most though agree that he taught something about the Kingdom of God.
If we look at the use of the idea of the Kingdom of God, it was clear that it would have replaced the Kingdom of Earth. This may not be in a militaristic way, but there was still replacement.
And really, it would have looked as a threat to Rome. For Romans, if one spoke of a new Kingdom being sat up in that area, that meant Rome had to go. It was threatening either way.
We just dont know if that was what he was saying is the problem....
History always means not knowing. What we have are levels of probability. My argument is a highly probable based on the information that we have. Can I prove it? No, however, history is not science. Again, it rests on levels of probability.
I see no reason to doubt my argument, unless one can show why it doesn't work. Saying he would be invisible, just because there was a large crowd, isn't evidence. It ignores what Jesus did. He was a public speaker. He was a preacher. He knew how to reach large crowds. And that would not be something hard to miss. Especially if it was around the Temple, and ended with a demonstration.
And it wouldn't be like Jesus was a special case here. He wasn't the first, nor last to be caught in a similar situation.
two things
#1 jesus teachings style was nothing like johns. delivery and message. I agree jesus took off where John left off.
I didn't mention teaching style. I was referring to message. And yes, the message was similar.
#2 you also know there are two camps in why John was killed. Your pointing out only one view and taking it as fact.
Again, more than two camps. And yes, I am only pointing to one view, and taking it as if it is the most probable. Because I think it is the most probable, and have said why. Just because there are more than one view, doesn't mean that is an argument against my view. There are more than one view on how Earth was created, or how humans formed. That doesn't mean we can disregard both just because there is more than one idea.
Did jesus mouth off to the king himself because the king married his sister...
From the little that we can see, we can see a similarity. The message, at a point, was similar. Both taught about the Kingdom of God, and the teachings centered around that idea. They were preparing people to enter into the Kingdom of God.
As for Herod marrying his step-brother's wife (the problem was that her husband, which was Herod of Antipas's step-brother, was still alive). If we look at what Josephus says, it was this marriage that led to a war with King Aretas, which was the neighboring Arab King. So there is much more to the story than just mouthing off. And we do see a possible (probable), political motivation for the death of John.
True
BUT jesus has his own case, we cant just lump him into a class like that unless we know for sure and we dont.
Yes, Jesus has his own case. However, from what we know, and can see, it fits into a broader context. It makes perfect sense to compare these two individuals, as what we have shows that it was similar circumstances.
scholars and historians are divided on this...
Or Jesus was citing a passage in Jeremiah. Jeremiah was talking about how God wouldn't protect the Temple any longer. That God's protection would vanish. And the reason was because evildoers were inhabiting the place. The Temple had changed from it's original meaning. More so, Jesus starts off by taking from Isaiah. Which states that God's favor would be for all and that all would be able to participate in the Temple practice. As in, foreigners and others would be able to offer sacrifice as well.
The Temple tax was a necessary thing. It was supported from Biblical scripture, and went to keeping up the Temple. It wasn't higher than it should be, as it was what it was told to be in scripture. More so, we see shortly after Jesus sending his own men to go and participate in the Passover preparation. As in, he sent his men to go to the Temple, and pay for a sacrifice. Why would he do this if he had such a problem with the Temple's selling and money changers? So it wasn't strictly about money as you are saying.
Also, this wasn't the first time that Jesus would have seen the Temple. We are told that he had gone there shortly before. And it is possible he had visited at other times in his life, as it was a requirement (one that not everyone followed, but it is probable that Jesus had been there at least once before, and at the very least, knew what was going on). So it wasn't like he would have been surprised by what he saw. As he had seen it at least once before, and it was only shortly before. So there is little reason to assume that he just went into a fit of rage, as it wasn't like he hadn't seen it before.
So now you have to ask yourself, how much was money a factor and religion. fact is we dont know.
We can be fairly certain. If we look at what Jesus supposedly said, and the original context (as in where he got the words from), it was not necessarily about money. More so, he didn't react angrily the first time he saw what was happening in the Temple. So again, we can't say that he was reacting out of anger in this case. Yet, when we look at what he did, what he supposedly said, and what he preached, it syncs up.
By all accounts we dont know and most historians and scholars say we know he only went to the temple once for sure...
Actually, by all accounts, we are told that he had been to the Temple before, in that visit to Jerusalem. When he "destroyed" the Temple (a symbolic destruction as we can gather from what he taught), that was at least the second time he was at the Temple during that visit to Jerusalem. We are told that he had also went there shortly before his demonstration in the Temple.
depends on which scholarship you follow. its not known for sure.
That's not an argument. If we stuck to that reasoning, we would have to ignore much of history, as scholars many times disagree on ideas. That doesn't mean we can just disregard that information.
But you have to know exactly what he taught about the kingdom before you can make any assumptions.
No you don't. One doesn't have to know the exact details, we generally are not privy to such information. Knowing the basics, or general idea is well enough. Especially in this case, when we can see them going hand in hand.
im pointing out that there is a gray area in our kowledge in the subject to make certain claims with any certainty.
There is a grey area in most of our knowledge. That doesn't mean we can't know anything with some degree of certainty. That simply is a non-argument.
I think its important to define exactly how his religious teachings turned into a sacrifice. Im not apposed to agree if I can see the connection. I just dont see jesus playing with his life up until the point of him loosing his temper.
I see no real reason to think he lost his temper. Again, from all accounts, we are told that Jesus had just visited the Temple before that ordeal. Thus, he knew what was going on, and left without any problems. It was only later on that he went and "destroyed" the Temple. And looking at his teachings, which talked about a destruction of the Temple, that makes perfect sense that he was simply doing a symbolic demonstration and not reacting in anger.
I think we can both agree the riot in the temple is what got him killed. I also understand even this is up for debate and some scholars think it wasnt that big of a deal but did get him noticed. then we could have his message being used as a good excuse to kill him.
What riot? There is no record of a riot. If there was, there is no way Jesus would have been able to just walk out, and continue preaching. There was a small demonstration. If we look at how the Temple was situated, it would have been hard, or nearly impossible, for one man to do anything more than a small demonstration.
And if they couldn't catch Jesus then, there is no reason to assume that they remembered how he looked. Clearly, there was something more to it.
