Oveturning The Temple Tables

Folder: 
Christian

Why did Jesus overturn the temple tables?
Because the murder of the animals occurring
there made him angry.

Jesus as reported in Matthew called some whited
sepulchres.  The word sarcophagus is derived from the
Greek (sarx flesh phagi eater) and means flesheater.

*
Footnote: Apologies to any who might be upset
by this interpretation.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jesus/paulafredriksen.html
View saiom's Full Portfolio
Starward's picture

I am at a loss here, so

I am at a loss here, so please help me out.  What source tells us that the murder of the animals angered him?  Two Apostles (both eyewitnesses) and two evangelists, writing of it, do not mention that specific reason as causing Him anger; so I am curious as to what source supports your assertion.  I admit to an unfamiliarity with the Apostolic Fathers (preNicene):  does it come from them?  You really have my curiosity going now, so please help me out.  Thanks muchly.


Starward

[* /+/ ^]

saiom's picture

 Evangelists give only the

 

Evangelists give only the tiniest fraction of the events in the life of Christ.

The book The Missing Years of Jesus speaks as do other sources of Jesus'

travel in India, Tibet, Persia etc in the 18 years that legend places him in a woodshop with Joseph.  Jesus was angered by the flesheating of the Pharisees, and called them hypocrites, calling them flesheaters whose bodies become cemeteries (sarcophagi). His infinite heart was moved by all suffering. Many Biblical scholars report that Jesus was an Essene, a group

which abstained from meat. The Bible passed through the Catholic Latin Vulgate, the King James, and countless other translations, with each giving

its own interpretation. Some of Paul Fredriksen's writings are mentioned in

the link footnote. She wrote that at Passover time there were several

thousand animals hanging after they were murdered. The blood was draining out of them. I rely on my own spiritual intuition. Even more than Jesus' upset that the temple was turned into a den of thieves was his compassion for the animals suffering there and his opposition to its being made a bloody slaughterhouse. The Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Thomas record that those two were also vegetarians as was Paul after taking the Nazarite vow.

 

http://veganchristianity.wordpress.com

apologies to all who disagree



 

 

Starward's picture

Thank you for explaining that

Thank you for explaining that further.  Unfortunately, I cannot enter into the "spirit" of non-Canonical sources in order to explain the opinions and responses of Jesus Himself.  I acceded to the wisdom of the early Christians who compiled the Canon and declared it authoritative.  Apostle Paul, in Galatians 1:18, specifically prohibited giving authority to any account of Christ that was outside of the Canon.   But I do appreciate your response for sharing the other sources on which your poem relies.


Starward

[* /+/ ^]

Stephen's picture

Sorry, Starward but I must intercede on this one.

Jesus multiplied the fishes and loaves to feed the multitudes there.  They then gathered up that which was not eaten by the crowd. Why would he feed them fish if he did not approve of eating flesh. Romans 14:2–3 says, “One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.” Later, we have this statement: “As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself” (verse 14).

Starward's picture

I apparently did not state my

I apparently did not state my question well enough.  I was not questioning the meaning of any of the Scriptures you have cited.  I totally agree with them, as they are Canonical.  What I was questioning is the poem's assertion of the cause of Christ's anger.


Starward

[* /+/ ^]

Stephen's picture

My perception:

He was actually trying to instruct spiritual seekers to stay away from man made religions.

saiom's picture

To what religions are you

To what religions are you referring when you say 'man made'

Sanskrit is the mother of Aramaic, Greek, Latin etc. Wm Jones,  judge in the British empire's 150 year occupation, said "Sanskrit is more perfect than Latin, more copious than Greek and more exquisitely refined than either." It has

8 conjucations and 8 declensions. Some Sanskrit texts are 20,000 years old.

 

There are infinite paths to God. Some Christians believe theirs is the only way but saints and masters are not so intolerant. Within Christianity are many

'manmade' sects: Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Quakers etc who objected to the political nature of the Catholic church or e.g. its violence in the Inquisition.



 

 

Stephen's picture

Your purely intellectual response proves my point.

The infinite is of course unknowable to man by definition.  If it is written, it is written by man and therefore flawed.

Starward's picture

The infinite is not wholly

The infinite is not wholly unknowable, as  Apostle John tells us in the eighteenth verse of the first chapter of his Gospel.  The anonymous writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (I happen to believe that was Saint Luke) asserts that Christ is the express image of God, who is infinite but not entirely unknowable.  


Starward

[* /+/ ^]