…a Triumphal Entry coupled with an attack on Temple commerce WOULD have been enough…
My working hypothesis, based on intuition and supposition (i.e. “spitballing”) is that the temple disturbance was historical. in my reconstruction I take the view that Jesus and his followers went to Jerusalem expecting an apocalyptic episode and his acting out in the temple got him arrested and killed. How could Jesus have gotten off the temple grounds after such an incident without being arrested by temple guards? Any troublemaker would have immediately been turned over to the Romans. This is how the tradition of betrayal by his own people began. No big dramatic scene before the Sanhedrin, or even a session with Pilate for that matter. (What, the Romans had absolutely no legal bureaucracy? Pilate personally interviewed every condemned criminal? Really?) All that is literature and theology.
I think Jesus joined a long and sad list of Messianic pretenders who got squashed by the powers that be. The special part is that his followers founded a world religion.
1
From the late 20s / early 30s, Christians did not believe the unfinished Temple would be torn down.
2
Christians, from the late 20s / early 30s to July 64 CE, did not believe they were just waiting for God to abandon them for the Gentiles.
3
The Biblical Jesus said the Jewish people would be without land because God pretty much said, it’s over. I’m taking it from you. If God does not provide people land, then pretty much that God is out of the picture, none-existent, his Covenant, his Laws, his Messiahs. Now, the Biblical Paul seems to be with the program because he no longer gave reverence to the Mosaic Law/Covenant.
4
The oral tradition as it existed at July 64 CE was known by the Biblical Paul and it did not include the Temple being torn down.
5
The Promised Land of Jerusalem was taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, the Romans
and
The Son of Man would appear after the tribulation of the destruction of Jerusalem
therefore
given the prohibition against Jewish tenants, the post-tribulation Son of Man could not be Jewish.
The Son of Man who appeared after the tribulation was not Jewish. He was a member of the Gentile, Roman Empire, actually, the Roman emperor or his son who was the military leader over the act of taking the Promised Land of Jerusalem from the Jewish people, the Idumeans, and those beyond the Euphrates who provided help to the Jewish revolutionaries against Rome.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)