So is this before or after flipping over the money changing tables at the temple?
Before. Mathew 21 is when Jesus finally turned more of this attention to Jerusalem (and the state of Israel's soul in general. Understand the parables of the fig tree and the servants in the vineyard, and His direct condemnation of the (((pharisees))) and Jerusalem in Mathew 23). The temple cleanse was Mathew 21:16. Jerusalem was his last stop, as He wasn't kidding when He said the city was a killer of its prophets.
the money changing incident at the temple and that the crucifixion was likely a direct result of it
That was only a small part of it. The largest thing that convinced the (((pharisees))) to plot against Him was the healing that Jesus was able to command. The final alarm bell was the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11). This miracle was a direct threat to their political power, as it did legitimize Jesus as the Messiah to many. The Romans could, with the popular support of the people, actually could have crown him as King, and the (((pharisee))) dream of having a false messiah leading a gentile pogrom (See the first jewish-Roman war, Simon bar Kokhba would claim this title in his own revolt) would be crushed.
Sorry to ask sophomoric questions but the timeline and the geography of everything has been obscured.
Its not obscure. I encourage you to at least read the Gospel books of Mark, Luke, Mathew, and John, and the epistle letters of St. Paul. The Gospels are 4 different accounts of the same series of events. The devil can also quote scripture too, so I suggest you read it for yourself.
Thank you for the thorough reply. I meant to type “everything has been obfuscated“ not “obscured.” Maybe it is a result of my cognitive abilities but the timeline is a little difficult to get a handle on. I’ve never seen an clear concise chronological listing of events and also the events happened so FAST.
I was recently reading something that pointed out how the incident at the temple directly preceded the crucifixion. The author also claimed that the sermon on the mount had been slightly altered in the fifth century to deemphasize or exclude (can’t remember which) any mention of usury. The author put together a pretty good argument that usury was the main focus of a lot of his teachings and that (((some group))) that is very fond of usury went through a lot of trouble to alter that message. You’re probably right about raising the dead greatly influencing the Pharisees decisions though.
I’ve just got usury on my mind lately.
(post is archived)