The preponderance of evidence points to neither. It never happened. See first comment.

Did Jesus supposedly cleanse the Temple at the end of his ministry as depicted in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or at the beginning as depicted in John? Some implausibly claim there were two cleansings. Hilarious.

The Temple complex covered about 35 acres (roughly 14 hectares). Josephus (Antiquities 15.11.3; War 5.5.2) describes its vast courts, capable of holding tens of thousands of pilgrims. Merchants and moneychangers were dispersed across the outer court (“Court of the Gentiles”), not in one clustered area as seen above. A single individual overturning all their tables would be implausible on a large scale because, well, soldiers would have shut it down.

Roman troops were stationed in the nearby Antonia Fortress, overlooking the Temple (Josephus, War 5.5.8). Normally, Jerusalem was garrisoned by a cohort (≈ 500–600 Roman soldiers). At major feasts like Passover, Josephus reports that Roman governors reinforced Jerusalem with additional troops, sometimes up to several thousand (Josephus, War 2.224–231).

The Temple also had its own police force (Levite guards). Estimates range from a few dozen on duty at any given time to hundreds available during festivals. Any significant disruption—especially in festival season when tensions ran high—would likely draw immediate intervention.

For one man to physically expel “all” sellers and animals would have been virtually impossible without swift suppression. No one even bothers to question the plausibility and usually default to "well it WAS possible, so there!" Possible but not plausible. It's possible you'll win the lottery, but not plausible IF YOU'RE HONEST.

In short: on a literal level, the entire Temple market could not plausibly have been cleared by one man under heavy guard. It's a made up story.

Sure, there's a slight discrepancy in the exact time of Jesus' death on the cross.
But do you know what all four unanimously agree with? That Jesus died on the cross on a Friday during the Passover week, placing His death around April of 33 AD.
So even with a slight discrepancy they aren't denying the core of the message: the Jesus lived, died on the cross, and His disciples claimed He rose again from the dead.

You know - what every credible historian and archeologist in the world agree with.

Slight? Haha, dude ... they don't all agree. You need to read your bible more closely.
Matthew - no specific mention of the day
Mark - Mid morning on the day AFTER the Passover meal
Luke - no specific mention of the day
John - After noon on the day BEFORE the Passover meal ... exactly the same time that Passover lambs would've been slaughtered (Behold the Lamb of God ...)

Tell me about Matthew's claim of two earthquakes (unrecorded in other Gospels and never recorded anywhere else) within 3 days of each other, hundreds of zombies walking around town, the sun was blotted out...fiction.

Did Jesus bounce back and forth between Pilate and Herod?
Matthew - No
Mark - No
Luke - Yes
John - No

Who dressed Jesus in purple kingly robes, then mocked him?
Matthew - Pilate's Roman soldiers
Mark - Pilate's Roman soldiers
Luke - Herod's soldiers
John - Pilate's Roman soldiers

What did Jesus say during his "trial?"
Matthew - Pretty much copied Mark
Mark 15:35 -- the chief priests accused him of many things but he answered nothing. And Pilate asked him again, saying, "Answerest thou nothing? Behold how many things they witness against thee." But Jesus answered nothing; so that Pilate marveled.
Luke - Doesn't say
John 18:33 - 37 --- Jesus talked A LOT. Parried questions from Pilate, asked many of his own and made claims about his kingdom.

Why was he crucified?
Matthew - Because he cast out the moneychangers from the temple. Matthew 26:3-4
Mark - Religious leaders begin plotting his death after he heals a withered man's hand in the synagogue Mark 3:6
Luke - Because he cast out the moneychangers from the temple (copied Matthew)
John - Religious leaders begin plotting after he raises Lazurus from the dead.

I can do this all day long. Story after story after story ...

All I can do is give you evidence that the Bible is 100% unreliable but you're like the dude who refuses to believe his wife is cheating on him even after an investigator sees her and her boss going into a sleazy hotel room on the other side of town for an hour and takes photos of them in the act through the window.

The resurrection is like saying someone stole my car. Upon questioning, I say it was a Mexican who walked up and stole it while I was at a gas station. My second story is that two Mexicans drove up in a pickup truck, one jumped out and stole it while I was getting fuel at a gas station. My third story is that a black guy wearing a gray hoodie with three friends stole my car while it was parked at a fast food place next door to a gas station. My fourth story is that a white woman stole my car while I was in a Walmart parking lot and she peeled out of the parking lot while laughing at me.

Which story is the truth? Are any of them true? As an investigator, what is more likely -- that all of them are true or is it more likely that all of them are false? Was there even a car stolen? You can’t say “well the central part of the story is about a stolen car.” NO. Period. The central part of the story is that none of it matches anything and is most likely fiction. And later you discover that I’d been watching a lot of movies about stolen cars and had a vision, uh, err, I mean a dream that my car had been stolen…

Yet Christian apologists say that all the stories are true, they’re just told from different viewpoints. But remember, this is supposedly THE pivotal event of human history … and the most powerful being in the universe is supposedly dictating/revealing/”inspiring” this information to four men, three of whom were supposed witnesses to this pivotal event, and they couldn’t get their stories straight? Remember, ALL these stories were written AFTER Paul had been preaching his gospel for over 20 years … were they written to prop up his visions? The evidence says yes.

I hold a personal view that Paul -- who never saw Jesus except in visions or as a "light" -- began preaching in the 50's CE and subsequently gained a following. I believe that Mark wrote a back story (fan fiction, if you will) which was picked up by Matthew, who corrected Mark's inaccuracies and geographical mistakes and quote mined the Old Testament, then Luke who expounded the story even further. Finally John decided to turn Jesus into the "Superman" of the era. When I examine how Paul's letters evolved against the backdrop of how the Gospels themselves evolved, this seems, to my way of thinking and other scholars, to be a plausible explanation. People back then were extremely superstitious. If I walked up to someone in the town square and declared that a god had come to me in a vision the previous night and declared that a famine would sweep the land in next year, they'd all begin stockpiling food. Later you may find out that I was a seller of seeds and was just trying to increase my business.

My model is called a developmental-literary model of Christian origins that many critical scholars (even if not full mythicists) have articulated. Let me situate my view within the broader field of scholarship, since what I’ve outlined is not only plausible but echoes recurring themes in actual academic debate:

Paul and his visionary origins (ca. 50s CE)
– Paul himself never mentions an earthly Jesus’ life, teachings, or miracles beyond imprecise and vague mentions of crucifixion and resurrection in a general sense (no mention of any details). Scholars like Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier demonstrate that this silence means Paul believed only in a celestial Christ revealed through visions (see Carrier's book Jesus Christ from Outer Space). Even more cautious scholars (e.g., E.P. Sanders) admit Paul’s “historical Jesus” is VERY thin and largely irrelevant to his gospel.

Mark’s narrative innovation (ca. 70 CE)
– Mark is widely recognized as the earliest Gospel. Scholars such as Burton Mack (A Myth of Innocence) argue that Mark constructed a passion narrative as a foundational myth for his community, shaped by scripture and theology more than memory. The idea of “fan fiction” may be a modern analogy, but captures the notion of creative storytelling from sparse origins.

Matthew’s redaction (80s–90s CE)
– Matthew corrects Mark’s geography (e.g., Nazareth and Bethlehem issues) and systematically links Jesus to Hebrew scripture, even to some "scriptures" that aren't there. He literally “quote mining the Old Testament” and engaged in essentially midrashic rewriting — something Michael Goulder and others have argued, seeing Matthew as engaged in scriptural reinterpretation rather than reporting.

Luke’s expansion (late 1st century CE)
– Luke takes Mark and Matthew’s material but situates it in broader Roman history (censuses that never happened, governors out of their time period, imperial decrees that have no historical basis). Scholars note Luke’s emphasis on an orderly narrative and historiographical style, though his “history” is more theology in literary dress (see also Loveday Alexander).

John’s exaltation (ca. 90–110 CE)
– John turns Jesus into a cosmic Logos figure, closer to Hellenistic divine-man traditions (see also Philo’s Logos). Scholars like Raymond Brown described John as a “theological gospel” rather than historical, and Dr. Bart Ehrman PhD ("How Jesus Became God" 2014) has even likened John’s Christ to a “superman” relative to the Synoptics.

Superstition and credulity in antiquity
– Ancient people often trusted prophets, dreams, and omens. As Robert Garland (The Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World) and Robin Lane Fox (Pagans and Christians) both note, visions, portents, and divination were woven into daily life.

So my model — visions → literary backstory → successive elaboration — fits a recognized scholarly trajectory. The only real dispute is how much history lies behind it. Some (e.g., G.A. Wells, Carrier) say “none.” Others (e.g., Ehrman, Sanders) say “a little, but overwhelmed by myth.” At any rate, cellular necrosis is a real and well understood process and is irreversible ... unless you believe in myth.

Based on known science of cellular necrosis, the biblical resurrections and cases of avoiding death are implausible:Cellular necrosis: After death, irreversible processes like brain death and cellular decay begin within minutes. Brain cells die within 5-10 minutes without oxygen, and tissue decomposition progresses rapidly (e.g., rigor mortis within 2-6 hours, significant decay by 24-72 hours).

Biblical resurrections: Most accounts (e.g., Lazarus, dead 4 days, John 11:17; Jesus, dead 3 days, Matthew 28:1) involve timeframes where advanced necrosis (decomposition, organ failure) would make revival impossible without reversing cellular damage, for which no known mechanism exists.
Enoch and Elijah: Ascension without death (Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:11) lacks any scientific basis, as human bodies cannot vanish or transcend physical laws (e.g., gravity, biology).

Conclusion: No evidence or mechanism in modern science supports restoring life after significant necrosis or bypassing death entirely. These events are not plausible based on current biological and physical knowledge.

And as for credible historians
Bruno Bauer (1809–1882) A German philosopher and biblical critic, Bauer was one of the first to argue that the gospel narratives were entirely literary fictions and that Jesus never existed. He believed Christianity emerged from a synthesis of Jewish messianism and Hellenistic thought, not from a historical founder.

Arthur Drews PhD (1865–1935) A German philosopher whose book The Christ Myth (1909) popularized the mythicist thesis in Europe. Drews contended that Christianity arose from pre-existing pagan savior cults and Jewish messianic ideas, with Jesus as a symbolic figure rather than a real person.

John M. Robertson (1856–1933) A Scottish journalist and rationalist writer who argued in Pagan Christs (1903) that the story of Jesus was a reworking of earlier dying-and-rising-god myths. He saw Christianity as one iteration in a broader religious pattern rather than rooted in a historical individual.

Prof. G. A. Wells (1926–2017) A British professor of German, Wells initially argued that Jesus was entirely mythical, created out of Hellenistic Jewish sectarian writings. Later, he nuanced his position, allowing that there may have been an obscure historical preacher whose life was later mythologized.

Earl Doherty (b. 1941) A Canadian writer best known for The Jesus Puzzle (1999), Doherty argued that the earliest Christian writings (especially Paul) reflect belief in a purely celestial Christ who was never on earth. He maintained that the gospel narratives were allegorical stories created later to place this heavenly figure in a historical setting.

Robert M. Price PhD (b. 1954) An American New Testament scholar and theologian, Price applies historical-critical methods to argue that Jesus is a mythological composite of various Jewish and pagan traditions. In works like Deconstructing Jesus (2000) and The Case Against The Case For Christ 2010), he contends that there is insufficient evidence for a historical Jesus. Both GREAT books.

Richard Carrier PhD (b. 1969) An American historian and philosopher, Carrier defends the mythicist thesis with a probabilistic, Bayesian approach in On the Historicity of Jesus (2014). He argues that the evidence better supports the idea of Jesus as a mythic, celestial savior figure than as a historical person. GREAT book btw.

Goalposts: moved.
Meme didn't discuss the exact time of Jesus' death on the cross. It discussed the supposed "cleansing of the temple -- which could not have happened. -- see my first comment for WHY

"So even with a slight discrepancy they aren't denying the core of the message: the Jesus lived, died on the cross, and His disciples claimed He rose again from the dead.

You know - what every credible historian and archeologist in the world agree with."

There is not a single credible historian and archeologist in the world that agrees with any of that. It's called faith for a reason, not fact.

If you believe that then there is no amount of truth I can show you to change your mind. You never will. I am finished casting my pearls before swine.

Belief is irrelevant. I deal in facts.

I'll play.
Indulge yourself, go for it, post it.

I'll wait.

You have openly rejected truth itself. No amount of evidence will change your heart if you don't CARE what the evidence is. I am finished casting my pearls before swine.

No, I haven't, you have.

You haven't even attempted to post a smidgen of anything indicating that Jesus might have actually existed. You, that I have to constantly block to prevent you from spamming me with endless piles of irrelevant material, you somehow have become quiet.

Here, I'll make it easier for you. The only indication that Jesus might have existed is the number of believers. How could such a big religion come out aroound nobody? But then again, the same number of people believe in Santa Claus, for at least did at some point in their life. Literally. All of them. Just as many believe in the Easter Rabbit. A lot also believe in the Tooth Fairy.
You see where this is going?

The second biggest faith in the world also believes in a lot of Gods. Does that mean that Krishna existed? He was the template for Jesus, after all. The only God to live the life of man, he decided to and he was born as a person. He did this way before there was a Jesus, way before there were even Hebrews. Do you worship him also?