Jesus and the money changers

[Minimalist]

As the stories progress from the primitive 'mark' to the absurd 'john' the character of the "jews" becomes progressively more despicable.

Jewish people had Jesus, the protagonist of the Gospels, killed, so that tends to make them look kind of villainous. I still don't get how that is supposed to extend to the many Jews who were followers of Jesus, or had never heard of him before.
Julius Caesar was killed by Roman senators. Does that mean that Shakespeare hated white people, Italians, senators, or republicans?

Oh, be serious. Your gospel bullshit begins with mark inventing the Barabbas bullshit story making it clear that Pilate didn't think he was guilty but willing to placate the crowd of "jews" demanding crucifixion to Matty with his absurd "25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”" line of crap.

No one cares what Shakespeare thought, laddie. It was not the basis for 1,500 years of European pogroms against anyone.

[DeistPaladin]

Your gospel bullshit begins with mark inventing the Barabbas bullshit story making it clear that Pilate didn't think he was guilty but willing to placate the crowd of "jews" demanding crucifixion to Matty with his absurd "25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”" line of crap.

I wonder if that was also born out of the tradition of the scapegoat, in Jewish sacrifices.

The idea is you had two goats and the priest would make one the scapegoat and the other the sacrifice. The sacrificed goat would bleed upon the altar while the other would be released to carry the sins of the people away with it. The fact that both persons were named "Jesus", one named "Barabbas" or "Son of the Father" and the other considered "Son of God" makes me wonder if the whole scene wasn't born of that custom where Pilate played the role of priest, letting one go and sacrificing the other.

What is certain is there was no such Roman tradition of releasing any prisoner the crowd called for and "Jesus Barabbas" seems an unlikely name.

[Purplundy]

Oh, be serious. Your gospel bullshit

Quite serious. I'll excuse your French.

begins with mark inventing the Barabbas bullshit story

The Gospels don't begin with Mark, nor does the Gospel of Mark begin with the trial of Jesus.

'Bullshit' twice in one sentence. Jesus H Christ, dude, take your pills.

making it clear that Pilate didn't think he was guilty but willing to placate the crowd of "jews"

According to the account, yes, they were real live Jews.

demanding crucifixion to Matty with his absurd "25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”" line of crap.

It is very realistic for people to swear. Shit happens. You have yet to prove antisemitism.
If I told a story about a fictional gay man being stoned in Uganda by Ugandans (most of whom are black), am I racist?

No one cares what Shakespeare thought, laddie. It was not the basis for 1,500 years of European pogroms against anyone.

Somebody didn't answer the question…
Simply because Shakespeare's work didn't cause a republican genocide doesn't somehow change whether or not he held a bias against a certain demographic.

[Aractus]

The money changers invented a way to extort money from people who came to worship God at the temple.

That's not the case at all. They provided legitimate services for legitimate needs, for instance changing the currency to the only accepted one that could be offered in the temple. And by offered I of course mean for taxation. Jews who traveled long distances would find it convenient to purchase sacrificial animals instead of bringing them along on the journey to the temple. Jesus doesn't accuse them of dodgy business practices as you claim, however it is made clear that after he drives out the money changes he himself sits in that spot and begins teaching. It is clear that, right or wrong, Jesus believed that the space was for teaching the Law and that purpose trumped the purpose of the money changers.

[Minimalist]

Simply because Shakespeare's work didn't cause a republican genocide doesn't somehow change whether or not he held a bias against a certain demographic.

It doesn't matter - even his characterization of Shylock was merely a commonly held caricature at the time. People in Europe developed anti-semitism because of xtian bullshit. Try to sort that out will you.

It is very realistic for people to swear. Shit happens. You have yet to prove antisemitism.
If I told a story about a fictional gay man being stoned in Uganda by Ugandans (most of whom are black), am I racist?

You are just dense. If you think the parade of depictions of jews in your fucking gospels are "positive" then Fuck You. You are deep in denial son. Wake the fuck up.

[Simon Moon]

I am unaware of any historical reference to Roman 'guards' at the fucking temple.

Why would they be there? To inflame the locals? There was a small Roman garrison at the Antonia Fortress near the temple. Close enough.

Even if there were none in the Temple, the soldier at Antonia Fortress were on constant alert for any disturbance in the Temple.

So, the result would have been the same.

They would have been there without delay to put an end to the commotion.

And then there's this:

"As George Wesley Buchanon pointed out in Symbolic Money-Changers in the Temple? (1991), the temple was the most fortified place in Jerusalem, for it acted as the treasury, and could even be used as a Fortress. As such, Jesus could not have simply walked in and thrown the moneychangers out as depicted in the Gospels. Michael Turton explains in Historical Commentary of the Gospel of Mark:

The moneychangers undoubtedly had their own guards and servants, and so did the local priests. It is therefore unlikely that Jesus could have generated an incident there that was prolonged enough for anyone to notice. There were too many warm bodies to squelch it before it got rolling. A further problem, as Buchanon (1991) points out, is that the Temple was not merely the main religious institution of the Jewish religion; it was also the national treasury and its best fortress. The Temple's importance should not be underestimated: all three sides in the internal struggle during the Jewish War fought to gain control of the Temple. Not only is it highly unlikely that Jesus could have simply strolled in and gained control of the Temple, it is also highly unlikely that anyone would have permitted him to leave unmolested after such a performance.[76]

In Jesus' Temple Act Revisited: A Response to P. M. Casey (2000), David Seeley states some of the practical obstacles that Jesus would have had to countenance. For example, at least one of the moneychangers would have been angry at having his table overturned and wrestled with Jesus. It would have been next to impossible for an individual to prohibit hundreds of people from carrying vessels"

[JesusHChrist]

While facts are a bitch, they roll off the believer's back like water off a duck.

[Minimalist]

Even if there were none in the Temple, the soldier at Antonia Fortress were on constant alert for any disturbance in the Temple.

For reasons best known only to them, Rome kept trying to unload the rule of Judaea on to the Herodian family. From 37 BC to 70 AD the periods of direct Roman rule were limited to the years between 6-41 and 44-54 after which Claudius and Nero began assigning different territories to Herod Agrippa II and gave him the right to govern the temple.

This odd behavior of the Romans can only be explained as a tacit admission that the jews were a pain in the ass to them and they were keenly aware of the religious sensibilities of what they considered primitive barbarians who clipped the ends of their dicks off because some silly god...who presumably put the foreskin there to begin with...thought it was a good idea.

So I'm not so sure that a Roman officer would be all that quick to invade the temple. As noted, there would have been guards and it is not unreasonable to assume, as the other writers you mention, that the money-changers themselves would have had their own protection.

This whole idea seems to stem as an outgrowth of the more Greco-Roman concept of a temple where offerings to the gods were collected but the commercial activity was in the agora/forum.

In short, this whole story seems to be a gigantic turd introduced by the Greco-Roman proponents of the religion who had, at best, a fuzzy idea of what was going on in the jewish temple and contrasted it to their own. Never forget that Jer. 7:11 - OT shit generally regarded as post-exilic but who knows when it was last edited....states "

11 Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the Lord.

This whole story seems to be an invocation of the Jeremiah shit. The gospels writers were big on that sort of thing.

[Purplundy]

People in Europe developed anti-semitism because of xtian bullshit. Try to sort that out will you.

People did a lot of things because of the Bible. Use logic to prove your point, not the word "bullshit". Your emotions don't convince me your right about anything.

It is very realistic for people to swear. Shit happens. You have yet to prove antisemitism.
If I told a story about a fictional gay man being stoned in Uganda by Ugandans (most of whom are black), am I racist?

You are just dense. If you think the parade of depictions of jews in your fucking gospels are "positive" then Fuck You. You are deep in denial son. Wake the fuck up.

This is an online conversation, not a rap album.

You dodged the question and fell back on insults. Again. Are you trying to elicit some sort of response from me? I'm sorry if you're angry. I'm also sorry that proof does not exist in this post. It was a sad waste of both of our time.
I'll give you another chance. If you can't answer the question without mistaking logic for ad hominems, we are done, and at least people will know that I tried to reason with you.

[Minimalist]

Hey, grow the fuck up. In case you haven't guessed by now...you seem a little slow up the uptake...I don't give a shit about your language sensibilities, in fact I find them amusing.

If you think your fucking gospels are not the root cause of anti-semitism in Europe you are an idiot. Take your jesus blinders off and look around.

Maybe you need to hear this from one of your own fucking heroes?

http://www.resist.com/Instauration/Other...Luther.pdf

Martin Luther - "The Jews & Their Lies"

At the beginning of his career, Martin Luther was apparently sympathetic to Jewish resistance to the Catholic Church. However, he expected the Jews to convert to his purified Christianity; when they did not, he turned violently against them.

Luther used violent and vulgar language throughout his career. While we do not expect religious figures to use this sort of language in the modern world, but it was not uncommon in the early 16th century.