Jesus seemed quite put out over the money changers at the temple, pretty much his only act of violence, curiously.

However, in Matthew 19, when asked about the 10 Commandments;




18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.





In view of that, I am hard pressed to see where the money changers were screwing up. Am I missing something, or is Jesus, for lack of a better term, inconsistent ?

I don't think he cared about what they were doing but rather where they were doing it.

Jesus was pissed at the money changers because they were selling imperfect sacrificial animals as if they were whole and clean. In effect, they were stealing by selling shoddy goods at premium prices.

(July 24, 2014 at 11:54 am)vorlon13 Wrote: In view of that, I am hard pressed to see where the money changers were screwing up. Am I missing something, or is Jesus, for lack of a better term, inconsistent ?

Well this event appears in all 4 gospels, so it very likely did happen. He accuses them of thieving, so whether this was by extortion, or simply by occupying the only space accessible to the unclean is unclear. The second explanation in my mind is favourable since they could provide services outside the temple.

That's not what the big book of heavenly horseshit says.

Quote:12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’[e] but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’[f]”

Matty 21

No, the money changers served an important purpose. Far more important than any fucking jesus!

http://plim.org/1Moneychangers%20in%20the%20Temple.htm

Quote:The moneychangers served an important function within the temple. They exchanged a person's foreign coins for a fee into coins that were acceptable within the temple. In many ways they were similar to a currency translation in foreign countries where foreigners have to translate their currency for a fee into the currency of the country they are visiting.

Only the half-shekel coin of the temple was allowed as atonement money, which the priests in the temple used. Those Jews coming from foreign lands with foreign currency or those that had Roman coins had to have these coins changed by the moneychangers. This was one of the largest revenues for the temple.

This is an artificial quarrel set up by the gospel writers who were doing their best to make the jews look bad.

Besides, the Court of the Gentiles was one of the outer areas of the temple and literally meant that non-jews could freely enter it.

(July 24, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Aractus Wrote: Well this event appears in all 4 gospels, so it very likely did happen. He accuses them of thieving, so whether this was by extortion, or simply by occupying the only space accessible to the unclean is unclear. The second explanation in my mind is favourable since they could provide services outside the temple.

How did this actually happen? What were the logistics?

The Temple was 35 acres filled with livestock, vendors and money changers. There were also many Roman guards scattered around. Just to give you an idea, 35 acres is about the size of 26 American football fields.

So, just how is it possible that Jesus walked into the Temple, filled with guards, livestock, tables of other vendors, and drove out the money changers?

Also, wouldn't the money changers have their own guards to protect the money?

(July 24, 2014 at 2:21 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(July 24, 2014 at 12:56 pm)Aractus Wrote: Well this event appears in all 4 gospels, so it very likely did happen. He accuses them of thieving, so whether this was by extortion, or simply by occupying the only space accessible to the unclean is unclear. The second explanation in my mind is favourable since they could provide services outside the temple.

How did this actually happen? What were the logistics?

The Temple was 35 acres filled with livestock, vendors and money changers. There were also many Roman guards scattered around. Just to give you an idea, 35 acres is about the size of 26 American football fields.

So, just how is it possible that Jesus walked into the Temple, filled with guards, livestock, tables of other vendors, and drove out the money changers?

Also, wouldn't the money changers have their own guards to protect the money?

Well, the presence of Roman guards at least doesn't make it unbelievable--if I recall correctly, this was his final public act before they had him executed. So, that sort of disruption (assuming his followers joined in the racket)-- coupled with their proclamation that he was their equivalent to Caesar and assumption that he would lead the revolt that ushered in God's kingdom-- seems like sufficient cause for executing him by the manner they did, which was a punishment reserved for the worst of the worst, and included political adversaries.

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.

(July 24, 2014 at 2:21 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: How did this actually happen? What were the logistics?

Like Santy Claus delivering all those presents?

Or perhaps just a token money-changer-ass-whuppin'? Like painting a bridge, you clear out one money-changer, get on to the next and the next, and before you know it, the first money-changer is right back in there. Gots to start all over.

At least in my money-changer-ass-whuppin' experience.

(July 24, 2014 at 2:27 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Well, the presence of Roman guards at least doesn't make it unbelievable--if I recall correctly, this was his final public act before they had him executed. So, that sort of disruption (assuming his followers joined in the racket)-- coupled with their proclamation that he was their equivalent to Caesar and assumption that he would lead the revolt that ushered in God's kingdom-- seems like sufficient cause for executing him by the manner they did, which was a punishment reserved for the worst of the worst, and included political adversaries.

I might be misremembering this, but I think it's the Synoptic Gospels that place this alleged event near the end of Jesus' life, while John places it earlier in his career.