Prosperity gospel has been shitting on the red text of Christ for decades now.
Jesus hated wealth inequality. The only group he said would never enter heaven were the wealthy (“easier to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven”, in other words, it isn’t possible for the rich to enter heaven). Jesus also violently flipped tables and whipped the wealthy to drive them out of temples.
So conservative “Christians” abandoned the teachings of Christ many decades ago.
The actual story of the money changers is worse than most people know.
See, as part of their religious observance, the ancient Hebrews made a pilgrimage to the Temple. This was a mandatory part of their faith, much like the Hajj is for modern Muslims.
Those who were too poor to bring their own sacrifice could buy one at the Temple, but the Temple didn’t take the coin of the realm (the Roman coins), they only accepted Shekels.
So, the Money Changers. They set up in the Temple itself and were fleecing pilgrims of all their money.
In comes Jesus, who flipped tables and broke out the whip, and less than a week later he was crucified.
And this is the only part of the bible that I believe is 100% historically accurate. A peace loving Rabbi threw a fit over the Money Changers and was crucified for it.
The sacrifices at the temple were expected to be pretty much perfect, and had to be found acceptable by the temple priests. So the merchants would get “pre-blessed” sacrifices that they would sell at exorbitant prices to the pilgrims, who would have the sacrifices they brought deemed “inadequate” by the priests.
So if you brought an animal sacrifice, you’d still have to buy another (costly) animal. If you brought money, you’d be forced to exchange it at a significant loss.
The whole thing was an obvious scam, and Jesus was killed over it (and the rest of his message). I don’t believe he was God Incarnate, but I’m still a big fan of Jesus the man.
I’m pretty confident that all would have gone about the same way in this era.
Yeah, it was the moneychangers and the stall keepers that tolerated them.
It was a religious duty to contribute money for the upkeep of the temple. So people would come from out of town and try to hand over their cash and the priests would say “we can’t accept foreign coinage… go talk to that dude over there with the heavy pockets, he’ll help you”. And the moneychanger would convert their currency, but not without keeping a fat percentage for himself.
The lesson (as I read it) is that setting yourself up as a gatekeeper and forcing people to pay you in order to do the right thing is an especially odious behaviour, even if it’s legal.
Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle…
Some bootlickers go through ridiculous contortions to avoid the plain sense of this analogy: “The Eye of the Needle was a gate in Jerusalem!” (That excuse was a late medieval fabrication by an indulgence-selling cleric craving donations from aristocrats-- there’s no such gate and never was, and if there was one, the saying would make no sense).
Yeah - stuff we consider the canon was essentially wrapped up by about 100 CE.
The gospels were likely individuals taking other written material that was circulating around the time, and making their own little compilation based on the theological points that they wanted to make.
It’s really clear when you read the gospels and know the order. Mark was probably first, Matthew and Luke pull heavily from Mark and share something from something we call “Q” and maybe a “saying source.” Then John was written last.
It’s really clear when you look at the differences between the scene where they go to get Jesus’s body. In Mark - it’s just a guy who tells them Jesus isn’t there. Matthew has an earthquake and an Angel, Luke has two angels, John has Jesus himself say hi. John is where you get the most “divine” Jesus - because it really does seem that at first Jesus was understood as a mortal man speaking for God, but later influences from Greek philosophy and thoughts about “spirit” slowly turned Jesus into God.
Jesus didn’t talk about wealth inequality in that way, as far as wealth being bad. His point was that the wealthy tend to think they have it all and are in need of nothing. Mostly that the richer you are, the more you love money than God.
He wasn’t just flipping tables and whipping wealthy people. They were at the temple making money off of selling animals to sacrifice for sins. They had made a business of selling indulgences basically, that was the issue.
And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
Mark 10:23-31
Historical Jesus was not on team money and power I don’t think.
Seems like it would be pretty difficult to get a camel through a needle eye. (That “oh he was actually referring to a gate” is modern horseshit apologetics designed for rich Christians to justify having money btw, totally made up.)
Wether Jesus was referring to the gate or not kind of doesn’t matter, since it was followed with the comment “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Basically meant a rich man could never do it on his own.
It’s kinda amazing how many logical contortions and apologetics there are to attempt to justify a “Jesus didn’t have a problem with wealth” position. It’s almost as if wealthy people are really committed to coming up with some reason why they get to be the exception to the rule.
It is clear in context the “impossible” thing made possible through god would be the wealthy man giving up his possessions. Your interpretation makes the entire story completely pointless and irrelevant, and requires so many logical leaps as to be ridiculous.
I mean, look at Mark 6:19-21 too.
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Jesus was flatly opposed to wealth. There is no way around this, it is consistent across the gospels (and not just the canon ones.)
Prosperity gospel has been shitting on the red text of Christ for decades now.
Jesus hated wealth inequality. The only group he said would never enter heaven were the wealthy (“easier to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven”, in other words, it isn’t possible for the rich to enter heaven). Jesus also violently flipped tables and whipped the wealthy to drive them out of temples.
So conservative “Christians” abandoned the teachings of Christ many decades ago.
Not just the wealthy, but people who were using the temple as a place of business (and likely ripping people off on interest)
The actual story of the money changers is worse than most people know.
See, as part of their religious observance, the ancient Hebrews made a pilgrimage to the Temple. This was a mandatory part of their faith, much like the Hajj is for modern Muslims.
Those who were too poor to bring their own sacrifice could buy one at the Temple, but the Temple didn’t take the coin of the realm (the Roman coins), they only accepted Shekels.
So, the Money Changers. They set up in the Temple itself and were fleecing pilgrims of all their money.
In comes Jesus, who flipped tables and broke out the whip, and less than a week later he was crucified.
And this is the only part of the bible that I believe is 100% historically accurate. A peace loving Rabbi threw a fit over the Money Changers and was crucified for it.
I had understood it to be even worse:
The sacrifices at the temple were expected to be pretty much perfect, and had to be found acceptable by the temple priests. So the merchants would get “pre-blessed” sacrifices that they would sell at exorbitant prices to the pilgrims, who would have the sacrifices they brought deemed “inadequate” by the priests.
So if you brought an animal sacrifice, you’d still have to buy another (costly) animal. If you brought money, you’d be forced to exchange it at a significant loss.
The whole thing was an obvious scam, and Jesus was killed over it (and the rest of his message). I don’t believe he was God Incarnate, but I’m still a big fan of Jesus the man.
I’m pretty confident that all would have gone about the same way in this era.
Yeah, it was the moneychangers and the stall keepers that tolerated them.
It was a religious duty to contribute money for the upkeep of the temple. So people would come from out of town and try to hand over their cash and the priests would say “we can’t accept foreign coinage… go talk to that dude over there with the heavy pockets, he’ll help you”. And the moneychanger would convert their currency, but not without keeping a fat percentage for himself.
The lesson (as I read it) is that setting yourself up as a gatekeeper and forcing people to pay you in order to do the right thing is an especially odious behaviour, even if it’s legal.
Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle…
Some bootlickers go through ridiculous contortions to avoid the plain sense of this analogy: “The Eye of the Needle was a gate in Jerusalem!” (That excuse was a late medieval fabrication by an indulgence-selling cleric craving donations from aristocrats-- there’s no such gate and never was, and if there was one, the saying would make no sense).
Visions of religious leaders sitting in golden chairs and crying out for donations…
How did we get here? It’s not a mystery, it’s a cautionary tale.
Technically the Bible had been changing since Jesus’s death
The gospels were probably not written until many decades after his death.
Yeah - stuff we consider the canon was essentially wrapped up by about 100 CE.
The gospels were likely individuals taking other written material that was circulating around the time, and making their own little compilation based on the theological points that they wanted to make.
It’s really clear when you read the gospels and know the order. Mark was probably first, Matthew and Luke pull heavily from Mark and share something from something we call “Q” and maybe a “saying source.” Then John was written last.
It’s really clear when you look at the differences between the scene where they go to get Jesus’s body. In Mark - it’s just a guy who tells them Jesus isn’t there. Matthew has an earthquake and an Angel, Luke has two angels, John has Jesus himself say hi. John is where you get the most “divine” Jesus - because it really does seem that at first Jesus was understood as a mortal man speaking for God, but later influences from Greek philosophy and thoughts about “spirit” slowly turned Jesus into God.
Jesus didn’t talk about wealth inequality in that way, as far as wealth being bad. His point was that the wealthy tend to think they have it all and are in need of nothing. Mostly that the richer you are, the more you love money than God.
He wasn’t just flipping tables and whipping wealthy people. They were at the temple making money off of selling animals to sacrifice for sins. They had made a business of selling indulgences basically, that was the issue.
He flat-out said, if you’re rich in this life, you’ve had your reward already and you won’t get into heaven.
Mark 10:17-22
Perfect example.
Mark 10:23-31
Historical Jesus was not on team money and power I don’t think.
Great wealth corrupts people. Jesus did say that even rich people can be saved though. But only with the power of God.
Seems like it would be pretty difficult to get a camel through a needle eye. (That “oh he was actually referring to a gate” is modern horseshit apologetics designed for rich Christians to justify having money btw, totally made up.)
Wether Jesus was referring to the gate or not kind of doesn’t matter, since it was followed with the comment “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Basically meant a rich man could never do it on his own.
It’s kinda amazing how many logical contortions and apologetics there are to attempt to justify a “Jesus didn’t have a problem with wealth” position. It’s almost as if wealthy people are really committed to coming up with some reason why they get to be the exception to the rule.
It is clear in context the “impossible” thing made possible through god would be the wealthy man giving up his possessions. Your interpretation makes the entire story completely pointless and irrelevant, and requires so many logical leaps as to be ridiculous.
I mean, look at Mark 6:19-21 too.
Jesus was flatly opposed to wealth. There is no way around this, it is consistent across the gospels (and not just the canon ones.)