1809
Apparently a right-wing deacon said this
(sopuli.xyz)
Cross posted from https://eldritch.cafe/@Jeanneadebats/114184886084246220
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.