Dear Grim,

I really don't know whether the moneychangers overcharged. However, it is wrong to overcharge whether it is for shoeing a horse or changing money. However, I never heard of anybody whipping blacksmiths out of Temples or out of anything else. They are much brawnier than moneychangers.

I looked up the subject on the net and found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_money_changers
"By the time most scholars think that John was written (c. 95–110 AD), defending the temple was a moot point because it was long gone, and so John can be understood to have been deliberately trying to portray Early Christianity itself as a replacement—a new Temple, see also New Covenant, New Commandment, New Jerusalem, and Supersessionism. The pre-Temple-destruction community of Essenes, associated with the Dead Sea scrolls, also speaks of the community itself as a temple, and the concept was evidently one that had been circulating (Brown et al. 954)."

The incident could have been part of portraying Christianity as a replacement for the Temple and the moneychangers as symbolic of the Temple itself. However, we can forget about the propaganda and the heresy. If Christians will rid themselves of the New Testament and the worship of the pagan humanoid god, Jesus, they can be accepted back into the true faith. The heresy of Christianity is less than two thousand years old, and we will take you back. It will not take two thousand years to reintegrate Christians into the Jewish community. Just come with a contrite heart and remember Frances Drake.

He circumcised the earth with a forty foot cutter.

All will be roses
Come back to Moses

Wow.
Much as I appreciate your generous -and I'm sure, quite sincere- offer, I'll stick with the Akubra, thanks.
I do thank you kindly for the link; good old Wikipedia, eh? I particularly liked the very last line:
“His objections have been consistently based upon one criterion: the system's exploitation of the poor. The "mountain" must be "moved," not restored.”
Though money don't please us,
I won't come back to Jesus.
Or Moses.

Dear Grim,

I liked the last line also. It's a great line. “His objections have been consistently based upon one criterion: the system's exploitation of the poor. The "mountain" must be "moved," not restored.”

Considering the political leanings of most Christians in politics, concern for the poor in other than rhetoric definitely indicates that Jesus was not a Christian.

From the Wikipedia site: "To most scholars this shows a clear split between Judaism and the community surrounding the Gospel of John, as the suggestion that the people should destroy the temple would have been highly offensive to the Jewish people. It is also notable that John refers to the people as the Jews, distancing both the intended audience of his Gospel, and Jesus, from any Jewish roots."

Although the incident may have been fictional the Gospel of John indicates an early split between Christianity and Judaism, and the protest is seen as against the exploitation of the poor.

That seems to be the course of religions. When they become powerful they exploit the poor. It is interesting to note that outside of Israel Jews are very generous with statistical evidence showing that they are more giving than most ethnic groups. Inside Israel it is the other way. Taxes of all including the poor support a bloated religious establishment.

Martin Luther started the Reformation partly as a protest against the Catholic Church growing rich on the sale of indulgences, ecclesiastical preferences and other money-making schemes. The Protestants do quite well at that game. In England the Established Church came to be regarded as the Tory Party at prayer. Televangelists milk the poor and gullible. Churches have tax exemption in many countries.

Although Christianity does support charitable institutions it looks very much as though it has a much more favourable trade balance than Australia.

“Let me live in regal splendor with that loving legal tender. Give us money, money, money.” is the motto.

It would be an impossible global effort to whip the money changers from the temples of the large established religions.

Oliver,
Naturally, if there are a large number of people openly professing their Christianity, presumably, it will gain some position of ‘privilege’, as it has done historically, within western civilisation and its democratic process. If the ethos of Christianity is to be practiced, many undoubtedly give up a part, if not most, of their own privilege (in terms of wealth) in order to serve the destitute, the poor, the needy, the hungry and the abandoned within society. Most consider this, primarily, an act of service and perhaps a privilege to ‘perform’.

I don’t suggest, at all, there is one religion alone practising this altruism. Christianity, along with the later establishment of Islam, owe their basic ethos in this to Judaism, where charity is an act of duty incumbent upon men of means to provide for those in want. Charity, according to Judaism, is a human obligation. Man owes it to his fellow-man as a brother. It is expected of all men and toward all men. Buddhism, Hinduism and the notable religions all have their own but similar 'charity' traditions. Importantly, and what many of my previous posts should indicate, pluralism is not relativism. This new paradigm does not require us to leave our identities and our commitments behind - it means holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship, one to another.

bushbasher,
I can only say, I’m glad you’ve finally come to gain an appreciation of Peter Sellick - I suggest you keep reading his articles.

the appreciation is only relative. i still prefer banging my toe on a rock.

is your misinterpretation of oliver's use of "privilege" deliberately sly, or just stupendously dumb?

relda,

I didn't mean privilege in terms of wealth or giving up the same. I was inquiring of the status of Christianity, as you believe it, in relation to other religions, Abrahamic or otherwise. Else put, in your view, does Christianity have a privileged position with regards to the idea that religious stories need not be literal (Tillich)? Is the relation of Pandora to Zeus as valid as Eve to Yahweh? Can one justify the non-Christian religions whilst still accepting the non-literal facbrications of lore, as Tillich allows for Christianity?