Would that not piss of Jesus? It came to me after watching the pope rap from WKUK.
ITT- a lot of people who are very confidently wrong even about basic facts about this.
Jesus flipping tables wasn’t aimed at the priests and church authorities, but at people who were based in the outer area of the temple selling supplies to make sacrifices and offerings prescribed in Jewish law (see the book of Leviticus for more descriptions of these sacrifices). Jewish law at the time required a lot of animal sacrifices and monetary offerings at the Temple, and Jesus didn’t seem to have any issues with these- after all, they were a core part of the religion at the time and again, the Torah explicitly states that priests are supposed to live off of Temple offerings (note that in this passage the priestly class are referred to as “Sons of Aaron”). So it would have been odd for Jesus, as someone who at least according to the Bible was very knowledgeable about scripture and Jewish law, would have been surprised at that aspect.
What he was mad about was the commerce occurring around this system. The Gospel descriptions of this event discuss “moneychangers” and people selling doves. These are people who exchanged Roman currency for traditional Jewish currency (which is what ancient monetary offerings were denominated in) and sold animals (and based on other writings in the Torah, probably spiced cakes as well) that could be sacrificed in the Temple on the purchaser’s behalf. As for why this made Jesus mad, that is up for debate. The obvious answer is that it represents greed and people making money off religion, but the large amount of sacrifices required by Jewish law at the time really encouraged this behavior just from a practical standpoint. Myself I think he would have been completely fine with it had it been happening right outside the Temple instead, but the Temple was considered an especially holy place, where God’s presence literally descended down to Earth to be with mankind in the innermost portion, which each concentric ring acting as a sort of “air lock” for ritual impurity.
So the problem was not that the priests were making money from religion (again, this was required by Jewish law at the time) but that these other people were hanging out in the Temple treating it as a marketplace rather than as an exceptionally holy and highly ritualized space. Understanding this is kind of difficult for modern people because we don’t really treat religion the same as people did back then, and especially from a Christian standpoint we tend to view religion as a matter of personal belief and not impurity that occurs as a natural consequence of things that happen and that must be cleansed before encounters with the divine.
This is a very good explanation. To answer the specific question about modern offering plates, those are fine bc it’s not selling anything, it’s a free will offering to support the church. Of course, some churches put a lot more pressure on their congregants and basically force them to give beyond their means by saying shit like “God demands you give x amount” or “buying salvation” and stuff, and that behavior would likely get them whipped by Jesus too. Unfortunately the people who do stuff like that, don’t actually care about Jesus and his teachings
He called out the practice of killing animals for money, specifically calling the priests murderers during the event you reference. Not much of that spirit left in modern churches.
That’s not true. He denounced them for price gouging gentiles who came to the temple to make sacrifices. He didn’t call them murderers - he called them thieves.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+21%3A12-13%2CMark+11%3A15-18&version=NASB
He calls them “λῃστής”
Even in the source you linked that is translated to robber. To rob means “stealing using force or violence”. Who were the priests using violence against you think? Their clients or animals?
It can also mean to overcharge someone, which is likely how it is used here. The exorbitant price of sacrificial animals is multiply attested. The poor couldn’t afford it
I’m not sure how your interpretation is meant to work out. I don’t see how people would be compelled to give their belongings to someone if the threat is directed towards random sacrificial animals. Are you trying to say that they were stealing from the sacrificial animals themselves, and that’s why he called them robbers? It doesn’t make any sense to me.
It can also mean to overcharge someone,
But does that make sense in the context that Jesus said it? Jesus whole thing was being compassionate, not the cost of living. A week later on his last meal he even famously rejected the lamb from his final meal.
what were they stealing from the animals
Their lives
How do they explain? Some variation on God spoke to me.
He flipped the table basically because they were doing business out of a church.
Cherry-picking The Bible is standard religious practice. Couldn’t make money otherwise.
Not at all?
They weren’t priests collecting for the church.
They were loan sharks operating out of the church.
Yep. Jesus didn’t have a problem with raising funds for the church, he had an issue with the church being used as a forum for private financial business.
That’s not what he was pissed about. Because he later says in Mark 12:41-44 that the woman who gives her last 2 coins gave more than anyone else there because it was all she had and he says this in a way that showed her righteousness above that of the others there.
It wasn’t the money collecting from the temple for the temple’s use, it was the people who were setting up shops to make money for themselves in the temple.
Pretty much, even though its voluntary, and that is why I don’t give any money (I’m catholic BTW)
Thank you look up WKUK pope rap if you want a little bit of ribbing.
It’s all fiction. None of it is real. The character jesus was not a real person, and he didn’t have superpowers.
Stop writing stupid fictional jebus fanfiction in your head. Find better, less hate filled, fiction.
The character jesus was not a real person
I think it’s generally accepted that Jesus did exist, as his baptism and crucifixion were documented by third parties at the time.
All that means is that a person named Jesus may have existed. But that has no bearing on events described in the Bible. It’s like saying you found a birth certificate for a Clark Kent from the 1930’s so that means Superman really existed.
Well if Superman modeled itself as a true story and the Clark Kent you found was the person who inspired the story then yeah you did. It’s not Clarks fault the author lied. Historians don’t only think ‘some dude name jesus exists’. They think that the specific Jesus depicted in the bible was based on a real person. You can be against religion and recognize a historical consensus.
The Jesus of history is not necessarily the same guy they wrote about. All that is known for sure is that someone named Jesus, who came from Nazareth, existed around the same time. Absolutely nothing else is linked to the name.
Also, everything that makes up the bible was written several years after that man’s life.
Historians also agree on his baptism and execution, not simply his birth.
I’m an atheist, but if you read about Jesus specifically you won’t find a lot of hate.
Jesus wouldn’t gripe the practice of tithing so much as what the modern church does (or mainly doesn’t do) with the money. Obviously if that money was spent helping people he would be cool with it.
There’s even a bit in the bible where he say the poor woman who tithed the 1 penny she could spare was giving more than the rich people who gave much more.
Assume that this is an apocalyptic Jew before rabbinic judaeism. That should frame thinks a bit better. The problem, at least as I understand it, is people doing commerce, particularly for a profit, in a sacred space. I do t think the money was the problem in and of itself, but rather the execution and motive. In another story, biblical Jesus tells someone of wealth and power that what he needs to do is give all of that up and he was quite miffed (in a very tldr telling)
The difference is that the church doesn’t give you anything in return for the money unlike the traders /j
But seriously, much like everything else in the bible, those verses get ignored when inconvenient
They had turned the church into a marketplace. So if you’re in it just for the money then yeah you’re a problem.
Jesus actually sent out the disciples to teach without any money and expected them to live on the generosity of the people they taught so that’s where the collection plate likely originates from.
Tithing is in the old testament. It’s from a long time before Señor Christ.
Christian religions follow the teachings of Jesus so if Jesus had said something contrary to the idea of tithing it is worth noting. Likewise if he had done something to reaffirm it then that is worth noting.
Christian religions flow the teachings of Jesus who followed/was aware of/modified the teachings of Judaism, which already had centuries of tithing already established. Dude didn’t invent it.
No he did not invent tithing. Sorry if it seems that’s what I suggested. There are a few things the church does in the Old Testament that Christians specifically do NOT do so imo it’s important to point out where in Jesus’s teachings these practices are reaffirmed.
I got that impression from this part of your comment
that’s where the collection plate likely originates from.
The idea of donating in church or donating to a spiritual leader is waaaaaaaay older and recorded
Yeah, I suppose I should have clarified the Christian collection plate, but I didn’t think that was necessary because OP asked what we think Jesus would think about tithing.
And just like everything in the Bible, they take a grain of truth and turn it into a multimillion dollar pyramid scheme … or they use it as a weapon to go after people and groups they don’t like.
Personally I’m non religious, I think they’re all nuts. The origins of these religions might have started out with some noble goals that might have been for the good of humanity … but now it’s just a system of power, money and control to manipulate a gullible audience.
Yeah, there are definitely bad people out there trying to take advantage of Christians and make money off them. I think that’s exactly what Jesus was mad about. If Jesus was born today he would probably be chasing televangelist’s phone operators away from their desks with a whip and flipping computer desks of the people trying to scam Christian grandmas.
Like any other organization if you look hard enough and if it’s what you’re looking for then you can see people doing bad things but I do not think organized Christian religion is bad as a whole.
Jesus was a cult leader. The only reason hed dislike those other cult leaders is theyre competition.
I’m Indigenous Canadian and my parents were victims of the Residential School system in Canada in the 50s, 60s … residential ‘schools’ which were literal torture centers for Indigenous children run by Christian organizations.
From my point of view … Christian religion is bad as a whole.
I’m very sorry about what happened to your parents and in turn the effects these schools had on you and your family. From everything I’ve heard the Canadian government has treated the indigenous people terribly.
Nothing in Jesus’s teachings or the New Testament says “Running torture centers is what you should do”.
There are a lot of bad people who want to claim what they’re doing is what God told them to do because it makes it easier to get away with or easier for them to stomach themselves.
At this point in history, the image of Jesus Christ is a caricature of what he is supposed to represent. He is just an image and idea that is worshipped and that is all. No one cares about his teachings or his ideas, they just care about his image, praising him and getting their free ticket to heaven.
In essence, the image of Jesus Christ has become their golden calf that people mindlessly pray to and worship without thinking or wondering about what he actually represents.
Not every Christian group is like that. You only notice the loud lunatics.
We only hear the loud lunatics because the quiet followers never say or do anything about them.
genuinely want to know your thoughts: what do you think we can do?
Practice your religion by yourself and speak and connect to your beliefs on your own. No one needs a public and constant display or acknowledgement of what you believe. And we don’t need to conform the entire world and everyone around to satisfy your beliefs and your religion. And a religion doesn’t need a billion dollar industry and infrastructure in order for it to exist.
If what you believe is moral, respectable, useful and beneficial to society, then there should never be a need to display your religion, your beliefs or to have the need to want to convert others by force or coercion. If what you believe is morally good for everyone, people will gravitate towards your religion … forcing it on others and onto society is a sure sign that what you believe has more to do with wanting control over others rather than in creating a belief system that would benefit people.
If people were doing this, how would you know? And if other people aren’t, what do you expect the people who are to do about it? Are you hoping for a Streets of New York scene where the non-intrusive Christians duke it out with the loudmouthed Christians until only one group is left?
I’m not saying what you’re saying is wrong, it just doesnt address the question of the guy who responded to you.
Okay, so, if all the quiet religious folk were just more quieter, that would stop the megachurch swindlers? How? Wouldn’t it just give them more leeway as we won’t be “forcing our religion on them”, eg, calling out their heresy?
Also, I believe that anyone outside of my religion goes to hell. So it will be neglectful and not loving to refuse to give someone the reason/cause of my belief, or to warn them of impending disaster.
I consider Jesus of Nazareth’s resurrection from the dead a historical fact. Therefore the logical implications from there are that He is God and what He says must be true. I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to speak about said fact like anyone can speak about other facts and give them my reasons for believing that.
Lastly, if I weren’t practicing my religion in public, that would involve not forgiving other people. It would involve seeking revenge. It would involve being impatient. Things I might do if I weren’t a Christian.
You’re just describing the vast (silent) majority of religious people. So I guess you’re already pretty happy with things as they are.
If you think your church is doing good work, you give.
The church I grew up in closed for lack of funds. The preacher never lived large, they weren’t taking more than people wanted to give.
I would never give money to a mega church, but I have donated to UU churches as an adult.
