“Multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching’turn the other cheek’[and] to have someone come up after to say, ‘Where did you get those liberal talking points?’” Moore said.
“When the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ’ … The response would be, 'Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,” he added. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
Ehh, isn’t the antichrist supposed to be a nearly impossibly attractive person, in charisma and looks? A lot of people either hate him or are entirely indifferent and the reasons don’t seem to be religiously motivated.
I guess we’re going to get more denominational splits based on if Jesus’ teachings about loving others is Biblically accurate. Yet another reason why he isn’t coming back.
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.
Evangelicals Are Now Rejecting ‘Liberal’ Teachings of Jesus
And people dont understand why I say the orange clown is an Antichrist and may be the Antichrist.
The doomed by a perfect circle is very disturbing accurate.
Ehh, isn’t the antichrist supposed to be a nearly impossibly attractive person, in charisma and looks? A lot of people either hate him or are entirely indifferent and the reasons don’t seem to be religiously motivated.
I just settle with him being a douchebag.
Don’t forgot about how all his weird followers depict him in their fan art though…. They seem to at least perceive him as exactly that.
I guess we’re going to get more denominational splits based on if Jesus’ teachings about loving others is Biblically accurate. Yet another reason why he isn’t coming back.
The real reason.
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.