Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: philv who wrote (23688)	10/26/2005 8:34:26 PM
From: IngotWeTrust	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81900

The whole money changers in the Temple story aka Jesus pitching a "holy fit" is totally out of context as recounted here. It was always "okay" to have money changers in the Temple...they were convenient and acceptable service to those who were required to travel by their "thus saith's" to the Temple once a year for penitential ritualistic cleansing. Furthermore, they were required to offer live sacrifices for proper propitiation of their previous years' collective sins. The trick was to carry a perfect dove, lamb, or other acceptable sacrificial animal the long distances of their mostly foot powered journey, keep them alive, and keep them from being injured in transit due to their captivity. Or to even have them arive at all. There were honest "money changers" and dishonest ones. There were money changers who were selling injured, maimed and sick doves, lambs, etc., to those desparate to replace their carefully selected sacrificial animals in captive transit. And the selection wasn't much different, nor the price gouging much different for those who decided to come as quickly as possible, and not risk an animal's life in transit. The whole purpose of a blemishless dove was not only to be an archetype of the Crucified Christ to come, but also that the supplicant least able to afford the "more affluent, blemishless animals" could still meet the letter of the law, and could afford the extremely inexpensive dove for this sacrifical substitute role. If one were to understand this story in its historical context, one would quickly find that Yashua drove out the dishonest and those taking advantage of the sincere and devout Jewish traveler, not only rich but poor with both their unacceptable inventory as well as their exhorbitant pricing, still preventing the poor from access to annual forgiveness. There is nothing about Jesus "cleaning house" as in challenging nor destroying the accepted tradition of his Jewish male peers, but instead Jesus made a politically active statement about worng and how it affects the poor most especially. Now that THAT is cleared up, anymore out of context "Jesus had a mad on" stories one wishes to parade across this forum?

To: philv who wrote (23688)	10/26/2005 9:14:01 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81900

Phil > I did read about the money changers in the Temple. Seems like Jesus wasn't enamoured about them at all. Things aren't too different today, are they? The irony is, of course, that the people now worship both money and him -- then it was only money. And why shouldn't they? After all, if by saying a few prayers one can have everlasting life, one is stupid not to. Anyway, that was the story -- until Mohammed came along. Now I imagine clients go where they get the best deal -- both here on earth and in the next life. Meanwhile, the same guys that Jesus was complaining about are still busy in the money changing business only now they give paper and call it money. That's why they are known as the "chosen people" -- they were chosen for the job. > they build their own great temples, such as the World Trade Centre. And then they knock them down, pretending it was not only one but two terrorist attacks, and get more money from the insurance than the buildings are worth. serendipity.li >>Someone needs to ask Silverstein some tough questions under oath about what he meant in that statement and how it was possible to demolish Building 7 on September 11th without placing charges in the building prior to the event. <<