Az, hogy a fidesz ezt csinálja, nem újdonság a politikában. Ez a politika alapja. Már 23 éve ez megy itt Mo.-n.

Mo.-n jelenleg TASZ (mint civil szervezet) és LMP(mint párt) az, ahol már vannak valódi progresszív elképzelések és megvalósítások.

Mert a professzor zsido, akko mar csak cionista lehet, humanista nem? Ugyan…. ha tudna….

Egyébként érdemes elolvasni Göllner András Ben Cardin szenátornak küldött levelét is.

Canadian Hungarian Democratic Charter congratulates Senator Cardin for speaking out on racism in Hungary

Remelem tud angolul, mert az altalam kuldott “refutation” kozel 6 oldalt tesz ki a Word programban, es semmi kedvem magyarra forditani. A refutation nem csak azt mutatja ki vilagosan, hogy a “penzvaltok” tortenet az u.n. Ujszovetsegben nepmesekbol ered, de arra is felhivja a figyelmet, hogy ez a tortenet (is) a szokasos zsidogyuloletbol ered.
(A “Xtian” szo a Christian szo roveditese, es a “G-d” szo egyszeruen God-t jelent.)
Kellemes olvasast!

Money Changers in the Temple
by Dan Leeson

A short while ago, I was accosted on a public street by a missionary who attempted to convince me of the righteousness of her cause. To do so, she told to me the tale about how “Jesus chased the money changers out of the temple,” and her purpose was to show how corrupt Judaism had become by the time of the early Xian era. I was pressed, anxious to get away from this person, and generally unwilling to deal with such people unless I have no choice. In this case, I simply excused myself. But the implications of what was told to me were unnerving. I was appalled by the idea that a particular version of perfectly appropriate activities carried out two millennia ago was reported by the synoptic gospels as evidence of the unworthiness of Jews to retain G-d’s love. Besides having the smell of antisemitism burning at the edges, it was a direct insult to G-d (that He would repudiate his explicit and eternal covenant with the Jewish people), and, in my opinion, a misrepresentation of the facts.
Like most Xian missionary groups, the presentation of both gospel tales and inaccurate readings of the Jewish bible are designed to give the impression of the triumph of Xianity and, to do that, they must demean both Jewish teachings and, ultimately, Jews. Underlying every missionary approach is the assumption that what Jews have is outdated and without value, at least as compared to what is being offered in its place.

Xianity offers a variety of arguments to assert their belief that G-d’s covenant with the Jewish people is no longer active. Most of these arguments suggest that the severance was because, by their behavior, the Jews became unworthy of G-d’s continued love and a variety of incidents are cited to support this posture. Xian theology states that, with the birth of a man/deity approximately 2000 years ago, G-d severed the relationship with the Jews, repudiated his covenant, and transferred it to those who followed this messianic figure’s religious teachings.

Put forward as evidence to illustrate the unworthiness of the Jews is the story of how Jesus expelled money changers from the temple. The common thread of this story — one that is found in different versions in each of the four synoptic gospels — may be summarized by saying that it was a protest by Jesus against the alleged secularization of temple use. In effect, whoever might
render the temple subordinate to an unworthy end, specifically commercialization, was committing an evil act. Another way to say this is to suggest that Jesus was indignant at secular traffic on or even near the temple grounds.

Before one can argue the issues involved, it is necessary to read exactly what is said in each of the four synoptic gospels. I quote them below as they appear in “The Interpreter’s Bible” as published by Abington Press. Each line of text in this printing appears in two English forms: one purported to be a translation from the Greek using archaic English forms, and one using
contemporary English. I quote the contemporary version using only those verses that explicitly deal with the subject of money-changers in the temple.

Matthew 21: 12-13

12: And Jesus entered the temple of G-d and drove out all who sold and bought
in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the
seats of those who sold pigeons.

13: He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of
prayer’; but you make it a den of robbers.”

Mark 11: 15-17

15: And they come to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive
out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned
the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons;

16: And he would not allow any one to carry anything through the temple.

17: And he taught, and said to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be
called a house of prayer for all the nations?’, But you have made it a den
of robbers.”

Luke 19: 45-46

45: And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold,

46: Saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer’; but
you have made it a den of robbers.”

John: 13-16

13: The Passover of the Jews was at hand and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

14. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons,
and the money-changers at their business.

15. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out
of the temple and he poured out the coins of money changers and overturned
the tables.

16. And he told those who sold their pigeons, “Take these things away; you
shall not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”

The gospel stories are not clear on where this business activity was taking place. While it gives the impression that money-changing and animal sales were taking place “in” the temple, it requires some examination of the facts to understand the text.

According to Jewish historical sources, the temple itself was not a large building; i.e., it stood at roughly the center of Mount Moriah and was approximately 120 feet long, 40 feet wide, and 60 feet high. Outside this structure were the temple grounds, a large courtyard whose land was also
considered holy. Surrounding these grounds were the temple walls that separated and isolated the entire area from the rest of the city of Jerusalem. Immediately outside the temple walls, merchants plied trades and sold goods some of which were associated with or required by temple activities.

The temple structure itself was three stories high with its interior divided into a vestibule, an outer sanctuary, and an inner sanctuary. The inner and outer courts contained administrative, service, and utility chambers for the use of the priests and Levites. Here were stored the temple treasures, the ceremonial vestments, lighting materials for the two menorot, the musical instruments for the temple service, and the sacrificial knives. There were also pens for housing the animals to be sacrificed, areas for cutting up carcasses and taking off hides, a bakery where the shewbread was baked daily, a ritual bath, and according to one source, a woodshed (holding wood for the bakery fires).

The items of Jewish law and lore that deal with temple activities show that the entire area contained within the walls was considered so sacred and precious, that the events described by the gospel accounts as taking place “in” the temple are incomprehensible. No non-Jew could enter the temple grounds under any circumstances. Jews could not enter the temple grounds unless they were both physically and ritually clean. The laws dealing with the impermissibility of people with certain afflictions to enter specific portions of the temple area testify to the sacred treatment of the site. For example, a leper was not permitted entry into any part of Jerusalem. A person with a running sore was permitted entry into Jerusalem but not onto the grounds of the temple. A person defiled through contact with a corpse could enter Jerusalem and the grounds of the temple but not the temple court. A person who was not restricted by any of the three previously mentioned constraints (and others not mentioned) could enter the temple court but only if he were physically and ritually clean. Knowing these and other requirements for entry into the multiple stages of the temple (from outside the city of Jerusalem to inside the Holy of Holies itself), it is inconceivable that money changers or animal merchants were conducting business anywhere inside the temple walls. To suggest the contrary is to propose a hypothesis that cannot pass any test of reason, history, and Jewish law.

In the entire body of Jewish sacred writings, there is no mention or reference to any custom or practice of business activities of any sort taking place within the walls of the temple itself and it is asserted here that the purchase of animals inside the temple walls never took place under any circumstances.
It is known that markets for the sale of animals existed outside the walls of the temple and archeological evidence in support of that assertion exists.
Therefore, despite the impression given, the transactions described in the synoptic gospels must, therefore, refer to the activities that took place in such markets all of which were outside the walls of the temple. Let us speak of those activities.

At least two kinds of merchants (and probably many more) plied their trade outside the actual temple building and grounds. Some sold animals for sacrifice and others changed money, though some may have done both. These merchants were both Jews and non-Jews. Other activities, such as the selling of spices, food, and utensils may also have taken place. But since the
synoptic gospels deal with only with Jesus’ action caused by animal sellers and money-changers, this discussion is limited to those activities.

Whatever one’s contemporary view of the practice of animal sacrifice, at that time it was a part of temple activity demanded by biblical commandment, a practice that can be dated back to at least the temple of Solomon, and a ritual act that continued as long as the first and second temples stood. Three times a year, on Passover, Sukkot, and Shavuot, Jews (including whole families) who were able to make the journey arranged for a blemish-free animal to be sacrificed at the Temple.

This practice was not the aim of Jesus’ objection and his action cannot be viewed as a protest against animal sacrifice. His specific complaint was the alleged commercialization of the temple. Therefore, contemporary arguments against the practice of animal sacrifice are not relevant to the issue under discussion.

Animal merchants made a variety of species available for sacrifice. Such vendors were necessary in order to give those who went to the temple for that purpose the opportunity to purchase the central ingredient of the religious act. The presence of such merchants was due to the fact that it was extremely difficult to transport an animal without blemishing it. If it were to be taken to Jerusalem (from, for example, Galilee), the animal could be injured en route and thus become unfit for sacrifice. Besides, there was also the high cost of transporting a blemish-free animal a great distance.

Instead, the animal would be sold at market value. The money from the sale would be dedicated for the sacrifice and would be used in Jerusalem to buy an equivalent animal which would then be used in its place. In those cases where no animal was available at the place where the person who intended to sacrifice lived, he simply purchased one at the temple grounds.

Money-changers, then as now, were needed businessmen, and the grounds outside the temple walls were a very rational place for them to be. The people who required their services had to pass through the area. Since coins were the medium of exchange, weight considerations resulted in the transportation of a few coins of high value which were then exchanged into a number of coins of smaller value. Animal merchants did not give change. Vendors making change is a contemporary custom. One paid for goods, including animals, with exact and specific coin. Second, travelers arriving from distant lands had to be able to change currency for locally used money. Third, there were temple taxes that were required to be paid and, where needed, the money changer provided the correct coin for all these activities, though taxes could also be collected at administrative centers around the country.

Obviously, both animal sellers and money-changers performed their needed services for profit. It would have been inconceivable for them not to have done so and there is absolutely nothing wrong with these activities taking place on the grounds outside the temple walls. The synoptic gospels have made the situation into a problem by presenting the idea that the mixing of these
commercial acts outside the temple walls with the religious activities inside them is, somehow, an inappropriate act.

However, there are few churches in the world today, including the Vatican, that do not have shops where mementos may be purchased, and one wonders what is the difference between the two acts? Though they differ in degree, they do not differ in kind. Both are commercial enterprises that take place in proximity to a place of worship. Such souvenir shops are rarely in the same physical location as the site of religious ceremonies, though they may be in other rooms
of the same building. In some unknown number of cases, religious objects, or items of veneration are sold in the sanctuary itself. At one time it was against many fundamentalist church policies to allow the sale of any materials on church property. However, that regulation has begun to change as groups invited to perform request the right to sell souvenirs. Some churches have found that they have an available resource within the church body to help sell recordings, tapes, books, and other items for profit.

Now let us examine Jesus’ action in light of the above analysis. John states that Jesus did three things: (1) using a whip of his own construction, he drove out both the animal merchants and the animals; (2) he “poured out” the money changer’s coins, and (3) he overturned tables (presumably those of the money-changers). These actions are remarkable. Not only is Jesus alleged to have used violence to drive people away from the temple grounds, he also overturned furniture and even drove animals away. While Jesus made have had some antipathy for the people who performed sales (though I have stated above that any animosity towards commercialism outside of the temple walls would be an irrational act), that he would drive animals away makes no sense at all.
They were there for a specific, legitimate, and purposeful reason. One can even go so far as to say that without animal merchants and money-changers, the number of certain religiously important temple activities would have been reduced in quantity. So Jesus’ action can be interpreted as an act counter to the religion that, by objecting to secular activities, he claims he was trying to cleanse.

A note of commentary in The Interpreter’s Bible on this specific moment states the passive interpretation that “in the confusion the tables were overturned.” Such a conclusion appears to contradict the text which explicitly states that Jesus overturned the tables. Further, it must have been considered to be an important element of the tale or else it would not have been so specifically documented in John.

With respect to the whip that is described as being made of cords, there is much to be said. First there is insufficient evidence to conclude on whether Jesus used the whip or simply threatened with it. All four synoptic gospels use the same phrase; i.e., “drove them out.” Second, from this single phrase in John may be derived an extensive structure of arguments in defense of war and other kinds of violence, all supported by the assertion that the money-changers and animal merchants were actually struck, an assumption made without justification; i.e., he could have struck the whip on the ground to frighten the merchants. Whatever may be concluded about the relation of Jesus’ teaching to the permissibility of war, that doctrine cannot be defended on the
basis of what is said in this passage. Whatever one’s interpretation of the act, it is in direct contradiction to the Xian perspective of the kindly, pacifistic Jesus.

There is an interesting quantitative aspect to John when he suggests that “[Jesus] poured out” the coins of the money-changers. One must, therefore, presume that the coins were poured out of something (bags, sacks?), not simply lying on the table. And if there were enough coins to be held in a container, then it is clear that John’s position is that there was a nontrivial amount of
money involved. Luke, on the other hand, makes mention of neither money nor money-changers, while Matthew and Mark speak only of the tables of the money-changers being overturned.. One wonders why John, the author of the most antisemitic gospel, should be alone in his excessive focus on the quantity of money.

This particular gospel story has added fuel to the fire of antisemitism. It may be the source of the “Jews and money” calumny. One Southern Baptist seminary professor suggested that the exchange of money was not the problem.
Instead it was that the individuals buying the money were cheated in the process by having the exchange rate weighed heavily in favor of the money changers. (Anyone who has bought and sold currency at an airport understands this phenomenon.) Yet, except for the unexplained use of the word “robbers,” there is no suggestion in the gospel stories of unethical activity on the part
of the money-changers. One can only attribute such a suggestion to the inherently antisemitic perspective of Jews and money.

The entire story is suggested in some quarters as a metaphor in which the anger of Jesus and his action to drive people out of the temple is synonymous with the anger of G-d towards the Jews for their behavior, and His consequent repudiation of the convenant. But this appears to be a triumphalistic interpretation of an otherwise unreliable story.

Finally this: alone, the gospel of Mark states that Jesus would not permit anyone to carry anything through the temple. Why only Mark feels that the item is of importance is unclear. However, is the purpose of the statement to show that Jews were so disrespectful of the Temple that they carried objects through it; i.e., used it as a short cut to transport items of commerce from one side
of Jerusalem to the other? In this case, the remark can only be interpreted as a variation on the assertion about the secularization of the Temple. The phrase is sufficiently imprecise that the exact activity that is being objected to can only be guessed at.

CONCLUSION

Being approached by missionaries is not a new activity, nor does it surprise me when it happens. And, depending on the approach, I am not at all offended.
Such people are simply trying to give me what they perceive as a treasure, and, as such, their action may be seen as noble, good, and worthy. That they are trying to convert me to another faith is understandable, but the method used is obscene. They do not offer me, as a person with millennia of religious riches, greater religious treasures. Instead they begin with the premise that I function in a backwards and obsolete faith, one in which their help is needed to lead me from darkness into the light. Not only is such a premise ignorant, it is insulting to me (which is unimportant) and to G-d (which is paramount).

This analysis of the synoptic gospel versions of the tale of Jesus and the money changers was for the purpose of understanding the specifics of what I believe to be a tale of questionable interpretation, and the workings of some missionary groups. However, insofar as the broader issues involved, there is yet something else to be said, and I would like to say it with a paraphrase of the words of Era Paris, whose book, “End of Days” deals with the consequences of 15th century Spain’s demands for religious uniformity.

The reasons why Xianity wishes to have all Jews convert is, from the Xian point of view, entirely logical. First, Xianity believes that baptism of all Jews will bring about the second coming which, it is presumed, will move the world to a better, happier place. (As a nontrivial but parenthetical remark that requires a completely separate discussion, the failure of Jesus to return is likely to be blamed on Jewish intransigence.) Second, religious consistency — which has been shown to be entirely impractical even within Xianity itself — is seen as a way to help resolve social ills. Put more simply, the wish of the most insignificant missionary is the goal of universal theological conformity. Even today we see misguided efforts to enact laws to establish Xianity as the official state religion of the United States. John Bayard Anderson, a 1980 independent presidential candidate actually began the governmental mechanics to amend the constitution to this effect. This would be an act that would eventually lead to a particular brand of religious devotion becoming a condition of membership in the state itself, and other, non-tolerated faiths becoming enemies of both G-d and the body politic.

2013 április 23
9:20 de.

Látom, néhány túlmagyar felkapta a vizet, noha a cikk nem Magyarországról szól, hanem a diktatúrák természetéről.
Mi is lehet ennek az oka? Én nem is értem! Vagy túlságosan találva érzik magukat?
Nos, ebben az esetben a hiba nem a tanulmányban van, mivel nem rólunk írták, hanem mi haladunk ezen tematika mentén.
Hát ez a cumi gyerekek!
Cup-cup!

Nem olvastad a cikket?Segítek:

Talán nem kell hangsúlyoznunk, hogy nekünk magyaroknak, most, 2013 -ban, Orbán Viktor rezsimjének harmadik évében miért olyan aktuális a felsorolás minden szava! A lista minden pontja mintha csak rólunk szólna,…”

2013 április 22
3:55 du.

“Tökéletes. Rólunk szól.”

Valóban.Rólatok szól.