Jesus in the temple

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

For me it is about all reading the Gospel and relying on the Holy Spirit to provide me with the insight and message that is behind what the Gospel is saying ------it is the message behind the words that is important for me
How do you always seem to extract the worst possible messages from it? That's a skill. Can you also squeeze an apple and only extract the cyanide?
 
Economic disparity and inequality is top down created and it divides people like invisible lightning rods.
And ... on top of it all when a politician suggests a Universal Guaranteed Income ... just a tiny move in the right direction of leveling the playing field ... everyone gets all aghast that the 'deplorables' should be trusted with 'sacred' benefits that they have not earned. And it is not just the very rich that are against it ... it is your very neighbor that 'wishes you well' but does not really believe that you have earned 'wellness' as much as they have.
 
GeoFee ---your quote on page 1 ------Jesus anger is directed at those who fund temple economies by selling blood sacrifices deemed necessary to salvation -----

I disagree here with your statement ------their is a deeper meaning here for Jesus doing what He did -------for me it had nothing to do with economies -----it had everything to do with Jesus Protecting His Fathers place of worship ----buying and selling of animals --tax collecting ----and other corrupt economies we going on all around Jesus ----He never said that people should not set up their businesses be it corrupt or incorrupt -----Jesus warned about how money can become and enemy and ruin peoples lives if it is allowed to have power our them ------

His wrath came as a result of misuse of the setting they were in He says -------Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”------He never says to them stop all your corrupt businesses and open up the business I tell you to do ----- ------
And
Jesus turned the animals out who were used for sacrifices because Jesus was conveying that there would soon be a different sacrifice and the animals would no longer be needed to cover sin -----He was making a statement here as the scripture below tells us ----

This is from John 2 -----
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+2&version=NIV

Jesus Clears the Temple Courts
13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”[c]

18 The Jews then responded to him,What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.


There is not a scripture that says Jesus ever told people that they need to close their corrupt businesses ----Jesus came for one purpose ------to preach the Good News and to teach the good and right use of money ------

This is my view

This is interesting ------
People also ask
How many verses talk about money in the Bible?
2000 verses

The Bible has a lot to say about money, wealth, greed, contentment and a variety of other topics as they pertain to our financial and spiritual lives. Over the years I've heard it said more than once that the Bible has well over 2000 verses about money.Apr 19, 2019
 
Just so we are clear on 1John 3:17 -----this is talking about Born Again Christians -----so brother here is a fellow true believer -----

verses 16 -17 here

16 We understand what love is when we realize that Christ gave his life for us. That means we must give our lives for other believers.
17 Now, suppose a person has enough to live on and notices another believer in need. How can God’s love be in that person if he doesn’t bother to help the other believer?
 
And ... on top of it all when a politician suggests a Universal Guaranteed Income ... just a tiny move in the right direction of leveling the playing field ... everyone gets all aghast that the 'deplorables' should be trusted with 'sacred' benefits that they have not earned. And it is not just the very rich that are against it ... it is your very neighbor that 'wishes you well' but does not really believe that you have earned 'wellness' as much as they have.
I'm not against UBI but it's not an adequate replacement for every other public social service. I wouldn't vote for Yang just because of that, because the rest of his platform sucks - but people fell for it.
 
I'm not against UBI but it's not an adequate replacement for every other public social service.

I would hope no one is pushing the narrative that it is. It would replace multiple income support programs like EI and Welfare with a single program but that's about it (though that would make a huge difference both for those receiving it and for the cost of administering it). Medicare (including pharmacare and other possible extensions of it) would still be another whole program, for instance. Even if UBI replaced EI, there should be still government-backed retraining and job search assistance, for another.
 
I would hope no one is pushing the narrative that it is. It would replace multiple income support programs like EI and Welfare with a single program but that's about it (though that would make a huge difference both for those receiving it and for the cost of administering it). Medicare (including pharmacare and other possible extensions of it) would still be another whole program, for instance. Even if UBI replaced EI, there should be still government-backed retraining and job search assistance, for another.
That’s still wrong...it needs to be on top of those things where it’s inadequate. Because someone with a disability would fall short while wealthy folks get extra pocket money. Government backed training and job search assistance is not what you think it is, either. Word on the street calls it “poverty pimping”...I worked as a “poverty pimp” for time. I thought it would be different. It was eye opening.

FFS the US...and Yang is American...goes into trillions of dollars of government debt for their damn military but they won’t trim from there and put it into robust social program spending. It’s bloody ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Because someone with a disability would fall short while wealthy folks get extra pocket money.

How so? If it is done right (say, with a negative income tax) only those below the income threshold get topped up. The wealthy would get nothing out of it and might even pay more in taxes. And a higher threshold could be set for those with disabilities, which would be easier to claim and administer than the current patchwork of programs and credits. IOW, people with disabilities could get more IF it is done right. Our current system is an overly complicated mess and a well-done BI system could both streamline it and improve benefits.

I realize now you and Rita were talking UBI. I was not. I was talking a Guaranteed Income that would only apply to people who would be on EI, welfare, etc. now. Folks like me would be paying into that system, not getting paid.
 
Last edited:
How so? If it is done right (say, with a negative income tax) only those below the income threshold get topped up. The wealthy would get nothing out of it and might even pay more in taxes. And a higher threshold could be set for those with disabilities, which would be easier to claim and administer than the current patchwork of programs and credits. IOW, people with disabilities could get more IF it is done right. Our current system is an overly complicated mess and a well-done BI system could both streamline it and improve benefits.

I realize now you and Rita were talking UBI. I was not. I was talking a Guaranteed Income that would only apply to people who would be on EI, welfare, etc. now. Folks like me would be paying into that system, not getting paid.
And one day you might need social assistance. It can happen to anyone. You never know when something might happen in your life and you lose your security. I have paid into it too, my family has paid into it and as far as they are concerned that’s their major contribution to me...so... they assume the help is there even when it isn’t enough, and fighting for better is my responsibility. Even poor people pay some taxes in the form of sales tax everyday. They don’t earn enough on poverty wages to pay income taxes and live. They don’t own property to pay property taxes on...but they shouldn’t be blamed for social spending. We need robust and generous social spending to get people out of the margins. The billionaires should be pissing everybody off, not the marginalized folks. They’re tying up the equality which would improve the health of society.
 
Last edited:
They don’t earn enough on poverty wages to pay income taxes and live.

Which is exactly what a proper BI system should fix. Below the threshold, instead of paying income tax, you get topped up to the threshold. It is really social assistance delivered in a more efficient way. Lose your job? BI will pay you the threshold amount until you are back working? Unable to work because of a disability or injury? BI pays you the threshold in addition to any medical assistance from things like workers compensation. Working poor? BI tops you up to the threshold. And so on. The only trick is setting the threshold high enough.
 
Which is exactly what a proper BI system should fix. Below the threshold, instead of paying income tax, you get topped up to the threshold. It is really social assistance delivered in a more efficient way. Lose your job? BI will pay you the threshold amount until you are back working? Unable to work because of a disability or injury? BI pays you the threshold in addition to any medical assistance from things like workers compensation. Working poor? BI tops you up to the threshold. And so on. The only trick is setting the threshold high enough.
I guess. I’m on the fence. The transition could have people fall through the cracks, also. Those who need income support and need it to be reliable. But what I was really getting at is Andrew Yang has a weak platform.
 
Just so we are clear on 1John 3:17 -----this is talking about Born Again Christians -----so brother here is a fellow true believer -----

verses 16 -17 here

16 We understand what love is when we realize that Christ gave his life for us. That means we must give our lives for other believers.
17 Now, suppose a person has enough to live on and notices another believer in need. How can God’s love be in that person if he doesn’t bother to help the other believer?

so brother ...
16 We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?
18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.

Who is your brother?
 
Those who need income support and need it to be reliable. But what I was really getting at is Andrew Yang has a weak platform.


Andrew Yang is proposing a 'Freedom Dividend' for all citizens of America age 18 or over.

Every citizen age 18 and over receives $1000.00 a month no questions asked.

Without having to account for how that money is spent.
 
Andrew Yang is proposing a 'Freedom Dividend' for all citizens of America age 18 or over.

Every citizen age 18 and over receives $1000.00 a month no questions asked.

Without having to account for how that money is spent.
But that’s not enough to run for president on. It’s not enough for poor people to live on while big tech maintains monopolies and domination over fair, livable, and meaningful human labour. He has a weak platform. Love that Oprah trick though...he may has well have said “look under your seats for a prize!”

The core of his platform is about baiting people with a bit of a cash stipend, and nothing else.
 
She’s got a pretty good platform and a better understanding of the problems in the world...but I am starting to think she’s just a bit too willing to turn a blind eye to big corporate exploitation herself, or doesn’t have a solid grasp of it. Bernie is far more experienced. She’d make a good Reparations Minister.
 
Back
Top