Do Christians get upset by this biblical contradiction?

Oh man and there are a lot more. Obviously they don't get upset. They are Christians because they don't question. Duh.

The moneychangers were not even IN the Temple. This is yet another attempt by the new testament to make Jews look greedy, cunning, and deceitful.

Just like anywhere else, if you go to another country, you'll need to exchange your currency for that country's currency.

In those days people travelled from all over the known world to come to the Temple and offer their sacrifices - Jews and Gentiles both.

They did not prefer, oftentimes, to travel with the animals needed. So they would buy them when they got to Jerusalem.

In order to buy them, they needed to exchange their own currency for that of Israel's, the Shekel.

The Torah gives the laws on what can be charged for providing such a service, and those who provided it stayed WELL within those limits set by the Torah. The people who changed currencies for the travellers were providing a much needed, and a holy service to those people.

Furthermore, this was not done within the Temple, but a ways away outside of it.

The New Testament lies repeatedly about the Jews, about Jewish law and why it was followed, and about the Jews themselves, taking every opportunity to demonize them and make them look greedy, cunning, sneaky, robotic, moronic, and blind.

Such as how it repeatedly holds up the Pharisees as being corrupt, when historically they were not at all. The New Testament lies like this, throughout.

And you guys say that you dont have dogma............LOL.

William Hendricksen has a very succinct discussion of the matter. In his commentary on Matthew, he writes:

“That the Gospel writers were not mere copyists but independent authors, each using his own method, appears very clearly in the present instance [21:18-22]. Since part of the Fig Tree story occurred on Monday and part on Tuesday (Mark 11:11,12,19,20), with the cleansing of the temple taking place (on Monday) between these two parts, it is clear that this story could be handled in two ways: (a) chronologically or; (b) topically. Mark follows the first method, describing the first part of the Fig Tree story, the part that took place on Monday morning, in 11:12-14; then, the cleansing of the temple, later that same day, in 11:15-19; and finally, the second part of the Fig Tree story, the part that happened on Tuesday morning, in 11:20-24. Matthew, on the other hand, uses the second method. He wishes to tell the entire story all at once, in one connected and uninterrupted account. In doing this he does not come into real conflict with Mark, for his (Matthew’s) time indications are very indefinite” (p. 773).

The writers of the bible were inspired by God, but they were human and can make errors. It is very likely Mark and Matthew (not the disciple) were not present when these events took place, Mark got his information from Peter, we have no idea where Matthew got his information from.

Christ is about the virtues of love, forgiveness, humility, hope, charity etc, small inconsistencies will not cause Christians to loose any sleep.

Matthew would have been there since he was one of the first 12. I do not know if Mark was there.

Who says Mark and Matthew were there?

Mark is the oldest gospel and was first written down at least 2 decades after Jesus's resurrection. It was based on stories about Jesus that got written and re-written many times over.

A Christian who would be "upset" at such a trivial discrepancy would probably labor under the mistaken idea that chronological exactness and God's truth are the same thing.

Who cares? . . . it's not a salvation issue.

Did you think of that question before you got sour grapes, or after?

Answer: You didn't have the intellect to discover that earth-shattering

discrepancy . . . you just went trawling for it in a sour grapes website.

You appear to be the one "upset" about it ... (get a life)

It's just one of dozens of contradictions and blatant errors in the bible. It was cobbled together from ancient texts of dubious authorship and origin. It's is mere mythology and fables, not to be taken seriously as an authoritative documentation of history.

Lets see Temple cleansed

Money Changers Upset

Fig Tree Cursed

Same Same Same

Where is the contradiction?

The gospels are not a strict History, nor are they neccessarily entirely chronological, they are the message of the Christ...and they are consistant

Now if one said Fig tree and one said apple tree....or if one said temple and the other said joes barber shop

we might consider that

Failure on your part son.

Keep in mind the sources you are using. Do you suppose that they might be just slightly biased?

do the words "upsetting" and "clear" have the same meaning to you?

interesting