Not according to the IAU.

According to the IAU, "planets and dwarf planets are two distinct classes of objects" – in other words, "dwarf planets" are not planets.

Ceres was considered a planet in the first half of the 1800's, along with a bunch of things in the asteroid belt. There was a point where there were 64 planets.

In the present state of knowledge astronomers give us the following list:
Sixty-four "primary planets" revolving round the Sun as our Earth does.
Twenty satellites, including our Moon.
Of the sixty-four primary planets fifty-six are asteroids, comparatively small bodies, all of which were discovered in this century, and fifty-two since the year 1844.]

The anno domini (AD) dating system started in 525. The concept of zero did not make it to Europe until the 11th century.

No. I copied and pasted that. The definition says 'the Sun'. There was a proposal to classify 'exoplanets' but the IAU never accepted it, and so those large masses orbiting other stars remain undefined.

Exoplanets are addressed in a 2003 position statement issued by a now-defunct IAU Working Group on Extrasolar Planets. However, this position statement was never proposed as an official IAU resolution and was never voted on by IAU members.

The stupidest consequence of the definition is not the classification of Pluto, but that there are only eight planets in the entire universe.

a planet is a celestial body that:

1. is in orbit around the Sun

Leap year creator

That's Julius Caesar. Sort of...

who devour widows’ houses

OK, I'll give you that. It's a full chapter after he drove out the buyers and sellers, with only irrelevant preaching in between, but it's in there.

Poor exegesis incoming

Of course it is poor exegesis, I started with "If we take it literally".

Orthodox Study Bible

What? Because orthodox is the one true version of Christianity. You say it yourself it is an interpretation, and no interpretation is more authoritative than any other.

“money changing” was an exploitative racket

You could make the argument that any business is exploitative, inside the temple and outside the temple, but he just kicked them out of the temple, he didn't outright ban commerce. This is leaning toward option 2. Now, how does that justify assault?

where merchants were taking advantage of poor widows etc

Where are you getting that from? The bible says nothing of the sort. It says "And He entered the temple area and began to drive out those who were selling and buying on the temple grounds" Both selling and buying. Jesus cast out the poor old widows who just wanted to worship the way God told them to. The vendors were selling offerings that people could burn as part of their worship and animals to be sacrificed. They were providing goods that were necessary for worship at the temple. It is not at all clear what Jesus was complaining about.

If we take it literally, I see two options:

1. He did not like that there were burnt offerings and animal sacrifices, but Jesus alludes to the temple being a house of prayer, which is a reference to Isaiah 56:7 "their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people." The burnt offerings and animal sacrifices were intended by God.
2. He just didn't like commerce within the temple. He complains about the temple being turned into a den of thieves, not about there being thieves at all. Which means as long as the den of thieves was outside the temple Jesus would have been fine with it.

As far as I see, neither of these justify assault.

wtf It's really not the same.

Does "be kind to each other" include attacking them with a whip?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple

11 million in Canada. 72 million in DR Congo. It's not even close.

I think that is DR Congo. More french speakers than France.