Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

You just have no idea. Silver of an exact consistency and purity is the value, and not the coin. A % of all Temple takings must have been given in tribute to Rome, it was one of the main siurces of taxation, and Rome could use the silver in any way it. pleased.

If a cut of the Temple revenue was given to Rome on a regular basis, it must have been a well-kept secret. Not impossible, just kept very quiet if it did really happen. Josephus records two instances when Temple treasury money was diverted by the Romans. Pilate took some money from the Temple to build aqueducts, which caused quite an outcry that Pilate had his soldiers suppress. (The Wars of the Jews Book 2 Chapter 9 Section 4) But it was the procurator Florus taking money from the Temple treasury that set off the great unrest that would lead to the War. (The Wars of the Jews Book 2 Chapter 14 Section 6)

Taxation of its provinces was of major importance to Rome but with the Temple Tax being a mere half-shekel per adult male a year plus whatever was taken in during the Festivals etc., it does not seem that skimming the Temple would have been a main source of revenue. There were already oppressive taxes levied by the Romans on everyone and everything.

And if you think that Jews would willingly handle such disgraceful abominations as coins with pagan Gods and graven images upon them then you've lost the plot.

Nonetheless the Tyrian shekel and half-shekel were what was used for the Temple. (Are you actually disputing that well documented fact?) The type of currency required is specified in Exodus 30:11-16 as the half-shekel for every Jewish male over the age of 20. That combined with the reputation for purity of the Tyrian shekel overrode the concerns about ‘graven images’. The importance of using the shekel can be seen by the Jews submitting to the Roman requirement that the shekels they minted look just like the original Tyrian shekel. This avoided any perception of Jews being allowed to mint their own money. It was a compromise. Either ignore the idolatry or violate another commandment. And anyway, what other coin could be used that would not violate the idolatry commandment? See this: Beged Ivri -- Jerusalem's Tyrian Shekel

And Jesus preferred to deal in kind.

What does this mean?

Please don't quite the history of the denarius over 500 years in relation to the Great Temple's silver coinage.

The point was that the Tyrian shekel was very pure and remained so. The denarius suffered debasement both in purity and weight throughout its entire period of usage. After the War, when the ‘Temple Tax’ became payment directly to the Romans, the denarius was one way of paying that tax as seen in the original Greek for ‘penny’ in Matthew 17:27.

Rubbish. If you actually believe that John's account with three passover reports is the true story, instead of one passover incident over an 11-12 month story then you've lost the plot. The last supper was not a sacrifical meal, mate, it was a last supper. Sacrificial meals were eaten in the Temple refectories.

John chose not to repeat the ‘same old story’ found in the three Synoptic Gospels and has the last supper not be a Passover Seder as they, just as his storyline in general is quite different from theirs. As any kind of record of what may really have happened, John is out of the running. But in Mark 14:12-17, Matthew 26:17-20 and Luke 22:7-14 the last supper is very explicitly a Passover Seder. Paul calls Jesus the Paschal Lamb and tries to link this to sin atonement which it definitely is not. Paul needed the sin atonement idea for his depiction of the meaning of Jesus getting killed. Why should he pick Passover? Perhaps Jesus did get killed while in Jerusalem for Passover.

Your understanding of the Passover Seder in the Second Temple era is seriously lacking. Here is something that will help alleviate your ignorance of the subject. Basically, the lambs are sacrificed in the Temple, roasted and eaten by groups of people inn their homes.

Performing The Passover Offering

The Passover Bands

The Torah requires that the Passover be eaten in a "band," in a large communal meal, as opposed to each man for himself. For by gathering as many people as possible to participate in each group, the Torah thus brings about harmony and an immense feeling of unity amongst Israel. This feeling amplifies the nation's joy. Such a consideration applies even more to the poverty-stricken; the joy of the Passover celebration is simply not complete unless these individuals are present as part of the community. And if such sensitivity towards the poor should normally be the rule, then it is especially true on this holy night, the night of the Exodus, when we celebrate the transition from slavery to freedom. Thus Maimonides incorporates these considerations into law:

"When one brings festive offerings... he should not partake of them alone, joined only by his wife and children; he would not be fulfilling his obligation properly in this manner. Rather, he is commanded to bring joy to the poor and unfortunate as well, as it is written: 'And the Levi, and the stranger, and the orphan and the widow' should also be given food and drink according to his means... Therefore, he must invite Levites to his table, to lift their spirits" (Laws of Chagigah, 2:14).

The Passover Offering is Offered

Each group of pilgrims sent one or two representatives to the Temple to bring its pre- designated sheep as the Passover offering. Once the congregation arrived in the Courtyard, the gates were closed and the service was conducted to the sound of the levites' trumpet- blasts. The entire assembly sang the Hallel prayers of thanksgiving together, led by the levite choir.

Those standing in the Courtyard saw row upon row of priests who held the special silver and gold vessels called mizrak, used for gathering the blood of the offering. One row handled golden vessels exclusively, and one row silver. The priest standing closest to the altar receives the vessel, and pours the contents on the foundation of the altar.

The Offering is Roasted

The Passover offering, after being offered in the Holy Temple, is roasted by each group and family in one of the special ovens set up all over Jerusalem to accommodate the needs of the festive pilgrims. The sheep or lamb is roasted whole, in keeping with the Biblical requirement, on a dry pomegranate branch. The style of the ovens enabled the whole lamb to be roasted quickly.

The Passover Seder

After the meal was prepared, each group reclined at their respective table to conduct the festive Passover seder. They spoke of the miracles of the Exodus, ate matzot and bitter herbs dipped in the haroset of the seder plate, and concluded by eating from the Passover offering.

As midnight approaches, the entire household raise their cups for the singing of the hallel prayers of thanks. All were affected by this special atmosphere, as the festive hallel burst forth from every house.

The Temple Institute: Articles: The Festival of Passover: "Time of Our Freedom"

Atonement ritual costs FEES! The Baptist was against the whole corrupted money-go-round.
The Baptist:- Matthew; {3:7} O generation of vipers
Jesus: Matthew; {12:34} O generation of vipers


The Baptist was ensuring that no visits to the Temple would be required.
The whole journey was a rip off, from the services of the locals to the Prieshood's fees, to the money-chage fees.

The three required pilgrimage Festivals of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles were not related to the forgiveness of sins. As I already showed and you ignored, only in certain special cases was a Temple sacrifice needed for forgiveness. John’s baptisms would have no effect on the Temple.

Matthew 3:5-7
5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

John is speaking to Pharisees and Sadducees. Despite your repeated insistence this does not make them priests. There were many Pharisees and Sadducees. There were not many priests. Priests had duties in Jerusalem about a hundred miles or so from the Jordan river where John is baptizing. It is unlikely that there were priests present. In any event, Matthew calls them Pharisees and Sadducees, not priests.

Likewise in Matthew 12, Jesus is speaking to Pharisees. No mention of priests It is not certain exactly where Jesus was supposed to be at the time. Mathew 11:1 says “And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.” The cities of the twelve would be in Galilee where they were recruited. Matthew 13:1 says “The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.” Sounds like the Sea of Galilee. Again, this is very far away from Jerusalem where priests would mostly be. And Matthew calls them Pharisees, not priests.

Your obsession with the Temple priesthood is just a conspiracy theory fantasy for which you have provided no reason to believe.

I thought you needed good old Wiki.

If you check the sources cited, Wiki can be very handy. OTOH you offer no sources whatsoever for your claims despite having been requested to support those claims numerous times and substantial material and argumentation being presented against your claims.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Wrong, Your key features are only essential to the Christian story, not the Jesus story. And they are fabrications, just as Christians fabricated Josephus's entry about Jesus.


I already told you to edit out any parts which try to tie N actions and conditions to ancient prophecies, and any actions which are spun into supernatural miracles. But I do accept that many of the amazing things that Jesus did could well have happened and appeared (more or less) as reported.

You can trawl through G-John for useful anecdotes but you can trash the timeline used as junk. Either that or trash G-Mark's timeline although that appears to be the real one to me.

Matthew and Luke, neither being even partial witnesses, needed to copy G-Mark and G-Q + one other report each into their gospels, so you might as well just trawl those for useful info and incidents.

The parts you want to edit out are exactly the parts that are essential to the structure of the Gospels. There were no prior Gospels that got changed. They were written as is, with only minor alterations that stand out. A real historical Jesus might be imagined from pieces here and there in Mark but there was no prior written work that got modified by ‘Christians’. If there was, the original ending of Mark would never have stood.

The Gospel of john reflects the evolution of christology and the perception of the end of days as not happening soon after all. As far as uncovering anything about the real Jesus, it is useless.

Personally, I see no reason for the existence of Q. Matthew based his story on Mark but created new material for his specific purpose – Jesus as the (very) Jewish Messiah. Luke also used Mark but mostly he created episodes based on Matthew’s themes but turned inside out to make Jesus universally relevant. If you want to explain the common material in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark by the Q hypothesis, you have to explain the differences between Matthew and Luke by even more missing documents, M and L, that each one had but the other did not. Allow for large scale invention rather than referral to theoretical documents and it all fits together.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Ah ha! So you never read all my post which clearly said that it was the duty of Antipas to go and bring John in because he was on the EAST bank of the Jordan, and outsidse the Prefect's authority. Hmmm?

And you think that the Northern Jewish peasants came south through Samaria? No no...... they came along the East bank of the Jordan.

And John was Baptising at various places along the Jordan as (no doubt) was Jesus's group at times.

You keep avoiding the basic issue that John and/or Jesus baptizing would have no effect at all on Temple revenue. The pilgrimages were not related to forgiveness of sin and only certain unusual sins required a Temple sacrifice. Fantasies about making a long journey even longer and harder to avoid seeing Samaritans are just that. The truth is you had no idea of the geography involved until you saw those maps, did you?


Also, what is the scenario you envision? Pilgrims from the North, in order to avoid those nasty Samaritans, went out of their way to cross the Jordan. Then when they got to where they would cross again to reach Jerusalem, they saw John, got baptized and went home?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

The Northern peasants may only have visited the Temple for one feast each year. But temple sacrifices were many, where possible:-
Here:- (Thanks to Tumah)
Sacrifices are split into two major types: the individual's sacrifice and the public's sacrifice.

The individual's sacrifice was paid for by the individual. If I recall correctly, Jerusalem had a lower market and upper market. The upper market had all the animal stalls, money changers and other assorted Temple-centric merchants. As it was prohibited to take your money belt up the Temple Mount, you'd purchase your animal or change your money for the Half Shekel there and then ascend the Temple Mount.

The public sacrifice was paid for by everyone, from the Half Shekel everyone had to bring once a year. There were a number of public sacrifices as well as the incense (burnt twice daily 365 days a year plus an extra three portions for the Day of Atonement) that fall under this category.

There are eight major categories:

The Burnt Offering, the Sin Offering, the Fault Offering, the Peace Offering, the Tithe Offering, the First-born Offering, the Passover Offering and the Meal Offering. They're categories are based on different rules that apply to them.

In addition to the animal itself, every Burnt Offering, Peace Offering as well as the Sin Offering and Fault Offering of a Leper is brought with a Meal Offering and a Wine Libation. Each individual animal was brought with its own Offerings and Libations. The Meal Offering was burnt on the altar completely. The wine was poured into one of two holes (one was for wine the other for the Water Libation brought once a year on Tabernacles) that lead to a space under the altar ~ 1.5' x 1.5'. See Below for Meal Offerings.

Almost all sacrifices have at least certain parts that are burnt on the Altar of Burnt Offerings. Those are: the fat encasing the innards of the animal (I believe it's called caul fat) kidneys and the fat on them and the flanks near them, a piece of the liver that juts out as well as a small piece of the main body of the liver.

Another commonality between the sacrifices is that if they were not completely eaten within the allotted time or became ritually impure or invalid, they were required to be burned at a designated place outside the Temple.

Burnt Offering

Burnt Offerings are called as such, because they are burnt entirely on the altar with the exception of the skin (of animals) which was given to the priests. They were slaughtered in the northern area of the Inner Courtyard and it's blood was collected there as well. It's blood was sprinkled on the altar twice, once at two different corners (NE and SW), such that the blood went on all four sides.

There are three major types of Burnt Offerings:

Voluntary Offerings

Donation Burnt Offering (Lev. 1) - the Donation Offering is a voluntary offering. If a person makes a vow to bring a Burnt Offering for whatever reason, this is what he brings. It has a slight atonement aspect as it can be used to atone for a handful of sins that do not have a punishment or sacrifice associated with them.

Provision for the Altar (Lev. 1:2) - Money left over from the Half Shekel tax that was not needed for regular year-round sacrifices, was used to buy additional sacrifices that were burned when there were no sacrifices that were currently burning on the altar. This sacrifice is considered a public voluntary offering.

Obligatory Personal Sacrifices

Sight Offering (Deut. 16:16) - Every one of the Three Pilgramages (Passover, Weeks, Tabernacles), its required that one bring this sacrifice on the first day (or the following days if the first day is missed). This sacrifice can be brought from bull, ram or sheep.

Puerperal Offering (Lev. 12:6-8) - Forty days after giving birth to a male and eighty days after giving birth to a female, a puerperal mother has to bring this sacrifice as well as a Sin Offering. This sacrifice is either a lamb within it's first year or if she's poor, a dove or pigeon.

(Note: Yes, puerperal is a word. I was surprised too.)

Rising and Falling Offering (Lev. 5:1-12) - Brought for (1) a swear accidentally made in vain or unfulfilled oath, or (2) purposely falsely swearing in court that one has not testimony to present in favor of a party or (3) accidentally entering the Temple or eating a sacrifice while impure. Called so because of the three options one has with regards to the form of sacrifice depending on the degree of wealth the person has. In the middle option, two birds can be brought, one of which is a burnt offering.

Note: There are other sacrifices that have secondary options for the poor and are often called "Rising and Falling Offerings" as well. However this one is distinct in that it has three options instead of two.

Convert's Offering (Num. 15:14) - A convert has to bring this sacrifice from either an animal or two birds (dove or pigeon) both of which will be treated as Burnt Offerings.

Leper's Offering (not really leprosy) (Lev. 14:10) - Eight days after the leper is purified, he brings a lamb or if he can't afford that, a dove or pigeon.

Nazirite's Offering (Num. 6:10, 14) - A Nazirite who became impure through contact with a dead body before the length of his vow is completed brings two doves or pigeons. When he completes his vow, he brings a lamb.

Flow Offering (not for rhyming skill) (Lev. 15:14-15, 29-30) - A male of female who has had certain types of abnormal emissions bring two birds one of which is a Burnt Offering.

Ram of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:3) - Among the sacrifices the High Priest brings over the course of the Day of Atonement is a personal Burnt Offering in the form of a ram for himself and his household.
Obligatory Public Sacrifices

Perpetual Offering (Num. 28:3-4) - Brought twice daily: in the morning and the afternoon. This sacrifice is brought from a lamb.

Additional Offering - There are eight additional offerings brought at various times of the year.

Sabbath (Num. 28:9) - Two lambs

New Moon (Num. 28:11) - Two bulls, one ram, seven sheep

Passover (Num. 28:19) - Two bulls, one ram, seven sheep each of the seven days

Weeks (Num. 28:27) - Two bulls, one ram, seven sheep

Tabernacles (Num. 29:13-34) - Two rams and seven sheep each of the seven sheep. In addition to that, 13 bulls are brought the first day, 12 the second, etc. until the seventh day when 7 are brought.

Eighth Day of Convocation (Num. 29:36) - One bull, one ram and seven sheep.

New Year (Num. 29:2) - One bull, one ram, seven sheep.

Day of Atonement (Num. 29:8) - One bull, one ram, seven sheep

Brought with the Sheaf Offering (Lev. 23:12) - On the second day of Passover, together with the barely Sheaf Offering, a lamb was brought as a burnt offering (in addition to the regular Additional Offering).

Brought with the Two Breads (Lev. 23:18) - On Weeks, together with the Two Breads, bull, two rams and seven sheep were brought (in addition to the regular Additional Offering).

Ram of the Public Offering for the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:5) - On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest offers a ram as a Burnt Offering. One opinion is that the ram from the Additional Offering was used. Another opinion is that a separate ram was used for this.

Bull for Idolatry (Num. 15:24) - If the Sanhedrin makes a mistake in their judgement and causes the nation to perform idol worship, a bull is brought as a Burnt Offering

And virtually none of these sacrifices were for sins. John performing baptisms would have no effect on Temple revenue. If you are going to quote large amounts of information, please make sure it is relevant to the discussion.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

You see?
I've told you that the Tyrian shekel struck in Jesus's time had the abbrevisted initials (Greek) of Caesar on the Reverse, and you have put up a Tyre Mint shekel pre-19BC which did not.
The initials are both KAP and KP, as shown on the 'NEW' shekel pasted below. It's just a case of knowing what you're looking for.

I didn't need to read the title, it was obvious as soon as I saw the pictures of such a well struck coin. The Jerusalem mint after circa 19 BC was much less careful with the strikes, but the silver purity and weight were still consistent so nobody cared.

You ignored the title stating that it was a Herodian shekel and not an original Tyrian shekel because you do not want it to be a Herodian shekel, since that blows your argument.

What you claim is initials of an Emperor is in fact an indicator of the year of minting. The coin you showed was a very late example of a half-shekel minted in Jerusalem in 64/65 AD. See Figure 12

 

[Trailblazer]

And since you intentionally omitted the 3rd clause “And the Word was God” – kai theos en ho logos, I think it’s only appropriate that it should be explained also to avoid a total misunderstanding of the whole context of John 1:1.

I did not intentionally omit that clause and it does not change anything by adding it back in.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Then when God sent Jesus, Jesus was “manifested” in the flesh, and the Word that was God and was with God became flesh and dwelt among us. That does not mean that God became flesh, but rather that the Attributes of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh and revealed God to humanity..

As Abdu’l-Baha wrote: “For the Word does not signify the body of Christ, no, but the divine perfections manifested in Him.” Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 206

The following article explains why John wrote his gospel.

“Question: "What do John 1:1,14 mean when they declare that Jesus is the Word of God?"
Answer: The answer to this question is found by first understanding the reason why John wrote his gospel. We find his purpose clearly stated in John 20:30-31. “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” Once we understand that John’s purpose was to introduce the readers of his gospel to Jesus Christ, establishing Who Jesus is (God in the flesh) and what He did, all with the sole aim of leading them to embrace the saving work of Christ in faith, we will be better able to understand why John introduces Jesus as “The Word” in John 1:1.

By starting out his gospel stating, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John is introducing Jesus with a word or a term that both his Jewish and Gentile readers would have been familiar with. The Greek word translated “Word” in this passage is Logos, and it was common in both Greek philosophy and Jewish thought of that day. For example, in the Old Testament the “word” of God is often personified as an instrument for the execution of God’s will (Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 119:89; 147:15-18). So, for his Jewish readers, by introducing Jesus as the “Word,” John is in a sense pointing them back to the Old Testament where the Logos or “Word” of God is associated with the personification of God’s revelation. And in Greek philosophy, the term Logos was used to describe the intermediate agency by which God created material things and communicated with them. In the Greek worldview, the Logos was thought of as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material universe. Therefore, for his Greek readers the use of the term Logos would have likely brought forth the idea of a mediating principle between God and the world.

So, essentially, what John is doing by introducing Jesus as the Logos is drawing upon a familiar word and concept that both Jews and Gentiles of his day would have been familiar with and using that as the starting point from which He introduces them to Jesus Christ. But John goes beyond the familiar concept of Logos that his Jewish and Gentile readers would have had and presents Jesus Christ not as a mere mediating principle like the Greeks perceived, but as a personal being, fully divine, yet fully human. Also, Christ was not simply a personification of God’s revelation as the Jews thought, but was indeed God’s perfect revelation of Himself in the flesh, so much so that John would record Jesus’ own words to Philip: "Jesus said unto Him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, "Show us the Father"?'" (John 14:9). By using the term Logos or “Word” in John 1:1, John is amplifying and applying a concept with which his audience was familiar and using that to introduce his readers to the true Logos of God in Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God, fully God and yet fully man, who came to reveal God to man and redeem all who believe in Him from their sin.”
From: What do John 1:1,14 mean when they declare that Jesus is the Word of God?

The author should have said... ”that John’s purpose was to introduce the readers of his gospel to Jesus Christ, establishing Who Jesus is (God manifested in the flesh) and what He did, all with the sole aim of leading them to embrace the saving work of Christ in faith,”

The author says... “But John goes beyond the familiar concept of Logos that his Jewish and Gentile readers would have had and presents Jesus Christ not as a mere mediating principle like the Greeks perceived, but as a personal being, fully divine, yet fully human.” That is irrational because logically speaking nobody can be fully divine and fully human at the same time. They can however be what the Bab claimed that He was, which is the same as what Jesus was; a God-man:

“In His Tablet to Muḥammad Sháh the Báb, moreover, has revealed: …. The substance wherewith God hath created Me is not the clay out of which others have been formed. He hath conferred upon Me that which the worldly-wise can never comprehend, nor the faithful discover….” The Promised Day Is Come, p. 43

So the nature of Jesus was a mystery, not something any one of us can understand, but because they misunderstood the scriptures, the early Christians made Jesus into God, even though Jesus adamantly disclaimed being God in so many verses.

The author says... “Also, Christ was not simply a personification of God’s revelation as the Jews thought, but was indeed God’s perfect revelation of Himself in the flesh, so much so that John would record Jesus’ own words to Philip: "Jesus said unto Him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, "Show us the Father"?'" (John 14:9).

That is correct, Jesus was the perfect revelation of God in the flesh because he who has seen Jesus in the flesh has seen the all the Attributes of the Father. As Baha’u’llah wrote:

“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.......” Gleanings, p. 54

But nobody has ever seen the Essence of the Father, which is why Jesus could not be FULLY GOD. That is why Jesus said: John 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” Jesus meant that no man has seen the Essence of God because God cannot incarnate His Essence and reveal it to man, which is what Baha’u’llah said in this passage:

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived.” Gleanings, p. 49

John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

That means that the Light that emanates from the Holy Spirit is in the Father and it is also in Jesus.

Jesus did not say Believe me that I am the Father, and the Father is me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

I know what you gonna say, this is not Baha’u’llah’s interpretation of this verse.

No, I am not going to say that, because Baha’u’llah did not interpret this verse. I am going to point out that anyone can interpret or misinterpret what John 1 means, but Jesus denied being God on many occasions and those cannot ALL be wrong unless the Bible is wrong.

“Sometimes when Jesus had preached to crowds, they questioned who he was, mostly if he was Israel’s promised Messiah (John 6.14-15; 7.40-41; 8.25; 10.24). Consequently, Caiaphas the High Priest now demanded an unequivocal answer from Jesus about his identity. According to Matthew, Caiaphas exclaimed, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 26.63).

Jesus answered Caiaphas somewhat obscurely, yet affirmatively, “You have said it yourself” (Matthew 26.64). Then he added, “nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (v. 64). This addition is a clear self-designation as the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7.13-14 and “Lord” in Psalm 110.1, the latter of whom Jews interpreted as the Messiah.

For the first time, Jesus unequivocally claimed publicly of being the Messiah-the Son of God-the Son of Man. It is the most thoroughgoing self-identification he ever made. He fully revealed who he was, yet he did not say that he was God. Rather, he distinguished himself from God and asserted that in the future God would vindicate him to the utmost.

(To see a titled list of over fifty, two-three page posts (easily accessible) about the Bible not saying Jesus is God, click here.)
From: Did Jesus Tell the Sanhedrin He Was God?

Note that the author of the article wrote that Jesus said “he distinguished himself from God and asserted that in the future God would vindicate him to the utmost.” I can only surmise, but I think that Jesus could have been referring to the Revelation of Baha’u’llah, in which Jesus was fully vindicated.

 

[oldbadger]

If a cut of the Temple revenue was given to Rome on a regular basis, it must have been a well-kept secret. Not impossible, just kept very quiet if it did really happen. Josephus records two instances when Temple treasury money was diverted by the Romans. Pilate took some money from the Temple to build aqueducts, which caused quite an outcry that Pilate had his soldiers suppress. (The Wars of the Jews Book 2 Chapter 9 Section 4) But it was the procurator Florus taking money from the Temple treasury that set off the great unrest that would lead to the War. (The Wars of the Jews Book 2 Chapter 14 Section 6)

Why do you think that Caesar ordered a Temple census which involved the collection of Lambs kidneys from a main Temple feast?

Taxation of its provinces was of major importance to Rome but with the Temple Tax being a mere half-shekel per adult male a year plus whatever was taken in during the Festivals etc., it does not seem that skimming the Temple would have been a main source of revenue. There were already oppressive taxes levied by the Romans on everyone and everything.

Homework! Find out the weight of a half-shekel in pure silver. I forget at this time and my records are not on this computer, but I think is is about 1/2 oz.
We know that circa 400-500 thousand adults attended the three main festivals, so if you ignore all other feasts, just multiply, say one million Jews by 1/2 oz and you'll find a very very rough idea of just how much weight of pure silver the head tax prodiced each year. Now start to guestimate how much was taken in Temple-bureau-de-change fees, sacrificial fees etc and you'll probably come to the conclusion that the Temple was a seriously important revenue machine for the Romans as well as the main source of income for a few thousand priests, many thousands of Levite servants such as guards etc.....................
Look for yourself.

Nonetheless the Tyrian shekel and half-shekel were what was used for the Temple. (Are you actually disputing that well documented fact?)

You don't read posts! I have explained how the Tyrian coins were the only acceptable currency for use in the Temple. This was as writ large in the ancient Laws.

 

[oldbadger]

The parts you want to edit out are exactly the parts that are essential to the structure of the Gospels. There were no prior Gospels that got changed. They were written as is, with only minor alterations that stand out. A real historical Jesus might be imagined from pieces here and there in Mark but there was no prior written work that got modified by ‘Christians’. If there was, the original ending of Mark would never have stood.

A real historical Jesus might be imagined, eh? What!
What have you been writing about then? I'm not interested ion a bunch of myth about Jesus, I'm only interested in the real man and the real mission.
If you want to argue for myths and fabrications then that's up to you, but I can't be bothered with deceptions and fibs.

[QWUOTE]The Gospel of john reflects the evolution of christology and the perception of the end of days as not happening soon after all. As far as uncovering anything about the real Jesus, it is useless.[/QUOTE]
At last................ you agree that G-John's timeline and story is a deception.
But your wrong about it being useless for real truths. I've learned details from the anecdotes which John stitched into his mythical tale.
Examples:- I know (from John) that Judas's family name was BarSimon, and other verses elsewhere lead me to 'Judah BarSimon'
I know that stories such as Jesus stepping in to stop a street execution of an adulterous woman (added to G-John later) was probably a true anecdote. Etc etc etc..... so you're claim that G-John is useless for Historic Jesus research is very wrong.
Let's face it..... you're just not an Individual Investigator.

Your knowledge of the Bible is based upon INSTITUTIONAL INDOCTRINATION and not INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION.

You went to schools, seminaries, colleges, universities and they told you what it all meant. Then they examined you and you told them back what they told you, so they passed you. .

It's time to wake up to what real history can be gleaned from a two millennia old bunch of statements, most of them deceptions.

Personally, I see no reason for the existence of Q. Matthew based his story on Mark but created new material for his specific purpose – Jesus as the (very) Jewish Messiah. Luke also used Mark but mostly he created episodes based on Matthew’s themes but turned inside out to make Jesus universally relevant. If you want to explain the common material in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark by the Q hypothesis, you have to explain the differences between Matthew and Luke by even more missing documents, M and L, that each one had but the other did not. Allow for large scale invention rather than referral to theoretical documents and it all fits together.

Mat's and Like's new material (apart from many small anecdotes) is total junk.

 

[oldbadger]

And virtually none of these sacrifices were for sins. John performing baptisms would have no effect on Temple revenue. If you are going to quote large amounts of information, please make sure it is relevant to the discussion.

You don't know what atonement and sin are, then.

Look, Any breach of any of the 507 laws was sinful.
Sin lead to verious kinds of SICKNESS.
Sin leads to Sickness.
What did Jesus say to folks after helping tghem? 'Sin no more'.

And so if you broke the shellfish law and ate a Missel, you had sinned. And Shellfish Poison Paralysis could well be the SICKNESS that you would gain from that.

The 507 were all about producing a stronger, healthier, more successful, more cohesive people. There is not one law which does not support this.

If you're stuck with the 507 being holy and religiously moral then you are lost, mate.

 

[oldbadger]

You ignored the title stating that it was a Herodian shekel and not an original Tyrian shekel because you do not want it to be a Herodian shekel, since that blows your argument.

.......................... which came from the Tyre Mint, and these did not have Caesar's initials.

What you claim is initials of an Emperor is in fact an indicator of the year of minting. The coin you showed was a very late example of a half-shekel minted in Jerusalem in 64/65 AD. See Figure 12

KP and KAP are the abbreviated initials of Caesar in Greek.

You're stuck fast in some place where you cannot see that the real History of Jesus is all that matters to Historic Jesus researchers. We aren't interested in religious drivvle.

And I'm fed up with writing stuff which a few pages later yuou repeat to me as if I had disagreed with such paras!

I'm tired.............. You win............. You've worn me down with all this theological waffle!

 

[roger1440]

Here is an image that is interesting. What it means is beyond me:

Obviously it's an image of Jesus. It can not possibly be something as simple as a reflection or refraction of light. It's just a coincidence that the photographer is a Christian. When I was there the following year (Sept. 11, 2017) Jesus didn't make a cameo appearance. The Lord works in mysterious ways.[GALLERY=media, 8326]Tribute in Light by roger1440 posted Sep 12, 2017 at 12:24 AM[/GALLERY]

 

[Grandliseur]

Obviously it's an image of Jesus. It can not possibly be something as simple as a reflection or refraction of light. It's just a coincidence that the photographer is a Christian. When I was there the following year (Sept. 11, 2017) Jesus didn't make a cameo appearance. The Lord works in mysterious ways.[GALLERY=media, 8326]Tribute in Light by roger1440 posted Sep 12, 2017 at 12:24 AM[/GALLERY]

I agree with you, but most shall not agree.
I just read an article that discusses the plus 200 dead Russians in Syria. It said that Russia and the US are at war, but silently. This clearly is part of the prophecy of the end and Russia being in the Middle East.

We'll just have to sit down, have some coffee or juice while examining events in the light of Bible prophecies. The times coming may be more exciting than we wish for.

 

[roger1440]

I agree with you, but most shall not agree.
I just read an article that discusses the plus 200 dead Russians in Syria. It said that Russia and the US are at war, but silently. This clearly is part of the prophecy of the end and Russia being in the Middle East.

We'll just have to sit down, have some coffee or juice while examining events in the light of Bible prophecies. The times coming may be more exciting than we wish for.

I was being sarcastic.

 

[Grandliseur]

I was being sarcastic.

I wasn't.

But, I don't really care if he was there or not. If the picture isn't photo-shopped, something was there.

What caused the heavenly fight over Germany a few hundred years ago? Or, do you dismiss all things you cannot explain!

 

[roger1440]

I wasn't.

But, I don't really care if he was there or not. If the picture isn't photo-shopped, something was there.

What caused the heavenly fight over Germany a few hundred years ago? Or, do you dismiss all things you cannot explain!

How do you know it was Jesus? Maybe it was Kermit The Frog.

 

[Neb]

I did not intentionally omit that clause and it does not change anything by adding it back in.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Then when God sent Jesus, Jesus was “manifested” in the flesh, and the Word that was God and was with God became flesh and dwelt among us. That does not mean that God became flesh, but rather that the Attributes of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh and revealed God to humanity..

As Abdu’l-Baha wrote: “For the Word does not signify the body of Christ, no, but the divine perfections manifested in Him.” Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 206

Manifested from what or where? Where was “the Word” before the manifestation? Before the “BEGINNING” as the imperfect tense “WAS/EN” is suggesting, right? “The imperfect tense describes a continuous action usually occurring in the past –William Mounce”. If the imperfect tense “WAS/EN” is suggesting that before the beginning of time, meaning from eternity, “the Word” was with “the God” then there is only one conclusion and that is, “the WORD was God”. Why can’t you understand this?

There is no room for Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha’s interpretation in this verse because this is all God’s work according to John.

 

[Neb]

The following article explains why John wrote his gospel.

“Question: "What do John 1:1,14 mean when they declare that Jesus is the Word of God?"

Answer: The answer to this question is found by first understanding the reason why John wrote his gospel. We find his purpose clearly stated in John 20:30-31. “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” Once we understand that John’s purpose was to introduce the readers of his gospel to Jesus Christ, establishing Who Jesus is (God in the flesh) and what He did, all with the sole aim of leading them to embrace the saving work of Christ in faith, we will be better able to understand why John introduces Jesus as “The Word” in John 1:1.

By starting out his gospel stating, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” John is introducing Jesus with a word or a term that both his Jewish and Gentile readers would have been familiar with. The Greek word translated “Word” in this passage is Logos, and it was common in both Greek philosophy and Jewish thought of that day. For example, in the Old Testament the “word” of God is often personified as an instrument for the execution of God’s will (Psalm 33:6; 107:20; 119:89; 147:15-18). So, for his Jewish readers, by introducing Jesus as the “Word,” John is in a sense pointing them back to the Old Testament where the Logos or “Word” of God is associated with the personification of God’s revelation. And in Greek philosophy, the term Logos was used to describe the intermediate agency by which God created material things and communicated with them. In the Greek worldview, the Logos was thought of as a bridge between the transcendent God and the material universe. Therefore, for his Greek readers the use of the term Logos would have likely brought forth the idea of a mediating principle between God and the world.


So, essentially, what John is doing by introducing Jesus as the Logos is drawing upon a familiar word and concept that both Jews and Gentiles of his day would have been familiar with and using that as the starting point from which He introduces them to Jesus Christ. But John goes beyond the familiar concept of Logos that his Jewish and Gentile readers would have had and presents Jesus Christ not as a mere mediating principle like the Greeks perceived, but as a personal being, fully divine, yet fully human. Also, Christ was not simply a personification of God’s revelation as the Jews thought, but was indeed God’s perfect revelation of Himself in the flesh, so much so that John would record Jesus’ own words to Philip: "Jesus said unto Him, 'Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, "Show us the Father"?'" (John 14:9). By using the term Logos or “Word” in John 1:1, John is amplifying and applying a concept with which his audience was familiar and using that to introduce his readers to the true Logos of God in Jesus Christ, the Living Word of God, fully God and yet fully man, who came to reveal God to man and redeem all who believe in Him from their sin.”

From: What do John 1:1,14 mean when they declare that Jesus is the Word of God?

This article that you cut and paste is from What do John 1:1,14 mean when they declare that Jesus is the Word of God? and they are not against Jesus is God. Presenting this article as your argument against Jesus is God only proved you did not know what you’re talking about.

I got this article from the same website and read what they saying about the Lord Jesus.

What is the Logos?

John’s Gospel begins by using the Greek idea of a “divine reason” or “the mind of God” as a way to connect with the readers of his day and introduce Jesus to them as God. Greek philosophy may have used the word in reference to divine reason, but John used it to note many of the attributes of Jesus. In John’s use of the Logos concept, we find that

-Jesus is eternal (“In the beginning was the Word”)
-Jesus was with God prior to coming to earth (“the Word was with God”)
-Jesus is God (“the Word was God.”)
-Jesus is Creator (“All things were made through him”)
-Jesus is the Giver of Life (“In him was life”)
-Jesus became human to live among us (“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”)

 

[Neb]

That doesn't make any difference since they died out long before C-14 could be applied to any organic material since, under optimum conditions, it's only usable back to around 40,000 years b.p. See:Carbon-14 - Wikipedia

Are you telling me that while bones are in the process of fossilization some 65 million years ago, the soft tissues with protein that’s still in it and on top of these bones, between layers of sedimentary rocks, and in the process of being fossilized also would remain stretchy like it just died recently and would not fossilized first before the bones?
Fossilization would not protect or preserve any dead organism, especially a stretchy soft tissue with protein in it, from decaying until they are totally fossilized and we are talking about 65 million years of fossilization.
Unless of course, this t-rex was running around during Noah’s time or before the flood in Genesis, right? If that is the case then why not test this soft tissues with 14C just to make sure if this t-rex is really a 65 million years old dinosaur.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Why do you think that Caesar ordered a Temple census which involved the collection of Lambs kidneys from a main Temple feast?

Please provide a credible source for this claim.

Homework! Find out the weight of a half-shekel in pure silver. I forget at this time and my records are not on this computer, but I think is is about 1/2 oz.

Tyrian shekels, original and Jewish, were about 14 grams. Half-shekels about 7 grams., as per the ancient coin forum (and other sources).

A shekel was just about ½ oz and the half-shekel ¼ oz.

We know that circa 400-500 thousand adults attended the three main festivals, so if you ignore all other feasts, just multiply, say one million Jews by 1/2 oz and you'll find a very very rough idea of just how much weight of pure silver the head tax prodiced each year. Now start to guestimate how much was taken in Temple-bureau-de-change fees, sacrificial fees etc and you'll probably come to the conclusion that the Temple was a seriously important revenue machine for the Romans as well as the main source of income for a few thousand priests, many thousands of Levite servants such as guards etc.....................
Look for yourself.

The annual Temple Tax amounted to about two days wages. Roman taxes as revised by Augustus was a 1% income tax plus “customs taxes, import and export taxes, toll bridges, crop taxes, sales tax, property taxes, and special taxes when there was a war, building project or campaign to finance”. The income tax alone was already more than the Temple Tax and surely well below the total tax collected. Consider that at most only some portion of the Temple Tax would be skimmed and you can see that it would not have been a main source of revenue, just as I said.

You don't read posts! I have explained how the Tyrian coins were the only acceptable currency for use in the Temple. This was as writ large in the ancient Laws.

What you said in Post #836 was “And if you think that Jews would willingly handle such disgraceful abominations as coins with pagan Gods and graven images upon them then you've lost the plot.”

I offered arguments that in order for the Temple Tax and all other fees to be easily paid, and for the Temple to make use of the revenue, the Tyrian shekel must have been commonly used. But you say that Jews would not have been willing to handle the coins. If the Temple not only allowed it but demanded it, how could it be wrong? Also, every other coin available would have been technically idolatrous as well. How many people would really have known or been concerned with what the pictures on the coin meant?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

A real historical Jesus might be imagined, eh? What!
What have you been writing about then? I'm not interested ion a bunch of myth about Jesus, I'm only interested in the real man and the real mission.
If you want to argue for myths and fabrications then that's up to you, but I can't be bothered with deceptions and fibs.

There is no definite record of what a real historical Jesus might have said or done. As I have said earlier, that people all over the Empire already knew some things about Jesus before Paul wrote points to there having been a real Jesus. We can read between the lines of Mark, the earliest Gospel, and imagine which parts are based on something real. (The other Gospels either copy or contradict Mark.) But knowing for sure, without being driven by preconceptions, is another matter.

The Gospel of john reflects the evolution of christology and the perception of the end of days as not happening soon after all. As far as uncovering anything about the real Jesus, it is useless.

At last................ you agree that G-John's timeline and story is a deception.
But your wrong about it being useless for real truths. I've learned details from the anecdotes which John stitched into his mythical tale.
Examples:- I know (from John) that Judas's family name was BarSimon, and other verses elsewhere lead me to 'Judah BarSimon'
I know that stories such as Jesus stepping in to stop a street execution of an adulterous woman (added to G-John later) was probably a true anecdote. Etc etc etc..... so you're claim that G-John is useless for Historic Jesus research is very wrong.

Since John was written much later and disagrees so much with what writings came before, I see no reason to give any credence to the details he added. The question is why you do.

Let's face it..... you're just not an Individual Investigator.


Your knowledge of the Bible is based upon INSTITUTIONAL INDOCTRINATION and not INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATION.

You went to schools, seminaries, colleges, universities and they told you what it all meant. Then they examined you and you told them back what they told you, so they passed you. .

It's time to wake up to what real history can be gleaned from a two millennia old bunch of statements, most of them deceptions.

I am curious as to what “INSTITUTIONAL INDOCTRINATION” (or any other sources) you think might have led me to these conclusions.

@ Paul invented the idea of the execution of Jesus as an intentional sacrifice to undo the Sin of Adam in order to explain how a messianic figure could get himself killed,

@ Paul took the messianic title of ‘Son of God’ that had been applied to Jesus and turned it into the supernatural Son of God figure described at length by Philo of Alexandria, in order to elevate the status of Jesus to justify the sacrifice and resurrection promise ideas.

@ Mark wrote his Gospel after 70 AD to revive fading faith in Christianity by linking the expected quick return of Jesus (as per Paul) to the destruction of the Temple as the first sign of the end of days.

@ Mark’s anti-climactic ending (Jesus rose from the dead but puts in no appearances) because the empty tomb was an early tradition and the probable origin of the resurrection story.

@ Matthew’s opening chapter is a way of reconciling the title Son of God, being used in a more than messianic sense, and the requirement for the Messiah to be a descendent of David.

@ Matthew is part of the original Christian tradition that held that the Law was to be preserved, a school of thought vigorously opposed by Paul.

@ Those parts of Matthew’s Gospel that do not come from Mark are inventions to support Matthew’s point of view.

@ Luke’s purpose in writing his Gospel was to redirect the Jesus story away from Matthew’s Jewish-only viewpoint by inventing material that reverses Matthew’s material relative to that.

@ There was no Q document or a M or L document either.

@ John created a mostly new story about Jesus, discarding most of Mark, Matthew and Luke and inventing new material, in order to supplant those Gospels, to act as a framework for a more complete Christology, and in particular to discard the expectation of Jesus returning soon.

@ John, like Paul, explicitly links to Philo to elevate Jesus to divine status in a way the Synoptic Gospels did not.

@ Acts was written to patch over discrepancies in earlier works. These include the unfulfilled expectation of an early return of the Son of Man, the tension between Paul and Matthew on Jewish Law, and Paul’s claim of special knowledge not known to the Apostles.

Mat's and Like's new material (apart from many small anecdotes) is total junk.

If you mean that they are inventions with no historical validity, I agree. Yet they can be seen as vital to the presentation of the unique message of each.