1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by adrian009, Jan 6, 2018.

  1. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    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.

    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


    What does this mean?


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.
     
  2. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    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.
     
  3. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    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?
     
    #843 Rough Beast Sloucher, Feb 13, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2018
  4. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    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.
     
  5. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    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
     
  6. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    18,450
    Ratings:
    +4,672
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    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.
    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. :)
     
  7. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    18,521
    Ratings:
    +6,126
    Religion:
    deist
    Why do you think that Caesar ordered a Temple census which involved the collection of Lambs kidneys from a main Temple feast?

    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.

    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.
     
  8. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    18,521
    Ratings:
    +6,126
    Religion:
    deist
    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.

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

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    18,521
    Ratings:
    +6,126
    Religion:
    deist
    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. :shrug:
     
  10. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    18,521
    Ratings:
    +6,126
    Religion:
    deist
    .......................... which came from the Tyre Mint, and these did not have Caesar's initials.

    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! :D

    I'm tired.............. You win............. You've worn me down with all this theological waffle! :p
     
  11. roger1440

    roger1440 I do stuff

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,355
    Ratings:
    +969
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  12. Grandliseur

    Grandliseur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,236
    Ratings:
    +576
    Religion:
    Pragmatic Christian
    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.
     
  13. roger1440

    roger1440 I do stuff

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,355
    Ratings:
    +969
    Religion:
    Christian
    I was being sarcastic.
     
  14. Grandliseur

    Grandliseur Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,236
    Ratings:
    +576
    Religion:
    Pragmatic Christian
    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!
     
  15. roger1440

    roger1440 I do stuff

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    4,355
    Ratings:
    +969
    Religion:
    Christian
    How do you know it was Jesus? Maybe it was Kermit The Frog.
     
  16. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    627
    Ratings:
    +63
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  17. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    627
    Ratings:
    +63
    Religion:
    Christian
    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”)
     
  18. Neb

    Neb Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2018
    Messages:
    627
    Ratings:
    +63
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  19. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    Please provide a credible source for this claim.

    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.

    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.


    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?
     
  20. Rough Beast Sloucher

    Rough Beast Sloucher Well-Known Member
    It's My Birthday!

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,538
    Ratings:
    +479
    Religion:
    None of the above
    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.
     
Loading...