Jesus and taxes

[outhouse]

And it's only you who seem addicted to feeding him. I'm beginning to get the feeling that you need each other. Why might that be?

only in this forum.

there is a lack of knowledge on Hjesus here compared to others. You have small handful of people and we somewhat all know each others views.

legion is the brightest mind to visit this forum, and we dont get any authors or scholars here either, like the other forums.

So yes, it would get boring if we didnt banter back and forth, but i wont let him flat out make crazy calls either

 

[Pegg]

how is he pro-tax.?

he was a starving peasant, who would have hated the roman oppression and over taxation. He is said to have had a zealot as a apostle as well.

he would have also hated the roman infection the the temple and the jewish government that were stealing from the people in the form of tithes.

what jewish government?????

in the first century the jews had no government. They were governed by the Levitical priesthood.


Seriously i dont know where you get your information from but if I were you, i'd be looking for a more accurate source.

 

[Desert Snake]

Once again, if all of the context of this argument is from non-Biblical sources why is it even in "Religious Debates"?

Seems like anyone interested in discussing this should take it up in the Historical Debates" area.

 

[fallingblood]

And it's only you who seem addicted to feeding him. I'm beginning to get the feeling that you need each other. Why might that be?

I just don't see a reason to ignore what he's saying. This is a public forum. People will see what he posts, and if no rebuttal is offered, many, who know no better, will think that he is really posting what modern scholarship is talking about. And since he posts so much, that is a lot of misinformation that can be spread.

Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. People tried to do that with the Jesus myth, and it has just grown into the ridiculous problem it has become today. I think it is much better then to counter with credible research to show why fringe ideas are not worthwhile.

 

[fallingblood]

Once again, if all of the context of this argument is from non-Biblical sources why is it even in "Religious Debates"?

Seems like anyone interested in discussing this should take it up in the Historical Debates" area.

I used only Biblical sources. More so, religious debates do not focus just on Biblical sources. They revolve around religious ideas. The teachings of Jesus on tax are religious ideas.

 

[Desert Snake]

I just don't see a reason to ignore what he's saying. This is a public forum. People will see what he posts, and if no rebuttal is offered, many, who know no better, will think that he is really posting what modern scholarship is talking about. And since he posts so much, that is a lot of misinformation that can be spread.

Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. People tried to do that with the Jesus myth, and it has just grown into the ridiculous problem it has become today. I think it is much better then to counter with credible research to show why fringe ideas are not worthwhile.

I agree but there has to be a concensus on what is "admissable" (for example the Bible) when discussing these subjects.

 

[Desert Snake]

I used only Biblical sources. More so, religious debates do not focus just on Biblical sources. They revolve around religious ideas. The teachings of Jesus on tax are religious ideas.

I know that, however then that brings us back to the question, why are you arguing with someone who completely separates "historical Jesus" from Biblical Jesus" etc.

Hey, go for it, but I don't know what you hope to accomplish, I agree with Jayhawker on this.

 

[fallingblood]

I know that, however then that brings us back to the question, why are you arguing with someone who completely separates "historical Jesus" from Biblical Jesus" etc.

Hey, go for it, but I don't know what you hope to accomplish, I agree with Jayhawker on this.

I fully realize that I won't convince him of anything. However, again, this is a public forum that gets viewed quite a bit. When the same information is posted in nearly every topic regarding Jesus, that becomes a lot of misinformation. I don't think ignoring it will make it go away. So I think it is better to present a better look at the subject. Not for him, but for others who may venture in.

 

[Desert Snake]

I fully realize that I won't convince him of anything. However, again, this is a public forum that gets viewed quite a bit. When the same information is posted in nearly every topic regarding Jesus, that becomes a lot of misinformation. I don't think ignoring it will make it go away. So I think it is better to present a better look at the subject. Not for him, but for others who may venture in.

Yeah, I get it. I suppose some of us are just a little bit annoyed with the unsubstantiated assertians regarding NT persons. I'm not saying that you do this however these threads tend to contain what seems like more speculation than research.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

contain what seems like more speculation than research.

That's what we call "historiography". It's all "speculation." However, good historians tend towards explanations which best explain our evidence, while bad historians do not.

 

[outhouse]

Once again, if all of the context of this argument is from non-Biblical sources why is it even in "Religious Debates"?

Seems like anyone interested in discussing this should take it up in the Historical Debates" area.

do you want to know about the real jesus or not??


this is about education and knowledge.

And exploration

 

[outhouse]

That's what we call "historiography". It's all "speculation." However, good historians tend towards explanations which best explain our evidence, while bad historians do not.

I do quite a bit of exploration in subject's we know very little about.

Historical jesus fits in this catagory.


I see no reason why a poor traveling teacher who survives on dinner scraps would love roman oppression and taxation.

he comes from a culture of people that basically die in large numbers fighting roman taxation, and is questioned about why he doesnt pay tax, is said to be perverting the nation, [preaching to tax collectors] and tax evasion, after throwing the bank tellers money around.


I understand there is little historicity to the temple event with the money changers, but we do have jewish roman authors telling us legends of a man who didnt pay taxes did not like the banking system [roman infected bank/temple] and was killed for it

all why preaching the kingdom of god in which he states is not of this world. And which scholars are divided about his message.


cultural anthropology backs the over taxation of jews, and jesus was remembered for more then a few unique parables.

One of my view's im playing with is that his legend started in the temple incident when he was arrested, witnessed by many of the the almost 400,000 jews in attendance. then the legends was later backfilled with jesus history the best they could after his death by his heroic account of the temple fighting the roman infected corrupt jewish governement. Standing up for the common hardworked peasant jews fed up with oppression and taxation.

 

[outhouse]

what jewish government?????

in the first century the jews had no government. They were governed by the Levitical priesthood.


Seriously i dont know where you get your information from but if I were you, i'd be looking for a more accurate source.

who ran the temple pegg??? you do know the bank was the treasury/bank for the area???

And the saducees worked hand in hand with the romans and capitolized on the hard working peasants. As well as all the other crooked priest that raped the people in the name of tithes with roman backing [muscle]

you know Caiaphas was the leader of the bank and was roman appointed.

you know Pilate had taken money for a aquaduct dont you from the temple money?

 

[idav]

As with any Jew in Palestine during this time, Jesus would have felt the burden of Roman taxation. However, comparatively, Jesus is very tame when it comes to the subject of taxation. He says to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, he's friends with tax collectors, and pays taxes himself. He may have had some people claim he didn't pay taxes or the like, but in the end, such claims are just brushed aside.

Render unto Caesar spells it out plainly because Jesus preaches nonmaterialism. He isn't befriending the tax collector because he loves taxes. Jesus befriended everyone and saw beyond labels. Jesus also preached of another government. Pilate didn't very well care because Jesus didn't seem like a threat.

 

[outhouse]

Render unto Caesar spells it out plainly because Jesus preaches nonmaterialism. He isn't befriending the tax collector because he loves taxes. Jesus befriended everyone and saw beyond labels. Jesus also preached of another government. Pilate didn't very well care because Jesus didn't seem like a threat.

heres a little on render unto Caesar


The passage has been much discussed in the modern context of Christianity and politics, especially on the questions of separation of church and state and tax resistance.

Render unto Caesar... - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tax resistance in Judaea
Main articles: Tax resistance and Zealotry
The taxes imposed on Judaea by Rome had led to riots.[6] New Testament scholar Willard Swartley writes:

The tax denoted in the text was a specific tax… It was a poll tax, a tax instituted in A.D. 6. A census taken at that time (cf. Lk. 2:2) to determine the resources of the Jews provoked the wrath of the country. Judas of Galilee led a revolt (Acts 5:37), which was suppressed only with some difficulty. Many scholars date the origin of the Zealot party and movement to this incident.[7]
​

The Jewish Encyclopedia says, of the Zealots:

When, in the year 5, Judas of Gamala in Galilee started his organized opposition to Rome, he was joined by one of the leaders of the Pharisees, R. Zadok, a disciple of Shammai and one of the fiery patriots and popular heroes who lived to witness the tragic end of Jerusalem… The taking of the census by Quirinus, the Roman procurator, for the purpose of taxation was regarded as a sign of Roman enslavement; and the Zealots' call for stubborn resistance to the oppressor was responded to enthusiastically.
​

At his trial before Pontius Pilate, Jesus was accused of promoting resistance to Caesar's tax.

Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king." (Luke 23:1-4)



Jesus was asked the question about paying taxes in hope that he would answer "yes" or "no". Answering "yes" would have left him open to the accusation that he was in opposition to Jewish resistance to the Roman occupation and therefore (given the assumption by the Jews that they still held privileged nation status with God at this time) against God, too. Answering "no" would have given those present an opportunity to report him to the Roman authorities as someone who was trying to incite a revolt. His questioners had assumed that there was an inevitable (and hazardous) dichotomy between discharging one's obligations to the state and discharging one's obligations to God, but Jesus refused to confront the dichotomy as framed by his hostile questioners and instead pointed to the assumptions behind it.
The episode illustrates Jesus' skill in holding his ground in doctrinal debates and rhetorics against the orthodox Jewish scholars of the time.



yet someone in this forum wants to argue the opposite
​

 

[CynthiaCypher]

heres a little on render unto Caesar


The passage has been much discussed in the modern context of Christianity and politics, especially on the questions of separation of church and state and tax resistance.

Render unto Caesar... - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tax resistance in Judaea
Main articles: Tax resistance and Zealotry
The taxes imposed on Judaea by Rome had led to riots.[6] New Testament scholar Willard Swartley writes:

The tax denoted in the text was a specific tax… It was a poll tax, a tax instituted in A.D. 6. A census taken at that time (cf. Lk. 2:2) to determine the resources of the Jews provoked the wrath of the country. Judas of Galilee led a revolt (Acts 5:37), which was suppressed only with some difficulty. Many scholars date the origin of the Zealot party and movement to this incident.[7]
​

The Jewish Encyclopedia says, of the Zealots:

When, in the year 5, Judas of Gamala in Galilee started his organized opposition to Rome, he was joined by one of the leaders of the Pharisees, R. Zadok, a disciple of Shammai and one of the fiery patriots and popular heroes who lived to witness the tragic end of Jerusalem… The taking of the census by Quirinus, the Roman procurator, for the purpose of taxation was regarded as a sign of Roman enslavement; and the Zealots' call for stubborn resistance to the oppressor was responded to enthusiastically.
​

At his trial before Pontius Pilate, Jesus was accused of promoting resistance to Caesar's tax.

Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king." (Luke 23:1-4)



Jesus was asked the question about paying taxes in hope that he would answer "yes" or "no". Answering "yes" would have left him open to the accusation that he was in opposition to Jewish resistance to the Roman occupation and therefore (given the assumption by the Jews that they still held privileged nation status with God at this time) against God, too. Answering "no" would have given those present an opportunity to report him to the Roman authorities as someone who was trying to incite a revolt. His questioners had assumed that there was an inevitable (and hazardous) dichotomy between discharging one's obligations to the state and discharging one's obligations to God, but Jesus refused to confront the dichotomy as framed by his hostile questioners and instead pointed to the assumptions behind it.
The episode illustrates Jesus' skill in holding his ground in doctrinal debates and rhetorics against the orthodox Jewish scholars of the time.



yet someone in this forum wants to argue the opposite
​

This what psychoanalysis calls projective identification. Basically you hold certain views about the government and taxation and you want to project those views onto a figure that has more authority and is more revered...Jesus. You do so my selectively reading into the text whatever it is you want them to say.

That is against the rules.

We might not know everything about certain historical figures but we do know somethings.

For instance Jesus taught justice and fairness, not Thou Shalt Disobey the Law By Not Paying Taxes. Jesus taught love and non-violence not Thou Shalt Hate the Romans and Overthrow The Damn Government Because They Tax Us to Death.

You don't get to set the rules when it comes to history, the evidence we have does. Lots of people (cough fb cough) do what you do but you do it to the extreme. You do it without any sort of evidence whatsoever at times, you want to infer facts that are just not there.

Your ability to project is worrisome, you do it all the time in these forums. It's a sign of narcissism and not the good kind of narcissism either.

 

[outhouse]

For instance Jesus taught justice and fairness, not Thou Shalt Disobey the Law By Not Paying Taxes.

we dont know to much of what jesus taught, we have a edited roman version and thats it



and who's law was that?? roman law. Jesus was not a roman. jesus followed jewish law not roman law. And we all know jews fought romans over taxes

 

[outhouse]

This what psychoanalysis calls projective identification. Basically you hold certain views about the government and taxation and you want to project those views onto a figure that has more authority and is more revered...Jesus. You do so my selectively reading into the text whatever it is you want them to say.

That is against the rules.

We might not know everything about certain historical figures but we do know somethings.

For instance Jesus taught justice and fairness, not Thou Shalt Disobey the Law By Not Paying Taxes. Jesus taught love and non-violence not Thou Shalt Hate the Romans and Overthrow The Damn Government Because They Tax Us to Death.

You don't get to set the rules when it comes to history, the evidence we have does. Lots of people (cough fb cough) do what you do but you do it to the extreme. You do it without any sort of evidence whatsoever at times, you want to infer facts that are just not there.

Your ability to project is worrisome, you do it all the time in these forums. It's a sign of narcissism and not the good kind of narcissism either.

you might want to read a little Marvin Meyers and Johnathon Green to set you straight on jewish life while jesus was alive.

Im not projecting anything other then what is written about the man.




I see you refute the messenger not the message

 

[CynthiaCypher]

you might want to read a little Marvin Meyers and Johnathon Green to set you straight on jewish life while jesus was alive.

Im not projecting anything other then what is written about the man.




I see you refute the messenger not the message

No. You are projecting. You want Jesus to conform to your own ideas. Sorry but no.

Liberal do this too, like Crossan. Some liberals want to portray Jesus as a Marxist Feminist Cynic Philosopher and revolutionary (leftist of course) who was leading a cultural revolution against the reactionary and oppressive government of Rome (portrayed as conservatives) and they are wrong when they do this too. Just like you are wrong when you want to portray Jesus as a an anti-tax zealot (conservative tea-party member) who is fighting against a aggressive tax and spend Roman government (liberals).

It's all projecting and it is wrong.

 

[outhouse]

No. You are projecting. You want Jesus to conform to your own ideas. Sorry but no.

Liberal do this too, like Crossan. Some liberals want to portray Jesus as a Marxist Feminist Cynic Philosopher and revolutionary (leftist of course) who was leading a cultural revolution against the reactionary and oppressive government of Rome (portrayed as conservatives) and they are wrong when they do this too. Just like you are wrong when you want to portray Jesus as a an anti-tax zealot (conservative tea-party member) who is fighting against a aggressive tax and spend Roman government (liberals).

It's all projecting and it is wrong.

projecting is all we can do because there is so little historicity to jesus as a man


I dont look at jesus as a zealot but more as the gospels portray him, a hybrid non violent zealot who preached against the taxation and to give up personal possessions so hey have nothing to tax. He preaches to tax collectors and Zacc even states he gives back much of what he robbed people of. Even luke states the man didnt pay taxes.

I have nothing new here. Im just not glossing over the money or tax issues in the the NT and money is why jesus died. The most agressive he ever is is throwing the banks tellers money over.



again, REFUTE the message not the messenger