The Resurrection of Christ

[fallingblood]

Ok heres the thing. Gospels prove everything

yeshua does state they are thieves correct? yes he does.

Who does he state are thieves? Look at the verse, and you will see there is no mention of taxation.

the only ones stealing money were the tax collectors.

merchants were not stealing.

There is no mention of tax collectors. There would have been taxes collected, yet those would have been for the Temple tax, which went to the Temple.

Merchants may not have been stealing, per se (I also don't see how tax collectors were stealing either), but merchants could charge exuberant prices, and thus still be called thieves. That is what the problem was.

Yeshua was ticked and the most violent he ever gets in the gospels is during this event.

he did not like this arrangement the high priest Caiaphas had with Pilate along with the heavy taxation. Money is the issue Yeshua had.

That is not what the Gospels say though. They never mention heavy taxation. And in fact, we see no suggestion of Roman taxation in this ordeal at all. We aren't even told about an arrangement between Caiaphas and Pilate. There is no suggestion about taxation at all. And you haven't even shown that Pilate would have gained anything from some supposed taxation. Especially since that isn't how taxation worked.

And the issue wasn't necessarily money. He was cleansing the temple, and by doing so, symbolically destroying it. This goes beyond taxation, or money.

Now is my method or view the only one. No its not. But at this time it makes the most sense

It may make the most sense to you, but for many others, it doesn't make sense. There is no reason for the Romans to have taxed foreign Jews. They would have been taxed in their own area, not in Jerusalem, which was not their home. And even sales taxes, that was just 1% for much of Roman history. Caesar Augustus kept the one percent sales tax as well.

There were excessive taxation in other areas, yet we don't see that to be the case here, and there is no real reason to. Until you provide some evidence supporting your position (you have the burden of proof, as you first made the claim), there is no real reason accept your view.

 

[fallingblood]

let's pretend for two seconds that Jesus never said render onto Caesar and that his early followers didn't pay taxes. we can also pretend Jesus never said anything contrary to the mainline Judaism in the first century if you like, as unlikely as all of that seems, I'll give you some leeway

Jesus was killed by the Romans, Yes the Gospels agree with this, the Sanhedrin appealed to the Roman Authorities and had him cruxified, if Rome did this because of taxes, big deal, his follower proclaimed he came back from the dead, there are two options, they lied or they were telling the truth, and as extraordinary as telling the truth is, I don't understand why we go out of our way to say they lied

There is another possibility. They were mistaken. I don't think they lied. I think they honestly thought they saw the resurrected Jesus. Now, whether or not they did, I can't say, as historically speaking one can not affirm such a miracle (it is a possibility, just not probable). But I do believe they experienced something.

 

[fallingblood]

Nag Hammadi I believe has yeshuas childhood, while not as accurate as the gospels and may not cantain any historicity, there are Yeshua child stories. he was a violent little kid to.

There is no historicity in those stories about his birth. There is no reason to assume they are based on any credible information. Reading those books do no good in regards to Jesus. They only show what Christianity evolved into later on.

When it comes to the childhood of Jesus, we know for certain nothing was written. There is no reason to assume anything was written.

your playing devils advocate and I know it. You yourself do not take a literal approach to the NT gospels.

What I'm saying is that one does not have to have met a person to write a biography about that person. We see this true in many cases. I have written short biographies for Harry Houdini, as many others have as well, and they have never met him. Yet, they are still very credible, as they are basing their information off of older sources, that have a connection with that historical figure. The same is with Jesus.

We don't have to accept everything in any biography, but we can't dismiss them simply because the author didn't know the individual personally.

we know the sources are not accurate. We know miracles didnt happen, We know the resurrection didnt happen. We know many places your sources contradict each other.

And you know as well as I do the only way to get to the truth is with careful study of text.

You are judging those sources by modern day standards. That is not something you can do. We have to place them in a historic context, and treat them as we do with other sources from that time and genre.

Just because they contradict (modern biographies do as well), doesn't mean they aren't credible or accurate. It means we are looking at different perspectives. We also don't know that miracles can't happen. They are a possibility, even though they are not probable.

And we can't say for sure the resurrection didn't happen. Miracles are possible, just not probable.

that is wrong

paul heard his voice for one, so he didnt have a vision [facepalm] second we dont know how much paul created out of this air and what his motive may have been. BUT we know dead people dont talk to blind pauls

It's not wrong. You are taking one source, and claiming it is better than another. More so, weren't you the one who implied it was like a dream? Yes.

In the letters of Paul, he states, in 1 Corinthians, that he saw Jesus.

 

[1137]

I believe that was the doctrine of the early Church, and that Christ was God

Ok. Then there is no debating and asking questions in the first place is silly. Philosophy requires an open mind and use of logic, therefore forsaking both is unacceptable in philosophical discussions.

 

[outhouse]

. He also stated that one should give to Caesar what is Caesar's. In everything he said, he never spoke directly out against Roman taxation. Instead, he advised people to continue to give their taxes.

authors playing to a roman audience, and if you read that verse a little before and or a little after you will see they claim Yeshua is tax exempt but for them to go fishing and get the gold out of a fishes mouth LOL

The unknown authors were playing to a roman audience

Now going to the Temple, there was taxation. However, that taxation was the Temple tax.

yes and a big part of that would have been paid to Romans, the temple was not free of roman taxes. No where does it say it is.


TAX's Yeshua felt like he was being robbed by the heavy taxation, gospels back this

and no reason to assume it had to do with taxation, that simply is not a viable option.

And there it is.


We all know Yeshuas violence in the temple is a mystery that cannot be solved 100% so dont hold me to such a high standard.


What can be solved though is adding up the facts of history of that period. In many places there was double and triple taxation. the collectors were everywhere and when romans were not around they had privately hired collectors that would impose their own tax rate often much higher then Romans tax.



the fact the only oral tradition that made it to a roman audience through scripture was that they were thieves leaves religion out of the picture. So why would he claim thieves and run them "ALL" out. How could all of them be stealing from everyone? the only way a group can steal is by tax.

The real clincher is though, opposing Roman taxation would not have led Jesus to be killed anyway. We have records of various people opposing Roman taxation, yet it was not a capital offense. It could cause trouble, but then again, Jesus would not have been taxed directly by the Romans anyway.

and this is obvious, Yeshua wasnt arrested for two days while he preached in the temple to the masses. After his mocking entery which we know nothing about, just for the fact the donkey story was almost surely added to try and fulfil prophecy and many scholars think its hogwash fiction.

With all the masses of people yeshua could have slipped advancing guards, Romans were also outnumbered and afraid to start to much trouble. They had already changed their shields before this time due to starting riot due to the eagle on the shield. They had a working reliationship with the high priest for money alone.. SO while they would not start a full out invasion for this and leave a trial of blood for something that was a small riot probably over very quickly, they may have sent troops down, maybe not. BUT it did catch their attention romans and the high priest running the temple. Yeshua was probably already known for being like a street movement with his onw small crowd and simply took a few days for the powers that be to catch up with the trouble maker

 

[outhouse]

Not an opposition to Roman taxation, which he never speaks about, but about the Kingdom of God coming, and thus replacing the Roman Empire.

this is false

Pilate a battle hardened warrior with a chip on his shoulder who was not interested in a jewish religious issue and would not have killed yeshua for that

first the bible states Pilate washed his hands of this and put it in the jewish peoples hands. WE KNOW this is false and added for not only writing to a roman audience but due to the early sepration of chistains from judaism.


Yeshuas act of violence in the temple when everyone needed this to run smoothly was put in front of Pilate as a trouble maker who was swiftly put to death on a cross. With so many people in the city it took them a few days to find the trouble maker

 

[fallingblood]

this is false

It's not false until you can show otherwise. You have not shown a single thing that would show that Jesus was killed because he was opposed to Roman taxation.

Pilate a battle hardened warrior with a chip on his shoulder who was not interested in a jewish religious issue and would not have killed yeshua for that

Actually, there is a lot of reason to assume that Pilate would have Jesus killed for a religious issue. Why was John the Baptist killed? A religious issue. Religion and government went hand in hand. And in fact, we can see a number of Jewish religious leaders being executed for religious issues.

Jesus, "cleansing" the temple, may have been a religious issue. However, it also had political implications. Him causing such a scene would have been an act that could have easily ended with a riot. Thus, Pilate would have been foolish not to deal with this insurrectionist.

first the bible states Pilate washed his hands of this and put it in the jewish peoples hands. WE KNOW this is false and added for not only writing to a roman audience but due to the early sepration of chistains from judaism.

This has nothing to do with Roman taxation, or really what we are talking about.

Yeshuas act of violence in the temple when everyone needed this to run smoothly was put in front of Pilate as a trouble maker who was swiftly put to death on a cross. With so many people in the city it took them a few days to find the trouble maker

Again, this has nothing to do with Roman taxation. And really, it falls into what I have been saying.

 

[outhouse]

We don't have to accept everything in any biography,

the NT is the exact opposite. its theology added to create a deity out of a mortal man who's martyrdom grew after his death and only after his death.

written from not just unreliable sources but with fiction added

 

[outhouse]

And we can't say for sure the resurrection didn't happen. Miracles are possible, just not probable.

Um yes we can say it didnt happen. Death and tax's are given upon your birth.

No one ever comes back from the completely dead



Im almost sure Joseph of A threw Yeshuas body in a pit and stated it was in his tomb, when they show up, body is gone. Fables grew from there

 

[outhouse]

In the letters of Paul, he states, in 1 Corinthians, that he saw Jesus.

Then Paul is a liar and cannot be trusted

 

[outhouse]

You have not shown a single thing that would show that Jesus was killed because he was opposed to Roman taxation.

first yeshua wasnt killed for opposition to roman taxes, your twisting on purpose now.


Yeshua ticked over money, how the High priest were in bed with Romans and the tax's put upon them. BUT he was killed for starting trouble in a sensitive time with a brutal roman ruler

we are talking about why he started the violence not what got him arrested, please try and keep up

 

[outhouse]

Why was John the Baptist killed? A religious issue.

john mouthed off and insulted A the man

it wasnt completely religious

In the Gospel accounts of John's death, Herod has John imprisoned for denouncing his marriage, and John is later executed by beheading. John condemned Herod for marrying Herodias, the former wife of his brother Philip, in violation of Old Testament Law. Later Herodias' daughter Salome dances before Herod, who offers her a favour in return. Herodias tells her to ask for the head of John the Baptist, which is delivered to her on a plate (Mark 6:14-29).


The first century Jewish historian Josephus gives a slightly different account in his Antiquities of the Jews. Josephus writes that Herod had John arrested because John had so many followers that Herod feared they might begin a rebellion. Herod later had him executed (Ant. 18.116-118). It is possible that both accounts are true. Josephus writes about John's death in a section detailing some of Herod's political dealings. Herod regarded John as a threat, he spoke against Herod and had many followers, so Herod wanted to get rid of him. The Gospels recall the teaching of John, that he called for Israel to purify herself through baptism (Matthew 3:1-12). So the Gospels' description of John's death focuses on the final reason Herod had for arresting John, which was religious. So it may have been that Herod wanted John arrested because he was a political threat, and John's condemnations of Herod's marriage was "the final straw". See James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered pp377–379

 

[outhouse]

This has nothing to do with Roman taxation, or really what we are talking about.

yes it does

it shows how fiction was added to write for a roman audience, and thus your not going to EVER get a story that says yeshua didnt like the roman tax's.

The gospels are clean yeshua is exempt from roman tax and he calls them thieves.

and how would yeshua know the buisiness men selling livestock were charging high prices in the temple???? he had never been there before

 

[fallingblood]

authors playing to a roman audience, and if you read that verse a little before and or a little after you will see they claim Yeshua is tax exempt but for them to go fishing and get the gold out of a fishes mouth LOL

The unknown authors were playing to a roman audience

The verses, at least in Matthew, about giving to Caesar what is Caesar follows a parable of a wedding banquet. It is then followed by a story about the wedding at the resurrection. In Luke, it follows a parable about a vineyard, and then is followed once again about teaching of the resurrection. So I have no idea what you are getting at.

As a side note, the story about the gold in the mouth of the fish, that was about Jesus paying the Temple tax, and how he was able to do so.

We can be fairly certain that this is an authentic saying of Jesus. Most scholars agree on that. And it is not surprising that Jesus stated that they should pay taxes, as it is logical.

Either way, it was a very small portion of the teaching of Jesus. And it is never stated as to be the reason why Jesus is executed. It has nothing to do with the death of Jesus.

yes and a big part of that would have been paid to Romans, the temple was not free of roman taxes. No where does it say it is.

No. The Temple Tax went to help build the temple, and maintain it. It was only after the destruction of the Temple that the Roman benefited from the Temple tax, which they made the Jews pay.

It simply did not fit into the form of taxation that the Romans had, especially since it was a temple. And again, there is no suggestion that Jesus had a problem with any supposed Roman taxation here. We don't know of any Jews who did, as there weren't Roman taxation. When the Romans decided to try to take money out of the Temple's coffers, what we do have is reports of Jewish revolt.

TAX's Yeshua felt like he was being robbed by the heavy taxation, gospels back this

The Gospels don't. If they do, please show the verses. All I can think of is where he talks about the temple being a den of thieves, and that was not referring to taxes. There is no suggestion of that.

And there it is.


We all know Yeshuas violence in the temple is a mystery that cannot be solved 100% so dont hold me to such a high standard.

It really isn't a mystery. Yes, we may not be able to solve it 100%, but most history we can't. However, we can be fairly certain as to why he did what he did and what they symbolized.

What can be solved though is adding up the facts of history of that period. In many places there was double and triple taxation. the collectors were everywhere and when romans were not around they had privately hired collectors that would impose their own tax rate often much higher then Romans tax.

This adds nothing. Yes, at time the taxes were exuberant. But that does not suggest that was so in all parts of the Empire, or at all times. And just because this happened in some places, at some times, there is no reason to assume Jesus was concerned with this.

We have nothing from Jesus speaking negatively about Roman taxation. We don't see his message focusing on it, we don't see his followers speaking out against it. There is no suggestion that is why Jesus died. You're simply taking two unrelated pieces of information and are trying to mash them together.

the fact the only oral tradition that made it to a roman audience through scripture was that they were thieves leaves religion out of the picture. So why would he claim thieves and run them "ALL" out. How could all of them be stealing from everyone? the only way a group can steal is by tax.

Taxation wasn't stealing. Taxation is something that is supported in the Hebrew Scripture. So really, you have no argument there.

More so, we have Gospels that were not made for Roman audiences. Matthew and John most likely were not made for Roman audiences. So your argument fails there as well.

And if someone is price gouging, as the money changers, and people selling sacrificial animals were, they could be considered thieves. What you're missing though is that the statement Jesus made about thieves is calling to attention a passage in the Hebrew Scripture (I believe in Jeremiah). The Jews would have recognized that. It was symbolic.

and this is obvious, Yeshua wasnt arrested for two days while he preached in the temple to the masses. After his mocking entery which we know nothing about, just for the fact the donkey story was almost surely added to try and fulfil prophecy and many scholars think its hogwash fiction.

So he mockingly rode into town, yet the story is probably hogwash fiction? Do you see a problem with that statement? You can't argue that Jesus entered into Jerusalem mockingly, yet in the same breath, claim that it probably didn't happen.

With all the masses of people yeshua could have slipped advancing guards, Romans were also outnumbered and afraid to start to much trouble. They had already changed their shields before this time due to starting riot due to the eagle on the shield. They had a working reliationship with the high priest for money alone.. SO while they would not start a full out invasion for this and leave a trial of blood for something that was a small riot probably over very quickly, they may have sent troops down, maybe not. BUT it did catch their attention romans and the high priest running the temple. Yeshua was probably already known for being like a street movement with his onw small crowd and simply took a few days for the powers that be to catch up with the trouble maker

You're mashing way to much information together.

The eagles on the shields was something, not connected to this event in anyway, and quite separated (as in timing) that Pilate did on purpose. He fully knew what could happen, and thus he did so at night. Yet, Pilate was willing to still challenge the Jews. And that was not the last time. He continued to challenge the Jews, and on occasion got pretty dirty. He was not really scared of the Jews. He was willing to do some pretty daring things in spite of them.

There is no suggestion that they had a working relationship with the High Priest for money alone. It was much more complicated than that. The High Priest was nearly the ruler in Jerusalem. Why? The Romans recognized that it worked. Thus, the High Priest had some duties. One was to collect the tribute for Rome. This didn't come from the Temple coffers though, and there is no suggestion of that. Two, he also had to retain peace. He was basically a client king himself.

Rome really did not mess too much with the Temple. And they certainly weren't foolish enough to take money from the Temple. They learned from that, as it would cause a riot.

As for the Romans marching on Jerusalem, they would have done so if a riot broke out. We know this because we have records of the High Priest fearing this and asking for help.

And again, this really does not show that Jesus was arrested for opposing Roman taxation. This doesn't even show that Jesus opposed Roman taxation. You seem to be just running around in a circle, trying to connect dots that simply don't exist.

If you want to show that Jesus was arrested and executed for opposing Roman taxation, you need to show some evidence. Not just evidence that many people didn't like Roman Taxation.

 

[outhouse]

This adds nothing. Yes, at time the taxes were exuberant. But that does not suggest that was so in all parts of the Empire, or at all times. And just because this happened in some places, at some times, there is no reason to assume Jesus was concerned with this.

being heavily taxed by romans in gods house was all that would be needed to send Yeshua into a violent rage!

 

[outhouse]

So he mockingly rode into town, yet the story is probably hogwash fiction? Do you see a problem with that statement? You can't argue that Jesus entered into Jerusalem mockingly, yet in the same breath, claim that it probably didn't happen.

theres the scripture fable and there is a possibility withi scripture and there is the truth.


truth is he probably entered with a small group of followers on the opposite side as pilate who entered the same day.

 

[outhouse]

Taxation wasn't stealing.

BS I look at it as the gov stealing from me still today.

 

[outhouse]

The High Priest was nearly the ruler in Jerusalem. Why? The Romans recognized that it worked.

WRONG

did not a roman ruler put Caiaphas in power????????????????????????

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Ok. Then there is no debating and asking questions in the first place is silly. Philosophy requires an open mind and use of logic, therefore forsaking both is unacceptable in philosophical discussions.

So it would be more open to discount the traditional theory completely?
I'm saying the Gospel writers didn't believe in a spiritual but a physical resurrection, There is no evidence of an enlightenment, that theory means nothing, Christ either died and stayed dead or came back, the idea of a spiritual enlightenment was supported by any of the Early Christians, or the Gospel accounts, which include how long he was on the cross, I'm not going to pretend to be convinced by a theory with so many holes in it,

Explain to me were I have forsaken logic, I'm merely looking at the facts, No Body, Followers proclaiming He was raised, various people proclaiming they saw Him in the Flesh and even eat with Him, A Boldly resurrection explains ALL of these, and no other theory seems to meet the requirements of this, if someone can give me an alternative explanation or a legiatment reason other then how unlikely a "man" would rise from the dead as to why these things happened and people held onto these events till there death, unlike any other Messiah in the first century, then I will gladly give and ear, but as I can't simply discount something rationally, I'll hold onto the belief

 

[outhouse]

Temple Tax

Those in authority approached Peter in September of AD 29 to inquire if he and Jesus were going to pay their Temple tax for that year. Apparently, Jesus did not pay the Temple tax the previous spring because the only time He was in Capernaum before Passover was on Shabbat (John 6:4, 59). As an observant Jew, He would not have handled money on that day. The Temple tax from Mesopotamia was due in September for Succoth (Kadman 1962:11). Those who received the Temple tax in Capernaum probably wanted to send what they collected since Passover along with the caravans going up to Jerusalem for Succoth that year.


In His omniscience, Jesus knew of the conversation between Peter and the individuals who received the Temple tax. They asked of Jesus paid the tax or not. Peter answered in the affirmative. When Peter entered the house, Jesus put the question to Peter whether the sons of the kings or strangers paid taxes to kings of the earth. Peter correctly responded that the strangers did. Jesus reinforced this fact by stating that the sons were free.