The Resurrection of Christ

[outhouse]

So here we have a passage that states yeshua thinks he is above tax's because he is the son of the king

Jesus was demonstrating humility and servant hood, the true characteristic of Biblical greatness, to Peter and his fellow disciples (Mark 10:42-45). Jesus, following up on Peter's great confession made at Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:15-17), was God manifest in human flesh (I Tim. 3:16 NKJV). He did not have to pay the Temple tax because in the analogy that He made to Peter, He was the king's son. The Temple was His Father's House and He was greater than that Temple (Matt. 12:6; 21:12, 13; Mark 11:17), yet He voluntarily, and in humility, paid the tax. What a lesson in humility!

 

[ForeverFaithful]

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.

You know what, Let's honestly pretend Christ was killed for cheating taxes, and all that stuff he said about paying them was made up

What does it have to do with the Resurrection?

 

[fallingblood]

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

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the genre that the Gospels were written in. They were "lives," an ancient biography. Yes, they had theology added to a point. But they weren't creating a deity (that happened later on). And how do you know they were written from unreliable sources? That simply is a biased statement that can't be backed up.

If we compare the Gospels to other works from that time, we see many similarities. The biographies of Augustus or Alexander the Great, from that time, contained many elements of myth or even somewhat of a theology. Yet, we don't dismiss them outright. We examine them as a historical record.

We should treat the Gospels as historical documents, within the genre that they were written. You simply are not doing that.

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

No we can't. The fact that you claim you can shows that you don't understand the genre of history. Historical practices do not claim things in absolutes. Is it possible that someone could come back from completely dead? Yes, it is possible, just not probable. Is it possible that someone who appeared to be dead, came back to life? Of course.

As for Joseph of A, if he did exist, there is absolutely no reason to think that he threw the body into a pit. That would make no sense.

Then Paul is a liar and cannot be trusted

And you're extremely biased, and can not be seen as a good source then. You are only picking and choosing what fits your ideas, and then blindly rejecting other positions. That is not a credible way to deal with the situation.

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

That is what I have been saying, yet you continue to debate what I said. I even quoted your verse, saying that Jesus was killed for not liking Roman taxes. I'm not twisting anything. Again, this is what you said, and what I have been responding to: There is no indication Yeshua was anything other then a mortal man who was a teacher of judaism who was killed by romans for causing a disturbance over money [didnt like the roman tax's]

All I did was use the word oppose instead of didn't like. The same exact thing.

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

I don't think you have been reading what I have said very carefully

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

I think you should try to keep up. I responded to a statement you said of why Jesus was killed. We have been talking about why he was killed. You're only changing the subject now.

john mouthed off and insulted A the man

it wasnt completely religious

Yes it was. John was speaking from a religious stance.

Religion and politics were mixed. John was attacking Herod for religious reasons, which also include political ideas. And even your source stated that John was killed for religious reasons, that is final reason for his death.

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

Nope. We do get negative views of Rome from Christian writings. They may not be blatant, but we can see them. Just look at the book of Revelations. If Jesus spoke out against Roman taxation, we probably would see that, especially if it was a big part of his ministry.

As for Jesus being exempt, show the verses. You have a computer, and can access Google if you must, but show the verses supporting both of your claims.

And how would Jesus know that the business men selling livestock were charging high prices? That is a very simply answer. He would have known the price of a lamb or the like. Why? Because he would have been around that before. If the people in the temple were charging so much more, he would be able to see that. Also, who says Jesus was never at the Temple before?

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

But you have never shown that he was being heavily taxed. You haven't shown Roman taxation at all in the temple. All you've done is taken a whole bunch of unrelated information, and mashed them together, while making up things that aren't in the Gospels, yet you claim is okay because the authors never would have said those things anyway. You have no logical argument.

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.

So he just entered into Jerusalem. How is that mockingly? And really, he would have entered with many people. So many that no one really would have noticed him. He would have been entering in at the same time as everyone else was.

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

Personal opinion means nothing here. I don't care if you consider it stealing. It doesn't make it a fact. It makes it nothing more than an opinion, one that is more emotional than anything else.

WRONG

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

Do you understand what a client king is? That is what I called Caiaphas. Yes, he was put into control by the Romans, yet was still the basically the ruler. He may have answered to someone, but that doesn't mean it was almost the ruler. Again, client king.


As for your link on Temple taxation, it doesn't follow the story. Jesus pays the temple tax. And really, that has nothing to do with Roman taxation. Not to mention, the source is questionable at best. How does he know Jesus was never in Jerusalem before? And he takes a date that is highly unlikely (29 C.E.)

All you did was Google for a source that you think agree with you. That really is not a good method.

 

[fallingblood]

You know what, Let's honestly pretend Christ was killed for cheating taxes, and all that stuff he said about paying them was made up

What does it have to do with the Resurrection?

Nothing, and when it comes down to it, I doubt anyone has a really good argument against the crucifixion, besides people don't come back from the dead. However, the fact that the crucifixion would have been a miracle, basically negates their argument.

 

[outhouse]

There is much more to the tx's issue then your giving credit to.


Outside the temple was also the place for Rome to collect taxes. For Jews to worship, every Jew had to pay-to-pray ― a "temple tax" ― which went into the temple coffer (treasury) that paid the temple expenses and Roman graft. Rome found this was another way to increase their coffer. This tradition of paying the "temple tax" is stated in the gospels when the tax collector went to Jesus for the "temple tax" (Matthew 17:24-27). The New Testament and thusly most pastors, fail to mention that Roman soldiers were stationed right outside the temple courtyard to watch over the "tax money." Not only were the Roman soldiers stationed outside the temple area, they were all over Jerusalem. During Jesus' time, the Jews were stirring up thoughts of rebellion against Roman rule. Roman soldiers were constantly checking any disorder, which could spill over into an uprising against Rome. According to Jewish scriptures, the Jews had a major concern of keeping the pagan Roman soldiers out of the temple area. Not only would their presence in the holy building be a desecration, but also the Sadducees did not want them to find any opportunity to loot the temple treasury. Therefore, it would not be logical to have any disturbance of any kind in the temple area that would have brought in the Roman soldiers.

JESUS CLEANSING THE TEMPLE


if Jesus had done what the unknown gospel writers claim, the Jewish temple guards would have put a quick end to his behavior because the Jewish pilgrims would not have tolerated any acts of aggression that would have endangered the temple

 

[outhouse]

they had theology added to a point. But they weren't creating a deity (that happened later on).

wrong again

it happened from the very beginning as we know within 40 years of his death people looked at him as a deity

 

[outhouse]

We should treat the Gospels as historical documents,

then that goes for all early christian writings like the nag hammadi and you claim those have no historicity.

 

[fallingblood]

if Jesus had done what the unknown gospel writers claim, the Jewish temple guards would have put a quick end to his behavior because the Jewish pilgrims would not have tolerated any acts of aggression that would have endangered the temple

I find it funny how you use some very very obscure sources in order to support your point.

Now, let's assume that Jesus didn't make this commotion. Why was he arrested? There goes most of your argument.

I know the issue quite well. I also know how large the temple was, and the area that would have been effected. There was no danger to the Temple, and really, monetarily, it would have been later danger as well.

 

[fallingblood]

wrong again

it happened from the very beginning as we know within 40 years of his death people looked at him as a deity

No we don't. Paul doesn't list him as a deity. Neither does Mark.

 

[fallingblood]

then that goes for all early christian writings like the nag hammadi and you claim those have no historicity.

I claim those have no historicity regarding Jesus. Why? Because they have been examined as historical documents. They give us a lot of historicity regarding early Christianity though. And they do give us some information about Jesus, but nothing of importance.

And the one that I was referring to was the narrative stories of Jesus that you mentioned.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

if Jesus had done what the unknown gospel writers claim, the Jewish temple guards would have put a quick end to his behavior because the Jewish pilgrims would not have tolerated any acts of aggression that would have endangered the temple

Not if it wasn't on Passover, and even if that was proven faulty it has NOTHING to do with the Resurrection

 

[1137]

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

You cannot logically believe someone rose, physically, from the dead. You have forsaken the logic behind theories that the Bible is corrupt work and that the stories have been altered. You also assume that physical resurrection is more possible than enlightenment, which is both ridiculous as you can prove the physical and not the spiritual (and nobody has ever rose from the dead), and Jesus himself seems to have preached enlightenment (before his words were changed to make following him a corporate and spiritual scam).

You say his body was not there. Well first off, all we have is the word of his followers, who did not write about anything until 40 years after he died, as they needed to form their story better. Also, have you ever heard of grave robbing? If Christ's body truly was gone, it could easily have been moved.

If god exists, the laws of nature come from him, and he would not change them (unless you think god messed up...). One cannot physically rise from the dead and eat with others naturally, and since the laws of nature are from god in your beliefs, it is blasphemous to think Jesus rose from the dead.

Also, I am not sure which other messiahs you are talking about. No other messiah ideas caught on because common sense was still a powerful thing back then, and people weren't going to accept that Jesus, or any other messiah, had come. We were told that when the messiah came it would be a time of peace. The last 2,000+ years seem peaceful to you? No, actually the last 2,000 years, since Jesus' ideas and words were first perverted, have been some of the most conformity enforcing, hate mongering, anti-spiritual years in history.

In short, you have forsaken logic by accepting contradictions, aka a paradox, and paradoxical thought can never be logical. My suggestion is you decide if you want to side with the words and ideas of corrupt men or actually seek the divine.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

You cannot logically believe someone rose, physically, from the dead. You have forsaken the logic behind theories that the Bible is corrupt work and that the stories have been altered. You also assume that physical resurrection is more possible than enlightenment, which is both ridiculous as you can prove the physical and not the spiritual (and nobody has ever rose from the dead), and Jesus himself seems to have preached enlightenment (before his words were changed to make following him a corporate and spiritual scam).

It is irrational to begin with the claim the Bible is false, you'd have to rationally prove that these stories are inaccurate and interpolated, however I've examined these theories and come to my own conclusions, if they are different then yours you can't simply disregard them. It doesn't matter how "likely" a physical resurrection if it happend, if it was one in a billion, it either happened or didn't. I've yet to see an convincing evidence that Christ taught of an enlightenment, can you give me one example? Corporate scam? Howso was the early church a corporate scam?

You say his body was not there. Well first off, all we have is the word of his followers, who did not write about anything until 40 years after he died, as they needed to form their story better. Also, have you ever heard of grave robbing? If Christ's body truly was gone, it could easily have been moved.

So some one entered a grave of a poor rabbi? Nothing valueable in their. On top of that if a diciple stole the body how would he convince the other Christ was there? After Christ's death they locked themselves in a room and won't come out, until after they claimed to see Christ, they were either mistaken or telling the truth, a spiritual enlightenment doesn't explain this. The Gospels were all written much earlier then that, the Snyopic gospels can easily be placed with in a few years up to just over a decaded from Christ's death, as we have reliable authorship for Luke's gospels, and on top of that we have the missing gospels like Q. We also have Paul who was absolutely convinced in a physical ressurection, that he left his comfortable life for it, He would have been writing to very early Christian communities about Christ's ressurection. It's quite reasonable to believe the apostles and the early church held that Christ's body was once again given life.

If god exists, the laws of nature come from him, and he would not change them (unless you think god messed up...). One cannot physically rise from the dead and eat with others naturally, and since the laws of nature are from god in your beliefs, it is blasphemous to think Jesus rose from the dead.

That is a pretty lame God, it's kinda of a deist God, luckly I believe in a God is above nature and can control aas much as He wants. The point of natural laws is that we can clearly see when God is preforming a miracle, otherwise God would be a Deist God.

Also, I am not sure which other messiahs you are talking about. No other messiah ideas caught on because common sense was still a powerful thing back then, and people weren't going to accept that Jesus, or any other messiah, had come. We were told that when the messiah came it would be a time of peace. The last 2,000+ years seem peaceful to you? No, actually the last 2,000 years, since Jesus' ideas and words were first perverted, have been some of the most conformity enforcing, hate mongering, anti-spiritual years in history.

The evilness of Christians only mean Christ meant what He said when He proclaim "Not All who call Lord, Lord, know me" however that has nothing to do with anything.

Many messiahs were present in the first century, and only one is connected to a ressurection and only one has a world religon today, so I'm asking skeptics what makes Jesus like any of the false messiahs of the first century

In short, you have forsaken logic by accepting contradictions, aka a paradox, and paradoxical thought can never be logical. My suggestion is you decide if you want to side with the words and ideas of corrupt men or actually seek the divine.

Prove to me you have the more reliable path to the divine, and I'll lend and ear, prove to me the apostles are corrupt,
Give me a logical reason my theories contractict and I'll reconsider, your word is not enogh

 

[1137]

Howso was the early church a corporate scam?

I don't know... selling salvation, changing old beliefs to make conversion easier, taking over the Roman empire... A simple study of history will prove that Christianity is a scam.

So some one entered a grave of a poor rabbi? Nothing valueable in their. On top of that if a diciple stole the body how would he convince the other Christ was there? After Christ's death they locked themselves in a room and won't come out, until after they claimed to see Christ, they were either mistaken or telling the truth, a spiritual enlightenment doesn't explain this.

Nothing of value there?! There is plenty of value from stealing Christ's body, such as control of half the world's population for the past 2,000 years. That one speaks for itself. They locked themselves in a room to sit Shiva, a common Jewish thing which you do after a Jewish person dies. Either mistaken or telling the truth? You conveniently forgot lying.

That is a pretty lame God, it's kinda of a deist God, luckly I believe in a God is above nature and can control aas much as He wants. The point of natural laws is that we can clearly see when God is preforming a miracle, otherwise God would be a Deist God.

You think this is a lame god, yet you think a god who holds your hand through life and provides you with all the answers you need is not lame? Where is the purpose if the path is laid out right in front of our faces? It sounds like a lazy way out to me, one where you can give money to your church and simply glide into heaven... but :0 that would only support my theory. Better ignore that one...

The evilness of Christians only mean Christ meant what He said when He proclaim "Not All who call Lord, Lord, know me" however that has nothing to do with anything.

Convenient.

Many messiahs were present in the first century, and only one is connected to a ressurection and only one has a world religon today, so I'm asking skeptics what makes Jesus like any of the false messiahs of the first century

Prove to me you have the more reliable path to the divine, and I'll lend and ear, prove to me the apostles are corrupt,
Give me a logical reason my theories contractict and I'll reconsider, your word is not enogh

Many 'messiahs' just like Christ existed before Christian mythology was completed. Their are savior heroes and gods throughout all of history. In fact, the mythology of Jesus is almost all of the best aspects of old myths put into one, which could be an extremely curious coincidence. They were world religions until Christianity forced conversion through promises of salvation or threat of death.

Your theories contradict because they do... You believe in a loving god that allows us to suffer, that a path clearly laid out is a difficult journey, that god created natural laws only to violate them, not to mention a holy book bursting with contradictions. If logic, history, evidence, and reason were acceptable to you this conversation would not be happening. There is nothing more I can say where logic does not apply.

 

[outhouse]

I find it funny how you use some very very obscure sources in order to support your point.

Now, let's assume that Jesus didn't make this commotion. Why was he arrested? There goes most of your argument.

I know the issue quite well. I also know how large the temple was, and the area that would have been effected. There was no danger to the Temple, and really, monetarily, it would have been later danger as well.

agreed we are talking acres, small outburst at one end

thats why its still a mystery

 

[outhouse]

No we don't. Paul doesn't list him as a deity. Neither does Mark.

Paul claims a vision and or hearing a resurrected yeshua

No but John goes a little loopy now doesnt he

 

[outhouse]

I claim those have no historicity regarding Jesus. Why? Because they have been examined as historical documents. They give us a lot of historicity regarding early Christianity though. And they do give us some information about Jesus, but nothing of importance.

And the one that I was referring to was the narrative stories of Jesus that you mentioned.

fair enough, just seems like your playing a double standard in gray areas

 

[outhouse]

Not if it wasn't on Passover, and even if that was proven faulty it has NOTHING to do with the Resurrection

the resurrection at best has to do with a missing body.

There is not alot to debate with this


do you have something that you would like to discuss??

 

[fallingblood]

the resurrection at best has to do with a missing body.

There is not alot to debate with this


do you have something that you would like to discuss??

A missing body is not needed. Especially if it was a sprititual resurrection as Paul suggest.

 

[outhouse]

It is irrational to begin with the claim the Bible is false,

nope

there are areas with fiction added to fulfil prophecy, the bible contradicts itself.

there were ZERO eye witnesses to write about yeshua

Those people who never met Yeshua that did write about him only did so decades after his death and these were all written after decades of oral tradition told as fables around campfires.

yeshuas message spread from the poor and carried momentum before finally being important enough for early followers of this movement to write things down.

you'd have to rationally prove that these stories are inaccurate and interpolated

its already been done. we know about forgery's and other additions to alot of the gospels

if it was one in a billion, it either happened or didn't

I can only guarantee one thing, and that is once you die, you are dead and no man has ever came back from death that was really dead after 3 days.

It did not happen as written