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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It may be worth taking my entire argument into context instead of cutting it into tiny pieces, and then trying to argue against it. It really doesn't work. Especially when by doing so, you contradict yourself. Here is an example, "yet it was the defining moment that caused his death. everyone is pretty clear on this." Which is basically saying that my argument doesn't work. And then you say, "It could have, yes." Which is saying that my argument has merit. You can't have it both ways.
It doesn't matter if he choose his words carefully. He still had a message that was pretty clear. More so, if he didn't talk directly, then why assume that he was upset with "thieves" in the Temple? You are stating there that he was talking very directly.
Not really. You have shown a misunderstanding. Jesus and John, having been in Galilee, under a client king, were not made to pay taxes to Rome. They paid taxes to the client king. Yes, the client king paid a tribute to Rome; however, John and Jesus would have been paying taxes elsewhere.
Why try to dismiss these details, yet, when the details fit what you're saying, you act as if they are solid facts? That is being hypocritical. You can't have it both.
Not at all. The taxes were Temple taxes. He wasn't forced to pay those. In fact, we know that many people didn't pay them. The reason being that most people did not have the chance to actually go to Jerusalem everyday. More so, it's not like they had this massive record that kept everyone's name who paid the tax. Since Jesus had already been at the Temple, he could have paid it then. Or if we look at what the Gospels say, he already paid it while in Capernaum (Matthew 17. It is also found in Mark).
So his preaching and demonstration would be suicide, but him acting out in anger wouldn't? He doesn't seem angry when he is arrested, and is able to call off his disciples from attacking anyone. But we are to believe that Jesus, who had been at the Temple before, didn't loose his temper any other time we see, even when people are trying to corner him, acts in anger during this one time, knowing full well what may happen? I don't think so.
Not a real argument. Just a pointless dismissal. If you can't show any reason to doubt the position I suggested, then you have no case. An appeal to scholars is faulty logic.
Not a real argument. Evolution was a minority position as well. Should we have just discarded it? No, that would be foolish. If you can't offer a credible argument against it, then you really have nothing. Not to mention, Paul never mentions it being on Passover. And he is our earliest source to the Crucifixion.
Again, not really an argument against what I said. I didn't say Jesus went before the High Priest. There would have been no need for that (not to say it isn't possible). What I stated is that the High Priest had a motivation to have Jesus captured, and handed over to the Romans. And that was one of fear, as John states. It is better to get rid of one, than sacrifice the entire group.
You stated that there was a Roman crime and punishment. I don't doubt there was a punishment. Yes, there was a death sentence. However, a death sentence does not mean there was a crime committed, just the charge of a crime.
It may be worth actually reading my argument at all. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm dealing with the idea, in a way that you may disagree, but in a way that I'm supporting.
I am following the conversation and keeping it in perspective. I quoted your comments in question, which were both in response to the same idea that I stated. Yet, your comments seemingly contradict themselves. Which is why I stated that you shouldn't cut apart my arguments, and take them out of context.
You need to follow, and understand what I'm saying. Simple saying false, doesn't make it so. I was explaining my problem with your tactic of cutting what I said apart, and taking it out of context.
Yes, I am claiming that is part of it. I'm not denying that it is probable that the Temple incident had something to do with it. I'm simply stating that the Temple incident was a demonstration connected to what he was preaching.
Only if you don't take what the scripture says in context. You are focusing only one the single event, while ignoring everything that surrounded it. More so, you ignore what Jesus even said in the Temple. As in, you don't take into account the verses that he was referencing. That is not a credible argument.
I have no idea what you are talking about as you once again stripped what I said out of context. Because in context, I was talking about John and Jesus paying taxes. I don't doubt that happened.
Why leave John out of it because he was dead? I mean, that really doesn't effect what I said anyway. You simply made a comment that has nothing to do with what I said, and assume that makes my point go away.
I find it really funny how you're able to speak with certainty (even though you criticized me for supposedly doing so) when it fits you. That is hypocritical. More so, you didn't even read the verse I supplied. Jesus hardly speaks about taxes. He pays his Temple tax without complaining. He tells his followers to pay their taxes (give to Caesar what is Caesar's).
You took me out of context, or simply did not read what I said if you would come up with that conclusion.
First, they weren't bank tellers. Completely different. Again from Sanders though, pg 64 "The desire of the authorities to receive the money in a standard coinage which did not have on it the image of the emperor or king is reasonable, and no one ever seems to have protested this. The money changers naturally charged a fee for changing money.......The business arrangements around the temple were necessary if the commandment were to be obeyed." So, we have no records of protest of this, and it was necessary.
We do need to know about Jeremiah, as the statement from Jesus regarding a den of thieves comes directly from Jeremiah. Jesus was quoting Jeremiah (you seem to think that Jesus did in fact say something about a den of thieves, so you really have no objections here), and in order to understand what Jesus was saying then, we have to understand Jeremiah. The people he was speaking to at that time would have been familiar with the Hebrew scripture, and Jeremiah.
Jesus wasn't messing with the "IRS's banktellers." There were no bank tellers in the Temple. Again, I refer you to the quote of Sanders which stated, ""The notion that the temple should serve some function other than sacrifice would seem to be extremely remote from the thinking of a first-century Jew."
I'm not ignoring it. I've tried to explain it to you. You have ignored much of what I have said though, or taken it out of context. You are assuming a lot about the Temple that simply had nothing to do with the Temple. You are making the Temple into something it isn't. More so, you are ignoring key events in the story, such as Jesus having already gone to the temple, him going after the incident, there being no forced tax, etc.
Then why do you state things as fact? You're not leaving it open ended when you state something such as, "...it was the icident in the temple that got him hilled."
Does that actually matter? Sure, some didn't. Does that mean none did? We also know that some do, does that mean all do? Not at all.
No they weren't. I will once again repeat what E.P. Sanders said: "pg 64 "..in payment of the half-shekel tax levied on all Jews. The word 'levied' itself requires interpretation, for payment of the tax was voluntary, being enforced only by moral suasion." It was a voluntary tax. That in itself really takes away from your argument.
What did Jesus actually say in the Temple? You keep saying that he called them thieves, but that isn't what he said. He said that the Temple had become a den of robbers (you can use thieves as well). This is quoting from Jeremiah 7:11. That is important, as Jesus would not quote form Jeremiah, unless he wanted people to reference Jeremiah.
Did you even read what I said? The money changers were there in order to exchange the money of pilgrims into money that was acceptable, as you state, Temple coinage. This was so that one could buy a sacrifice.
True. If you read scholarship on the subject, it is agreed that Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God, and that his actions in the Temple were accompanied by a teaching of the destruction of the Temple. The list of scholars I mentioned above agree on this as well.
No. He was in Capernaum. Matthew 17 states that Jesus already paid the Temple tax, which again was voluntary. One did not have to pay the Temple tax while in Jerusalem. In fact, many scholars believe that Paul was actually collecting the Temple tax as well, as part of his deal with the Jerusalem church.
How did he avoid them the year before? The Gospels say very little about the Temple tax, but they do say that Jesus paid them. So maybe you want to show a verse saying that he avoided them.
E.P. Sanders is a good place to start. Yes, there were some that you had to pay for. However, not all of them. Since you made the claim, to you have a source that says all ritual baths had to be paid for?
I want you to defend your position. That is all. A simple and pointless dismissal is not an argument. It is a cop out.
An appeal to authority is not an argument. It is a logical fallacy. And yes, there are people arguing against it happening at Passover. As I stated, John Shelby Spong is such a proponent. I believe he makes a good case, not saying I subscribe to such though. But I just don't dismiss it because it doesn't fit in my idea.
I'm doing no such thing. Read the work of John Shelby Spong, particularly Jesus for the Non-Religious. He subscribes to the idea that this incident happened at another time, yet that the basic framework for the story of Jesus is still there.
I'm taking a biased version, when you quote the Jesus seminar? I think that is the pot calling the kettle black.
Sure you did. The key is the charge of a crime. There are many cases of people being crucified for not committing crimes.
Well, in the case of Jesus, son of Ananias, there was no such Temple incident. There was a prediction of destruction, similar to what Jesus did. In the case of Jesus, son of Ananias, he got off simply because he was deemed a maniac. However, that is strong evidence that a prediction of destruction was enough to have one arrested, and more.
I honestly don't think you have read most of what scholars and historians have to say. Either way, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It is not a valid argument, and nothing more than a cop out.
You've never shown that it had anything to do with anger, or that is the general consensus. Reading a variety of Jesus scholars, I can say that they don't follow such an idea. What is seen is the idea that incident in the Temple was an action based on a teaching. That the action and teaching have to go together.
And we know that they did kill many preachers for preaching. So I don't see how that is an argument.
What small riot? You keep talking about this small riot, yet you have never shown any evidence of such. More so, if there was a riot, Jesus would have been killed right there on the spot, probably along with those other rioting. That or at least arrested. They certainly wouldn't allow it to go on, and they definitely wouldn't let Jesus come back shortly later and preach again.
Why would it be suicide to speak a message? We know from other sources, people were arrested for preaching certain messages. They weren't committing suicide, they were preaching a message. More so, he confronted the priests. In fact, he went and had a confrontation with the priests the day after the incident in the Temple, according to scripture (Matthew 21). So he didn't keep his mouth shut.
It isn't a fact. You keep ignoring everything that I say about the incident. There is no reason for him to be mad. And looking at what he said, as in quoting Isaiah and Jeremiah, he wasn't in fit of anger when he had the incident in the temple. Again, if you look at scholarship on the subject, they will say that it was an action, and a message. You can't separate the two. It was calculated.
I quoted E.P. Sanders. I have also referenced other sources. You really have no ground to criticize me for not supplying sources, when you don't either. Sure, you show Wikipedia when it helps you, but most of what you're saying is unsubstantiated. You just keep appealing to authority.
How does that relate to this? More so, it wasn't one thing that it was fought over. It was a lot of things. It was something that was building up for a very long time. Part of it though was that Nero took money from the Temple's treasure. So we can clearly see that the Jewish authority didn't not like it, and hardly stood by doing nothing when it was done. It shows that the Romans were not really gaining money from Passover, as the money went to the Temple, not to Rome. When Rome tried to take the money, there were always problems.
I like how you dismiss me as providing biased opinions simply because you don't agree with what I'm saying. Really that is just ridiculous. More so, I have backed what I said by quoting E.P. Sanders. As for explaining the Wikipedia entry, it has nothing to do with the Temple tax, or any tax that would have been collected at Passover. It has nothing to do with Passover. You show some resisting a poll tax. That has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I didn't ignore those points (you have ignored a number of points I've made though). I simply haven't responded to that post yet. If you read at my last responses, you will see that I hadn't gotten to your last posts, but instead was replying to other posts of yours. To suggest that I'm ignoring something then, simply because I haven't gotten to it, just is dishonest.
Not mistakes at all. Well researched information, that disagrees with what you're saying. There is a difference.
You call my opinion biased? Do you know who Dr. Lee Warren is? Or what PLIM organization is? I hope you don't, and are only using that article because it agrees with you. I mean, he is a Mathematics graduate. Not to mention his teachings regarding many conspiracy theories and secret societies. But I will deal with it anyway.
That doesn't agree with any scholars. Money changers, as the name implied, changed money. They exchanged tainted money for "Temple coinage" as you refer to it. As E.P. Sanders states "The notion that the temple should serve some function other than sacrifice would seem to be extremely remote from the thinking of a first-century Jew." There is no reason to think that the Temple was like a bank.
Yes, it had a treasury. By all accounts though, it was used for worship means. Much of it had to do with upkeep. Again, I refer you to the above quote by E.P. Sanders.
I have no idea where anyone would get this idea. The money changers were not from a specific sect. They were Jews, and that really is all. We have evidence that they could be Pharisees, Sadducees, or others. As for Pharisees being lovers of money, that is nothing more than polemical attacks. There is no external evidence for that.
Again from E.P. Sanders, "..in payment of the half-shekel tax levied on all Jews. The word 'levied' itself requires interpretation, for payment of the tax was voluntary, being enforced only by moral suasion." He is talking about the first century. As for the book The Temple, do you know anything about it? The author, Alfred Edersheim's, died in 1889. It is highly outdated, and was produced during a time that Biblical scholarship was much below what we have now. We are talking about a time in which scripture criticism was just at it's threshold. Not credible now, as E.P. Sanders points out.
I've cited the verse 2 or 3 times now. If you wouldn't take it out of context, and read the entire story, you would see that Jesus still paid the tax. Also, if you read the verse, it isn't being asked why he doesn't pay the tax, but if he pays the tax. Which the answer was yes, as in he pays the temple tax.
Have you ever read E.P. Sanders, I mean besides what you can find on Wikipedia? Because I'm doubting it by what you are saying here, referencing a very limited quote.
That is not what he states. He only states that if you ignore everything else he says. He states, as I have shown, that it was his teaching and actions. His actions in the Temple were part of his teaching.
Not at all. I'm not downplaying the tension due to taxes at all. I'm saying they have nothing to do with this event. Jesus, being from Galilee, would not be paying taxes in Jerusalem, which was in Judea. More so, Temple taxes were voluntary, and from what we can see, Jesus paid them already while in Capernaum. So there is no reason to assume that taxes had anything to do with Jesus' actions in the Temple.
I'm not downplaying taxes. I'm saying they had nothing to do with what happened. And that there is no reason to think that there was, as he wasn't paying taxes in Jerusalem, as he was from Galilee, and he didn't have to pay Temple taxes as the Gospels say he already paid them in Capernaum (as E.P. Sanders mentions) and they were voluntary.
He has way more than enough historicity. That is why only a handful of people hold to the idea that Jesus didn't exist, and for the most part, they are not Biblical scholars but conspiracy theorists. There may be a few exceptions, but not really. Josephus is more than enough to show that he existed, and Paul is icing to the cake. Not to mention that we have no actual reason to dismiss the Gospels; especially when one utilizes them as they would any other historic document.
Please cite some scripture or some evidence. You haven't yet, but one verse taken out of context, which actually said he paid taxes.
So you can say that for sure? I doubt it. Yes, it is true that many hated the over taxation. But I hardly see what that has to do with the action in the Temple. Jesus wasn't attacking the Romans by his actions in the Temple. It had nothing to do with the Romans. So it makes no sense at all for Jesus to supposedly act out about Roman taxation while in the Temple.