stephan huller

But the samaritans simply had a shekel tax of their own. its not a temple tax. there is no reference to a "temple" in the Pentateuch. I dont believe you are an atheist. you are addicted to christian apologetics.

judge

And this is relevant how? :huh:

stephan huller

I just wanted to clear up a rampant misconception

outhouse

Sanders is not christian apologetics

he is a highly respected scholar in the field of HJ

I like alot of his work, but do argue against some of it for more modern takes.



I dont go down the road of stating your a biased to judaism, and Im no christian so lets stop with the nonsense.




this has turned into a pissing match about whos right and I could care less. if it was mandatory so be it, we just dont have alot of material to weed through for facts regarding details from this period.

stephan huller

My difficulty is simply that you haven't a clue what you are talking about and act like this is something which can be 'debated.' There is a shekel payment (half-shekel but it is usually referenced as 'shekel') which is mandatory and Jews, Samaritans and Karaites treat as such because this is plain meaning of the Pentateuch. You made a stupid argument based on apologetic writings that the payment was optional (the reason the apologists erred is because they don't want to see the full implications of Jesus's hesitation to pay).

Now you want to argue that the Mishnah's refusal to take the money from some kind of 'Jews' (= Samaritans) means the payment wasn't obligatory. You can keep going on with this but we both know you haven't a clue what you are talking about.

outhouse

back at ya, with that clue thing.


I tried your position before, and what part of I dont care because no one knows what was going on in the temple under roman rule with 100% certainty dont you understand???

you keep posting biased info and claim to know it all, im sorry you dont.

you have put up a poor case for mandatory taxes, hell I put up a better fight then you in my other thread.

Even Shesh has been putting up better information.



I am glad your getting personal though, it shows your weakness and probably why you get blown out of non myther sites

aa5874

Let us NOT get diverted from the issue at hand.

The HJ argument is horribly absurd.

HJers claim THEIR Jesus was an OBSCURE preacher.

But HJers use a source which claimed Jesus was a MESSIAH--A MOST RECOGNIZED character in JEWRY if he existed.

A Messiah is TANTAMOUNT to a KING of the JEWS.

Examine Matthew 2 HJers need to take some time off to re-assess their position.

THEIR HJ could NOT be OBSCURE if they use Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

In Josephus Jesus was a MESSIANIC RULER--A KING of the Jews.

John 19:19 KJV The OBSCURE HJ argument does NOT make any sense.

Sheshbazzar

Yeah, an utterly weird argument, here is this preacher that is so obscure that he is virtually unknown.

__but the reason everyone knows him was because he was famous and had thousands of followers.

judge

What about Judas the galilean or "the egyptian"?
"The Egyptian is supposed to have rounded up 30,000 men if we believe josephus, but we have no other trace of him.

Does that mean josephus made him up?

aa5874

It really does NOT matter if some Egyptian did NOT exist because we would still have to independently inquire into the existence of OBSCURE HJ.

1. HJers claim their Jesus was OBSCURE.

2. A Messiah is like a KING to the Jews.

OBSCURE HJ cannot be the MESSIANIC RULER in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

OBSCURE HJ cannot be the King of the Jews in the Gospels and Galatians 1.19.

Please Just go find your OBSCURE HJ. The SEARCH is on--you may be Lucky.