Duvduv

AA, if you understand the Jesus figure to be a ghost despite being born from a woman, do you find any evidence that the Jesus of the Quran is viewed as a ghost as the son of the virgin Mary?

Vorkosigan

There's no valid methodology that can produce what you have in this list. All you have is a kind of ideological construct.

Why did you make these moves? What justifies that?

Vorkosigan

outhouse

I understand and know what your talking about completely.

except, you may have a tax wrong. They are dealing with a poll tax, in parts. not the temple tax you speak of that was voluntary in the past.


when it comes to taxation of hebrews, im relying on anthropology. And the romans taxed every moving part of a hebrew.



There is no way a hard working peasant teacher would have accepted the roman taxation that kept him in extreme poverty.


You would also apply the heavy work load due to the fee's needed to build Sepphoris and Tiberius, but the extra work needed to feed the newly exploded population of both. The burden was put on the hard working hebrews only to take away what little they made in taxes and crooked tax collectors.



you also fail to realize the temple was the bank, and romans were in control and placed Caiaphas in power. Romans controlled the temple and the tax you speak of.

this ticked of hebrews in a extreme way, it was a roman infection in yawhehs house

Bernard Muller

to Vorkosigan,
My methology is explained. I already did display it a few days ago in this forum. Do you know of a (or the) valid methodology?
No, this is not ideological. But explained at length and through several avenues in my website (see the webpages I posted for explanations).
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Again, it is in my website. But there are no short answers. And you would not expect an unschooled Jew to be too fancy and try to look like a teacher?
I got a webpage dedicated against itineracy:
http://historical-jesus.info/appg.html
And two webpages against parables starting at:
http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html

Sheshbazzar

Have you taken the time to read Exodus 30:13-16 ?

There is nothing 'voluntary' about it. To pay the half-shekel is one of the 248 'positive' "You Shall.." COMMANDMENTS of the 613 COMMANDMENTS. It was not a suggestion, it was an ORDER to be obeyed.
To not pay it, or refuse to pay it, one was breaking The Law, and might as well be serving a strange god, working on the Sabbath, and serving the Jews bacon cooked in blood.

Yes I recognize that the Jews were under heavy taxation from the Romans. But Matthew 17:24- 27 has nothing to do with taxation of individual Jews by the Romans.
And thus is not an appropriate textual reference to employ to attempt to support any arguments about Roman taxation. Or any insinuation that the Nazarene ever supported or encouraged anyone not to 'Render unto Caesar..' his due.

And further, that the Jewish Priesthood may have been in cahoots with the Romans, hell.. even if they handed over the entire Temple treasury to the Romans, that did not remove any Jew from his COMMANDED obligation to obey The Law of YHWH and pay his requisite yearly half-shekel to YHWH's ordained and authorized Levitical Temple Priesthood.

It was the Levites exclusive prerogative to manage The Temple treasury, and to employ its assets in any manner they decided helped further the interests of their people. This had at many times in their history required the paying of huge and extortionate tributes to avoid going to war, or to receive the 'protection' of bigger, stronger, foreign nations.

Not a lot different than when the U.S. government, President and Congress decides to use taxpayer funds to assist the likes of Saddam Hussein or ship wheat to Russia during the Cold War years. We were required to pay our taxes regardless of how much we might disagree with these decisions.


.

Adam

I showed in my OP of Gospel Eyewitnesses that there was an eyewitness to the trial of Jesus:

This source is the Passion Narrative, the largest part of the material common to both John and the Synoptics. The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark, who was the most likely “disciple known to the high priest”. (See John 18:15-16, 20:2-9, in which in John 20:2 the English word “love” is phileo in the Greek, not “agape” as in John 13. In John 18-19 we get events and direct quotes that Peter would not have witnessed.)

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306983

Then in Post #17 of Bilblical texts earlier than thought [Dating the Book of Acts] I expanded this to include also the preceding days:

I propose a new starting point. To reach Descartes’s dictum, “I think, therefore I am”, we must find some place in the gospels where an individual starts from his own knowledge. This point occurs in John 12 where Jesus comes for dinner to Bethany in the home of Mary and Martha and (and apparently also of John Mark). The Passion Narrative is widely recognized as the written source underlying the gospels, but the writer has to have known Jesus from earlier to be among his followers in what occurs in John 18 and 19. The individualistic standpoint of this writer may go back no farther than these few days earlier when Jesus came in John 12:2. This was also Lazarus’s house, which may be why some scholars have suggested Lazarus as being the Beloved Disciple and/or the author of the Gospel of John (or a source in it). But Lazarus was already well known to Jesus (11:3), so his own eyewitness story would have to start much earlier, and it does not seem to. Tentatively let’s work with “the disciple known to the high priest (18:15-16) as this “I am” source who is telling us all he knew about Jesus for the next week, starting with John 11:54, 12:2-8, 12-14a, 13:18 or 21, and 13:38.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=311535

Sheshbazzar

:horsecrap::hobbyhorse::deadhorse:

outhouse

No kidding



On another note I studied the roman and temple tax, I will find my links about it being voluntary.

I had fought it wasnt for a bit, just due to the temple being such a amazing sight, and cost to build.

outhouse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar


first lets ditch your idea on temple tax and I will get back to it.


render unto ceasar, was a poll tax

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar




a quote mine here


They anticipated that Jesus would oppose the tax,





and about the poll tax



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)







http://bible.cc/matthew/17-24.htm





and the collection of Moses in the wilderness, was urged as an argument, and by way of example; nor is any mention made of the half shekel, nor was any sum of money fixed they should pay; but, according to the account, it was entirely free and voluntary

Sheshbazzar

There is nothing 'voluntary' about it. To pay the half-shekel is one of the 248 'positive' "YOU SHALL.." COMMANDMENTS of the 613 COMMANDMENTS.

It was not a suggestion, it was a COMMANDMENT of THE LAW to be obeyed. For as long as THE LAW, and THE LAW's authorized Levitical Priesthood existed. Which it most certainly did at that time.

To not pay, or to refuse to pay, 'one-half shekel' (or its equivalent value in other gold or silver coinage, -precisely measured- equaling to ten gerahs weight in gold. The whole shekel being twenty gerahs in weigh Ex 30:15) one was breaking THE LAW, and violating THE LAW'S express COMMANDMENT to do so.
And in a TRANSGRESSION of THE LAW every bit as much as if one were serving a strange god, working on the Sabbath, and gorging on bacon cooked in blood.

Any source that you may ever produce that states, or suggests that observance of this COMMANDMENT OF THE LAW to pay the half-shekel, of exactly ten gerahs weight in gold, (or coinage of equivalent gold weight and value) was a voluntary payment, is in error and is false.

It was not a voluntary 'Do you wish to?' but THE LAW was, and still is "YOU SHALL GIVE.."
With the precision of its measure and its weight being paramount. No one permitted to give as much as one gerah more, nor one gerah less, under any circumstances. v.15 The amount was 'set' and 'fixed' by LAW and was not voluntary.

No matter how many mealy-mouthed preachers or religious 'experts' you might reference who will 'nickel and dime' you to death, by trying to tell you how much it is worth in an inflation adjusted exchange rate.
(The exchange value of the coinage used is utterly irrelevant, it is the -invariable- precision of weight that is of the essence)
THE LAW and THE COMMANDMENT is clear on the matter.

This has been explained to you.






.