The Jesus to whom atheists and others often refer

[Eloi]

Many times when the teachings of Jesus and his person are discussed, reference is made to a particular interpretation of what his words may be indicating. For example, I have read a discussion about a Jesus who denies or contradicts the Law of Moses. But that is an incorrect way of understanding Jesus, just like a political Jesus is or one who does not admit rich people among his followers, as if honest possessions were sin.

Can those who debate the teachings of Jesus at least begin to ascertain that the Jesus they suppose is the one that Scripture shows us and not an imaginary Jesus?

This topic is to analyze the need to be serious in the use of terms and premises, so that the debates adjust to the truth, and the conclusions are more accurate.

What is the Jesus you have in mind? Does it correspond to the Jesus of the Bible? Can you really know what Jesus was like?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #63]


Well, I love the Shekel eating fish, butb I don't believe it.

In the Gospel account, in Capernaum the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax ask Peter whether Jesus pays the tax, and he replies "Yes". When Peter returns to where they are staying, Jesus speaks of the matter, asking his opinion: "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own children or from others?" Peter answers, "from others," and Jesus replies: "Then the children are exempt. But so that we may not cause offense, go to the lake (the Sea of Galilee) and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Analysis
The story ends at this point, without stating that Peter caught the fish as Jesus predicted.[4]
This may be the only time Jesus performed a miracle in order to avoid offending people (in this case, those who collected the two-drachma temple tax[citation needed]).
The four-drachma (or shekel) coin would be exactly enough to pay the temple tax (two-drachma coin) for two people.[5] It is usually thought to be a Tyrian shekel.[6][7]
The coin in the fish's mouth is generally seen as a symbolic act or sign, but there is little agreement concerning what it signifies.[4]
The Bible does not specify the species of the fish caught by Peter, but tilapia is sometimes referred to as "St. Peter's fish".[Wiki]

Apparently the 'John Dory' of Lake Galilee has a mark on supposed to be Peter's thumb=print. Which could be an evolved protection device, like the Samurai crabs in Japan. Fishermen piously throw them back so the critters evolved the camouflage to escape being eaten.

However, I'll mention an old polemical book I have that hopefully suggests that the Galilee Tilapia had a mouth just the right size to take a shekel. Like that proved the story true.

But I reckon I know what the point of the story (Matthew 17.24) is. It is to excuse the obligation on Christians to pay the temple tax, which I gather was still imposed on Jews even after the Temple was destroyed. It is likened to any kind of tax. Who pays it? The King's children or others? Thus the son of God does not need to pay the temple tax and neither do those who follow Jesus. However (Matthew writes) Jesus in order to avoid trouble, does pay the tax for himself and Peter, but I suppose to make it more removed from caving in and paying up despite saying he didn't have to, it is turned into a miracle. it doesn't entirely make sense and is all a bit silly, but Matthew is not in fact the sharpest knife in the Biblical Box.

Two Drachma Temple tax...... that's very interesting. I've not read that before.
A drachma was a Greek coin, wasn't it? The Northern provinces may have seen them, for sure. A list of coinage used by Jews throughout Palestine and Syria in early 1st century Galilee would be very interesting to peruse, I think. Hence Anna's Bazaar.
A Denarius was almost the same diameter as a Temple shekel and about half the thickness, are you figuring that a drachma was a similar weight to the denarius?
I can perceive that story as being genuine, in as much as Jesus could have told Cephas, 'Hey, so go catch a fish and pay the tax! a kind of 'big deal' response which Christianity just had to build in to another miracle.

By the way, I've never figured out whether the Temple shekel weighed half a shekel, the Temple Head tax........ it must have done and numismatists have simply called it the 'Temple Shekel' in recent times.

Anyway....... I don't think that Matthew 17:24 is referring to the Temple Tax, but the local taxation and licensing fees for boatmen and boats upon the lake, handled by publicans under a Taxation Official...... under Herod Antipas's authority..... can you help with this? But maybe Christians did spin the 'We don't have to pay the shekel' line from that story.

On the side: I don't think that coin shown to Jesus on the Tuesday in the Temple was a denarius, I think it was a shekel:-
1. Who got near enough to see the coin being held?
2. Both denarius and shekel were similar diameter and would have looked similar at any distance.
3. It was the shekel that Jesus (and the people) would have hated....
4. Graven image on the reverse........ not good.
5. Caesar's abbreviation in Greek letters on the reverse......... not good.
6. The image of Mengarth Heracles on the obverse...... (Baal to the Jews?) ....what an outrage! And looking very like a Caesar's image.

Whose inscription and image? Ha ha! That priest must have just about defecated himself; and Christianity just missed the real story.

Anyway...... back to the lake, I rather think that the coin in fish's mouth might have been a genuine conversation twisted in to a miracle which happened a few times in the gospels....somewhat.......

I'm pretty sure the passage identified the temple tax, specifically. In fact the story makes no sense unless the temple tax is the subject of discussion. It seems that it was 2 Denarii or a half shekel so one shekel would pay the tax for two. The silver Temple shekel was one shekel weight of pure Tyrian (or imitating Tyrian) silver. This would not have the Roman head on and foreign secular coinage had to be changed to Temple silver for Temple transactions to be made. I rather doubted that Roman coins were even allowed as far as the treasury but they might have been allowed to donate Roman money so a coin with Caesar's head on might possibly have been available. Nevertheless, whether or no, I disbelieve so many of these teaching scenarios that I don't believe this one, even if it is possible.

Let me check consistency. I think it is not in Matthew, but it is in Mark. and Luke. Not in John of course. This is a real puzzle as Matthew should share the story with Mark ('M' material) or with Luke ("Q" material). But for mark and Luke to have the widow's mite but not Matthew is very strange. It seems that it might be the one case where he really did decide to leave it out, but why I can't make a confident guess.

[oldbadger]

Do you acknowledge that you're overinterpreting Contra Celsum?

No

Here's what Origen said about what Celsus said, which would have been polite of you to quote yourself if you wanted it to be part of your argument:
But how can this Jew of Celsus escape the charge of falsehood, when he says that Jesus, "when on earth, gained over to himself only ten sailors and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character, and not even the whole of these?"

If Origen is accurately representing what Celsus wrote, it looks like Celsus believed what his sources told him. We already knew that at least some Christians of the late second century treated the Gospels and Acts as literal history of a literal Jesus, so Celsus trusting a second-hand account of what contemporary Christians believed it is neither new information nor some sort of independent confirmation that those beliefs are true.

Origen wrote in the 2nd century, and there is absolutely no doubt that he believed Jesus and his friends to have been real-life folks, and his mention of 'ten sailors and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character,' is how I think he would have perceived them to be.
Nice on Celsus...... enemy of the cross you no doubt were but you definitely believed in a real Jesus.
His ten sailors (boatmen?) and tax-gatherers (plural) looks more accurate than even the gospel's descriptions, imo.

[Difflugia]

Origen wrote in the 2nd century,

Celsus wrote in the second century, Origen wrote in the third.

and there is absolutely no doubt that he believed Jesus and his friends to have been real-life folks,

You're going to have to flesh this out a bit more. He may not have doubted it, but there's no indication that his sources were anything other than contemporary Christians and Jews.

and his mention of 'ten sailors and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character,' is how I think he would have perceived them to be.

Nice on Celsus...... enemy of the cross you no doubt were but you definitely believed in a real Jesus.

His ten sailors (boatmen?) and tax-gatherers (plural) looks more accurate than even the gospel's descriptions, imo.

A different Christian tradition, Jewish polemic, or a simple mistake? It's hard to tell.

[oldbadger]

I'm pretty sure the passage identified the temple tax, specifically. In fact the story makes no sense unless the temple tax is the subject of discussion. It seems that it was 2 Denarii or a half shekel so one shekel would pay the tax for two. The silver Temple shekel was one shekel weight of pure Tyrian (or imitating Tyrian) silver. This would not have the Roman head on and foreign secular coinage had to be changed to Temple silver for Temple transactions to be made. I rather doubted that Roman coins were even allowed as far as the treasury but they might have been allowed to donate Roman money so a coin with Caesar's head on might possibly have been available. Nevertheless, whether or no, I disbelieve so many of these teaching scenarios that I don't believe this one, even if it is possible.

OK, but I don't think so. tax and licence fee collectors in Galilee collected Galilean taxes. The Temple tax was paid at the Temple and all other currencies which came in had to be changed at the bazaar, a nice earner for the Temple and a rip off for the people. Every 'Tyrian' shekel had the features of a Greek God known to the Jews as Baal, a graven image of a raptor and Caesar's abbreviated name in Greek = KP
The Temple 'shekel' was probably half a shekel in weight.....but numismatists called it a shekel, is my guess.

I cannot post up a copy of the (expected) lake licensing and taxation of the time or I would.

And no miracle was enacted as far as we read.....

Let me check consistency. I think it is not in Matthew, but it is in Mark. and Luke. Not in John of course. This is a real puzzle as Matthew should share the story with Mark ('M' material) or with Luke ("Q" material). But for mark and Luke to have the widow's mite but not Matthew is very strange. It seems that it might be the one case where he really did decide to leave it out, but why I can't make a confident guess.

I mostly follow G-Mark (less the fiddlings) although some of the anecdotes and side stories in the other gospels ring true to me. For instance G-John's naming of Judas's father shows that his 'iscariot' name was a nickname....they all had nicknames I reckon.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm pretty sure the passage identified the temple tax, specifically. In fact the story makes no sense unless the temple tax is the subject of discussion. It seems that it was 2 Denarii or a half shekel so one shekel would pay the tax for two. The silver Temple shekel was one shekel weight of pure Tyrian (or imitating Tyrian) silver. This would not have the Roman head on and foreign secular coinage had to be changed to Temple silver for Temple transactions to be made. I rather doubted that Roman coins were even allowed as far as the treasury but they might have been allowed to donate Roman money so a coin with Caesar's head on might possibly have been available. Nevertheless, whether or no, I disbelieve so many of these teaching scenarios that I don't believe this one, even if it is possible.

OK, but I don't think so. tax and licence fee collectors in Galilee collected Galilean taxes. The Temple tax was paid at the Temple and all other currencies which came in had to be changed at the bazaar, a nice earner for the Temple and a rip off for the people. Every 'Tyrian' shekel had the features of a Greek God known to the Jews as Baal, a graven image of a raptor and Caesar's abbreviated name in Greek = KP
The Temple 'shekel' was probably half a shekel in weight.....but numismatists called it a shekel, is my guess.

I cannot post up a copy of the (expected) lake licensing and taxation of the time or I would.

And no miracle was enacted as far as we read.....

Let me check consistency. I think it is not in Matthew, but it is in Mark. and Luke. Not in John of course. This is a real puzzle as Matthew should share the story with Mark ('M' material) or with Luke ("Q" material). But for mark and Luke to have the widow's mite but not Matthew is very strange. It seems that it might be the one case where he really did decide to leave it out, but why I can't make a confident guess.

I mostly follow G-Mark (less the fiddlings) although some of the anecdotes and side stories in the other gospels ring true to me. For instance G-John's naming of Judas's father shows that his 'iscariot' name was a nickname....they all had nicknames I reckon.

The temple tax was levied by religious authorities. Even after the Jewish war, and only applied to Jews of course. This was quite distinct from Roman taxation in Judea and Galilee, too when Antipas was deposed, but was levied by Antipas all the time he ruled Galilee. And that applies to any resident, Jew or not.

Mark is (I am sure) more like the original aside from the fiddlings. But Luke is also like the original, notably in having (like John) a simple trip to Bethsaida, feeding of 5,000 and return, without a transfiguration in John and without a walking on water in Luke. Mark and Matthew however have a massive amount of material related to the other feeding of 4,000 (1) and that is in addition to many serious additions by Mark. He is Not the original of the synoptic gospels.

(1) Luke not having this 'M' material is called 'the great omission' but I am sure it is actually the great Addition by Mark and Matthew. I have seen this crafty ploy by Bible editors to claim that passages were true but got left out when the probability is they were added later and are, thus, not true. The Free Logion addition to mark is surely a spurious addition. And far from the only one.

[oldbadger]

Celsus wrote in the second century, Origen wrote in the third.

Yes....... are you trying to tell me that Celsus's writings somehow travelled in time? They simply got repeated.....in the 3rd century.

You're going to have to flesh this out a bit more. He may not have doubted it, but there's no indication that his sources were anything other than contemporary Christians and Jews.

What? You think he was in some way restricted in communication? Some historians have proposed that he was a Roman citizen...... here is an extract from a Wiki article..... quite interesting:-
Stephen Thomas .............................Celsus's actual philosophy appears to be a blend of elements derived from Platonism, Aristotelianism, Pythagoreanism, and Stoicism.[9]
Wilken likewise concludes that Celsus was a philosophical eclectic, whose views reflect a variety of ideas popular to a number of different schools.
Theologian Robert M. Grant ...............................Celsus also writes as a loyal citizen of the Roman Empire and a devoted believer in Greco-Roman paganism, distrustful of Christianity as new and foreign.
So Celsus was not restricted to Christianity and Judaism.

A different Christian tradition, Jewish polemic, or a simple mistake? It's hard to tell.

Oh! Are those my only choices? So he couldn't possibly have simply been writing down some facts?
I think the description of Jesus and his close friends was probably quite accurate, and G-Mark does hint at how rough, tough and reactionary they were, just as history seems to portray the Galileans of that time.
So even enemies of the cross were writing about Jesus-the-man, the trouble-maker. I like it.

[oldbadger]

The temple tax was levied by religious authorities. Even after the Jewish war, and only applied to Jews of course. This was quite distinct from Roman taxation in Judea and Galilee, too when Antipas was deposed, but was levied by Antipas all the time he ruled Galilee. And that applies to any resident, Jew or not.

Yes........ Antipas ruled the Galilee (and Perea) and was responsible for taxation and it's collection, but apart from accounts that I have read of Temple contractors going to Damascus to sort out Jews who weren't attending the Temple (Josephus? I can't remember), and of Pilate's execution of Galileans at sacrifice elsewhere than at Temple, I cannot see how Temple authorities collected Temple head tax outside of the Temple.
Scenario:
Hey you!...... Who, me?...... Yes you!...... Come on, pay your Temple tax!........I already paid!......And when was that? Give us a laugh?...... I went to the Booths feast..... How do we know that?..... I got a receipt!...... Uh? We don't give receipts!.... See? That why I ain't got a receipt!

Nah..... can't see it working.....

Mark is (I am sure) more like the original aside from the fiddlings. But Luke is also like the original, notably in having (like John) a simple trip to Bethsaida, feeding of 5,000 and return, without a transfiguration in John and without a walking on water in Luke. Mark and Matthew however have a massive amount of material related to the other feeding of 4,000 (1) and that is in addition to many serious additions by Mark. He is Not the original of the synoptic gospels.

That's a new proposal to me, G-Mark not the earliest of those four.
Although G-Luke has some valuable anecdotes and accounts, it's pre baptism story, whilst possibly developed from events like the Zippori pillage and Roman action, that is all just waffle....and that pops Luke in to the category of huge fib teller.
G-Matthew's nativity, speeches and additions make it hard for me to extract the more likely truths behind the story.
G-John has valuable anecdotes in its original bundle of pieces, but the account is not only fictional but outrageous in as much as it being (imo) the basis for two millennia of anti-Semitism.

Apart from G-Mark I get more detail from the Geography, any history, any archeology and any farming, fishing etc techniques than from those last three. Sad......

(1) Luke not having this 'M' material is called 'the great omission' but I am sure it is actually the great Addition by Mark and Matthew. I have seen this crafty ploy by Bible editors to claim that passages were true but got left out when the probability is they were added later and are, thus, not true. The Free Logion addition to mark is surely a spurious addition. And far from the only one.

OK........ an interesting proposal.
It's a long time since I placed all the synoptic pieces alongside of each other for scrutiny, but back then I did think that G-Mark was the original. I should do it all again, really....... a full revision of all. But at this time I do think that G-Mark was the first and only account written both by a partial witness and on behalf of a full witness.

In other words, Luke's gospel is mostly waffle but his accounts in Acts would be pretty accurate.

[Goat]

A different Christian tradition, Jewish polemic, or a simple mistake? It's hard to tell.

Personally, I think if the Jesus of the bible was inspired by the Samaritan prophet, who was executed by Pilate in 36 C.E. That also would
align with the whole 'Census' at 6 c.e., and Luke saying 'started his ministry when he was 30'. The method of execution and his name is not mentioned, but the typical Roman execution was cruxifiction


Josephus discussed him in Antiquities 18:85-87

For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them. His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, who in an encounter with the first comers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives.

[Difflugia]

Yes....... are you trying to tell me that Celsus's writings somehow travelled in time? They simply got repeated.....in the 3rd century.

No. You tried to tell me that Origen wrote Contra Celsum in the second century and I corrected you.

You're going to have to flesh this out a bit more. He may not have doubted it, but there's no indication that his sources were anything other than contemporary Christians and Jews.

What? You think he was in some way restricted in communication?

A speculative conclusion on your part doesn't somehow become my error. I recently had a similar conversation with someone trying to project things into Papias' writings that aren't there.

Some historians have proposed that he was a Roman citizen...... here is an extract from a Wiki article..... quite interesting:-
Stephen Thomas .............................Celsus's actual philosophy appears to be a blend of elements derived from Platonism, Aristotelianism, Pythagoreanism, and Stoicism.[9]
Wilken likewise concludes that Celsus was a philosophical eclectic, whose views reflect a variety of ideas popular to a number of different schools.
Theologian Robert M. Grant ...............................Celsus also writes as a loyal citizen of the Roman Empire and a devoted believer in Greco-Roman paganism, distrustful of Christianity as new and foreign.
So Celsus was not restricted to Christianity and Judaism.

None of these identifies a different source. It could have been aliens. Who knows? Not you, and that's the point. Speculation isn't evidence.

A different Christian tradition, Jewish polemic, or a simple mistake? It's hard to tell.

Oh! Are those my only choices?

There are lots of options. I already mentioned aliens. All of them are speculative, though, because if Celsus wrote down who his sources were, Origen didn't relay them to us.

So he couldn't possibly have simply been writing down some facts?

This is pretty early in the convesation to start conflating "possible" with "probable." Speculation isn't evidence.

I think the description of Jesus and his close friends was probably quite accurate, and G-Mark does hint at how rough, tough and reactionary they were, just as history seems to portray the Galileans of that time.
So even enemies of the cross were writing about Jesus-the-man, the trouble-maker. I like it.

A late second-century opponent reacting to what late second-century Christians believed isn't evidence of what happened in the first century.

[TRANSPONDER]

The temple tax was levied by religious authorities. Even after the Jewish war, and only applied to Jews of course. This was quite distinct from Roman taxation in Judea and Galilee, too when Antipas was deposed, but was levied by Antipas all the time he ruled Galilee. And that applies to any resident, Jew or not.

Yes........ Antipas ruled the Galilee (and Perea) and was responsible for taxation and it's collection, but apart from accounts that I have read of Temple contractors going to Damascus to sort out Jews who weren't attending the Temple (Josephus? I can't remember), and of Pilate's execution of Galileans at sacrifice elsewhere than at Temple, I cannot see how Temple authorities collected Temple head tax outside of the Temple.
Scenario:
Hey you!...... Who, me?...... Yes you!...... Come on, pay your Temple tax!........I already paid!......And when was that? Give us a laugh?...... I went to the Booths feast..... How do we know that?..... I got a receipt!...... Uh? We don't give receipts!.... See? That why I ain't got a receipt!

Nah..... can't see it working.....

Mark is (I am sure) more like the original aside from the fiddlings. But Luke is also like the original, notably in having (like John) a simple trip to Bethsaida, feeding of 5,000 and return, without a transfiguration in John and without a walking on water in Luke. Mark and Matthew however have a massive amount of material related to the other feeding of 4,000 (1) and that is in addition to many serious additions by Mark. He is Not the original of the synoptic gospels.

That's a new proposal to me, G-Mark not the earliest of those four.
Although G-Luke has some valuable anecdotes and accounts, it's pre baptism story, whilst possibly developed from events like the Zippori pillage and Roman action, that is all just waffle....and that pops Luke in to the category of huge fib teller.
G-Matthew's nativity, speeches and additions make it hard for me to extract the more likely truths behind the story.
G-John has valuable anecdotes in its original bundle of pieces, but the account is not only fictional but outrageous in as much as it being (imo) the basis for two millennia of anti-Semitism.

Apart from G-Mark I get more detail from the Geography, any history, any archeology and any farming, fishing etc techniques than from those last three. Sad......

(1) Luke not having this 'M' material is called 'the great omission' but I am sure it is actually the great Addition by Mark and Matthew. I have seen this crafty ploy by Bible editors to claim that passages were true but got left out when the probability is they were added later and are, thus, not true. The Free Logion addition to mark is surely a spurious addition. And far from the only one.

OK........ an interesting proposal.
It's a long time since I placed all the synoptic pieces alongside of each other for scrutiny, but back then I did think that G-Mark was the original. I should do it all again, really....... a full revision of all. But at this time I do think that G-Mark was the first and only account written both by a partial witness and on behalf of a full witness.

In other words, Luke's gospel is mostly waffle but his accounts in Acts would be pretty accurate.

Jews have a community and attend synagogues even outside of Jerusalem. So it isn't that hard (I should think) to track Jews down and ask them to pay the temple -tax. Thus I have read, though I have never tried to do it and don't know whether or when they started to say 'Why should I pay for a Temple that isn't there any more?' That said, it was a Jewish religious tax (in addition to tithe I suppose ) not related to the state taxes, and Jesus and his disciples were expected to pay it. That's the context of the Shekel -eating fish and my guess at what the story (told only by Matthew and thus, I believe, his invention) is intended to do. I guess that Matthew was implying that Jesus as a Jewish man was expected to pay the Temple tax, but as son of God he shouldn't need to, but he (Matthew guesses) did, just to not cause trouble. Rather than just have Jesus hand over a shekel, he invents this ludicrous tale of a fish with a shekel in its' mouth.

I approve your work of gospel comparison. One doesn't realise what a mess they are unless that is done. We tend to weave the elements together into a unified narrative and don't realise what a conflicting story it is. The test case was the nativity before i ever did this. But after doing it and several debates, it has put the 2nd census apologetic to bed. Josephus pretty much says that there is no previous governership of Qurinus after Varus but Varus acted as governor, putting down revolts while Herod's son was in Rome. Thus the census of Quirinus is during the Roman takeover and can only be then, not in Herod's time. Before, it was only less likely that 'when he was governor' meant 'before he was governor', or there was a Roman run tax in Herod's client kingdom that Josephus didn't mention, or there was a revolt of Judas in Herod's time as well as a later one during the Roman takeover. Moreover Luke says (Gamaliel's speech) that the revolt was in the days of the census - the one he talks about. I am sure that the Nativity is done and dusted and the 2nd census excuse dead and buried, and, like dominoes, the rest go down.

Yes, I originally thought that Mark was the original, and it took someone on my former board to point out to me:

(a) that the end was not Lost but there never was one
(b) that Mark is itself an edit of a lost original. Not as obvious as Matthew or Luke, but with a lot of edits, nevertheless.

And, oh yes. I Utterly reject Acts as reliable, soup to nuts. I believe and swear that it is based on Paul's letters plus some Josephus (as in Luke's gospel - the census is taken from Josephus, not what Luke knew), and is bulked out as a fictionalised biography by Luke. Even the 'council of Jerusalem' was a private chat between Paul, James and Peter, but Luke turns it into a Sanhedrin hearing and he had James misquote Micah at the end. No, Acts is fiddle and fabrication, and you may bet the bank on that.