Was Jesus crucified for resisting taxes? Lk 23-1

David Merrill wrote,

My opinion is that Jesus got into terrible trouble for disrupting the franchise on the drachma and shekel. The Herodians were hoarding the coinage and using other currencies in circulation for the Temple expenses. However, when it came time to pay up the half-shekel Temple Tax, suddenly domestic currency was the only acceptable currency.

So a pilgrim had to purchase drachmas and shekels at an inflated price, being as how they had been contracted out of circulation.

This brings forth the essence of Jesus using the testimony of a Herodian priest against him. The priest pulled a Tiberias denarion from his purse, clearly making the Temple Tax and Temple matters a dominion of Caesar's.

This also explains why Jesus would have become so irate as to overturn the moneychangers' franchise tables.

David, The essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, available at http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com, provides a plethora of evidence from scripture and other sources to support the conclusion that Jesus was crucified for, as it says in Luke, CH. 23, "forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor."

Your contrary opinion and your explanation offer little to support them, and some of what you present as facts, so far as my research can decipher, are not facts. For instance, what evidence can you point to indicating that, as you declare, "The Herodians were hoarding the coinage and using other currencies in circulation for the Temple expenses"??? What evidence do you have that Herodians were even responsible for Temple finances, when in fact the Temple was located and was under Pilate's jurisdiction--not Herod's.

David, there are many "economic laws" that were not understood until recent years, but were equally in force before they were "discovered" as they are today. Economics, or catalactics as it is known in its broader sense, is the science of human action. It has added enormously to human understanding in recent decades. Many ancient "historical events" recorded as factual have been re-evaluated and relegated to the status of myths since the science of human action demonstrated that the event could not possibly have transpired as recorded. Your description on the monetary situation in the Roman territory that was once Israel seems to me conflict with Gresham's Law. If you would like to understand Gresham's law, Google has over a million returns. A good place to start is the website, http://eh.net

Originally Posted by idknow

butbutbut, he paid!

he sent peter to fish out coins!

i dont get this thread. but that's me.

what am I missing here that hasnt been written plainly?

A good question, id. But, at least according to the Gospels, Jesus did not pay the tax. Peter shot his mouth off. He unquestionable committed Jesus to pay a tax that Jesus wouldn't pay of his own volition. Nor would Jesus allow funds from the common purse to be used, to which many of his disciples had undoubtedly contributed for the purpose of supporting his ministry but not for the purpose of paying taxes. Peter was in trouble because of his big mouth, and Jesus provided him with a way out, and in a way that would not cause harm to Peter or the tax collector who probably took Peter at his word. The option Jesus afforded Peter required an extreme act of faith on the part of Peter in Jesus' miraculous powers. Imagine a lifelong fisherman being told that he would find a coin in a fish's mouth!!! I suspect Jesus required a tremendous act of faith from Peter as an amend for shooting off his big mouth. And I do not think it is fair or true to say "Jesus paid that tax." He did not. If it was paid, and the Gospels do not say it was, it was paid by Peter--not Jesus--with money found in the mouth of a fish IF Peter had sufficient faith. Two questions, since the gospels don't record the final outcome: Do you think Peter actually found the coin in the fishes mouth? And if so, do you think he used it to pay the tax for himself and Jesus, or did he drink it up at the local pub, as I might have, to celebrate his good fortune?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Ned Netterville

David Merrill wrote,

David, The essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, available at http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com, provides a plethora of evidence from scripture and other sources to support the conclusion that Jesus was crucified for, as it says in Luke, CH. 23, "forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor."

Your contrary opinion and your explanation offer little to support them, and some of what you present as facts, so far as my research can decipher, are not facts. For instance, what evidence can you point to indicating that, as you declare, "The Herodians were hoarding the coinage and using other currencies in circulation for the Temple expenses"??? What evidence do you have that Herodians were even responsible for Temple finances, when in fact the Temple was located and was under Pilate's jurisdiction--not Herod's.

David, there are many "economic laws" that were not understood until recent years, but were equally in force before they were "discovered" as they are today. Economics, or catalactics as it is known in its broader sense, is the science of human action. It has added enormously to human understanding in recent decades. Many ancient "historical events" recorded as factual have been re-evaluated and relegated to the status of myths since the science of human action demonstrated that the event could not possibly have transpired as recorded. Your description on the monetary situation in the Roman territory that was once Israel seems to me conflict with Gresham's Law. If you would like to understand Gresham's law, Google has over a million returns. A good place to start is the website, http://eh.net

The accusation according to you was a false one, according to scripture. That is to say a lie.

Luk 23:1 And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.
Luk 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
Luk 23:3 And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.
Luk 23:4 Then said Pilate to the chief priests [The Herodian Guard] and to the people, I find no fault in this man.

Therefore you assume there is evidence in the people's false allegations against Jesus when Pilate himself noted at the time there was no evidence. I did however misspeak:

Look at that admission by Shoonra. If the priests are using any [foreign] currency for the Temple expenses, it is ludicrous to demand domestic currency for the Temple tax.

When I meant to say foreign currency.

I hope the Readers could get that.

According to Shoonra's research the shekels were just in short supply, meaning they were bought and paid for in other circulating (foreign to Israel) currencies. Now these moneychangers were working at a profit any way around it so I said Shoonra is arguing for argument's sake. She likes to argue with me - even when she is actually supporting my point!

Since Jesus paid the Temple Tax in shekels (drachmas) and advocated with the priests to pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's your theory is the theory that lacks any evidence Ned. Even according to Pilate. Rather and according to both Shoonra and I, people were rather irate at a disruption of the Jewish traditional payment process, maybe in ignorance of the profits going to the moneychangers (for whatever reason; contraction by hoarding or contraction by prohibition from stamping coins).

Widow's mites are commonly sold in coin shops for $35/ea. in good condition. [A good Tiberias denarion subject is about 10X that.] Until Shoonra's comment about Traficant http://www.suijuris.net/forum/taxati...reasury-4.html I would say she is correct in the presumption that for some time prior to Jesus Israel was prohibited by the Roman occupation from stamping coinage. It is just the first time I have heard anybody say that.

Regardless, the moneychangers were set up making a profit off the pilgrims being required to pay in Israelite coin even after one priest testified against himself and produced a Tiberias denarion from his purse. If priests were handling foreign currencies, they had no business demanding domestic currency. Period.


Regards,

David Merrill.

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Additionally there was an annual half-shekel tithe (per adult male) to be paid to the Temple that was coming due in the week before Passover...A half-shekel was a rather small coin, within the capacity of almost anybody to pay...Anyway, these activities were unrelated to the taxes demanded by the Romans.

There are historians who argue that the sum total of taxes on the Jews of Palestine was brutally impoverishing and a tax of a half sheckel would be a heavy burden on the majority of desparately poor Jews.
See page 110, of JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER (http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com) citing John Dominic Crossan's book, WHO KILLED JESUS.
To say that the temple tax was unrelated to the taxes demanded by the Romans is, I believe, naive. Josephus says Pilate moved his army to Jerusalem to destroy the law of the Jews. Do you suppose that the Jews in Pilate's (tax) jurisdiction could impose any tax whatsoever without his consent. I think not. Do you think he would consent if the tax tended to diminish the collection of taxes that benefited Rome? Not likely. Every tax is related to and has an impact on every other tax. When a tax is imposed or increased, there is perforce less money available to pay other taxes.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Ned Netterville

There are historians who argue that the sum total of taxes on the Jews of Palestine was brutally impoverishing and a tax of a half sheckel would be a heavy burden on the majority of desparately poor Jews.

The half-shekel annual payment to support the Temple was not imposed by the Romans. It was commenced under Moses some thirteen centuries earlier.

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The accusation according to you was a false one, according to scripture. That is to say a lie....Therefore you assume there is evidence in the people's false allegations against Jesus when Pilate himself noted at the time there was no evidence..

David, the essay, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, does not assume. It provides a wealth of evidence in support of the proposition that Pilate, as a Roman procurator or prefect responsible for, among other duties, finances, including taxes, within a Roman province, would not ignore or dismiss out of hand an accusation that Jesus was forbidding or otherwise interferring in Rome's collection of taxes. Here, at this site of all place, it should not be hard to convince participants that a tax official would so summarily dismiss the charge of inciting tax resistance as the canonical gospels imply. The essay, JESUS..., provides considerable evidence from Scripture and elsewhere that the charge was NOT false.

But let us get back to the point. Your opinion, as I indicated, is bereft of support, and your link to an old thread on this forum does nothing whatsoever to prove the statement you presented as factual that the Herodians were in charge of Temple finances. I am not asking you to prove it, only show me some evidence to support your opinion.

[2tim215]

According to the Easton Bible dictionary, the shekel was defined as follows:

Shekel

WEIGHT, THE COMMON STANDARD BOTH OF WEIGHT AND VALUE AMONG THE HEBREWS. IT IS ESTIMATED AT 220 ENGLISH GRAINS, OR A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF AN OUNCE AVOIRDUPOIS. THE “SHEKEL OF THE SANCTUARY” (Ex. 30:13; Num. 3:47) was equal to twenty gerahs (Ezek. 45:12). There were shekels of gold (1 Chr. 21:25), of silver (1 Sam. 9:8), of brass (1 Sam. 17:5), and of iron (1 Sam. 17:7). When it became a coined piece of money, the shekel of gold was equivalent to about 2 pound of our money. Six gold shekels, according to the later Jewish system, were equal in value to fifty silver ones.

The temple contribution, with which the public sacrifices were bought (Ex. 30:13; 2 Chr. 24:6), consisted of one common shekel, or a sanctuary half-shekel, equal to two Attic drachmas. The coin, a stater (q.v.), which Peter found in the fish’s mouth paid this contribution for both him and Christ (Matt. 17:24, 27).

A zuza, or quarter of a shekel, was given by Saul to Samuel (1 Sam. 9:8).

Regards,

2tim215
2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by Ned Netterville

That Jesus was crucified for opposing the payment of Caesar's tax is a minor premise in my book, JESUS OF NAZARETH, ILLEGAL-TAX PROTESTER, which is available without charge from the website, http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com. (The two major premises are 1)Jesus did not endorse taxation or the State, as most orthodox exegetes contend; and, 2) The principles Jesus espoused are diametrically opposed to taxation and the State.)

If you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, you will not agree with my minor premise. If you are like some fundamentalists I have heard from, my audacity in questioning the canonical Gospel version of the trial of Jesus will probably induce you to condemn me to Hell's fires for all eternity. But if like a juror you can approach the issue without prejudice, you might find the evidence persuasive beyond reasonable doubt that Pilate was guilty of killing Jesus because of their conflicting views on taxation.

Briefly here is the prosecution's case against Pilate. In addition to being governor, Pilate was procurator of Judea and thereby responsible for the collection of Roman taxes within his jurisdiction. He was accountable to Rome for tax revenues. Jesus was accused of sedition for "opposing the payment of taxes to Caesar." (LK 23:1). Only a few days earlier and in the presence of witness friendly to Rome, Jesus had denounced Caesar's tax as unjust. (See my essay to understand that when he said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's," Jesus meant just what he said. In other words, if you have something that belongs to Caesar, give it to him, otherwise, you owe him nothing! And since none of his listeners possessed anything belonging to Caesas, his words, in answer to the question, Should we pay the tax? clearly was, "No do not pay it!"

Now whether Caesar believed that Jesus had been preaching tax resistance as his accusers charged, he would have convicted Jesus for two reasons: 1) He simply couldn't risk the possibility that he was, and there was no risk to Pilate in killing Jesus. 2) If he asked Jesus whether or not Jesus had said what his accusers charged, Jesus would not have denied the truth.

Pilate had Jesus flogged and crucified. At that time, these combined forms of punishment were generally reserved for individuals who posed a threat to the empire. They were designed to make others think twice before repeating the perpetrators' crimes.

So, there in a nutshell you have it. I would be grateful to hear what others among you think?

Hammurabis Code (online)
§ 116. If the distress has died in the house of his distrainer, of blows or of want, the owner of the distress shall put his merchant to account, and if he be the son of a freeman (that has died), his son one shall kill; if the slave of a free-man, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver, and he shall lose all that he gave whatever it be.

Let me work this statute with the proper names for description.

§ 116. If the distress(Seti II) has died in the house of his distrainer (in Gods possession), of blows or of want(God to Moses-if you see my face you will die), the owner of the distress(Abraham) shall put his merchant(God of Israel) to account, and if he be the son of a freeman (that has died)(Seti II), his(God) son(Jesus) one shall kill; if the slave of a free-man, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver, and he shall lose all that he gave whatever it be.
Understand yet? When God and Abraham are making their covenant they are in Babylon. The lex locus contractus stipulates the terms and conditions of agreements. Before this agreement Abraham had allodium in his offspring (his nation). After the agreement with God
Abrahm had the legal title to the nation, God had the equitable title to the nation. The nation becomes chattels (slaves)(property) capable of having title transferred. Enter Moses. Pharaogh having been sitting on his throne became isolated from reality and began to become psychotic. This happens to people when they go into isolation. He theorises his enemies will come against him and the Israelites will join against him. So he orders the Israelite male babies killed. Israel is the debtor nation and Egypt is the creditor nation and this leads the property of Abraham into Egyptian slavery. (Theft of Abrahams property who holds legal title to Israel.) Abrahams merchant (God) has the legal duty to restore full value of the property (Israel) so he enters the House of Pharaogh to distrain the property of the debtor,(the first borns die). Pharaogh is the debtor to Abraham for taking the male babies which would have worked to pay off the debt due from Israel to Pharaogh. God, the merchant of Abraham building a mighty nation for Abraham now owes the debt of retribution due to Abraham under Hammurabi Code section 116. Some thousands of years later enter Gods payment to Abraham, Jesus the first born of God. Understand now? Jesus was killed by God, to fulfill sec 116. Someones hand had to do the acting to make the death (Judas goat). Rome and the Pharisees fulfill this part. So who killed Jesus? God, Rome and Pharisees.

[Livefire]

This is an interesting premise, but in actuality, the debt was incurred much earlier through Adam. Thru fradulent means, God's steward Adam entered into a voluntary servitude and Satan/Lucifer became holder in due course of the kingdoms of this age. Jesus Christ being a kinsman to Adam had the right to redeem that note. According to the law all sacrifices were performed by the tribe of Levi. Therefore it was necessary for the religious leaders of His day to initiate and instigate the circumstances surrounding the crucifixion, in order for it to be a legal and binding transaction.

The Bible declares that death reigned from Adam until Moses, I didnt really understand this for quite some time. I now realize that title to the planet was conveyed into a trust at Sinai until the appropriate time came and the note was redeemed and the proceeds of the trust were then distributed to the heirs of salvation.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by amenmesse

Hammurabis Code (online)
§ 116. If the distress has died in the house of his distrainer, of blows or of want, the owner of the distress shall put his merchant to account, and if he be the son of a freeman (that has died), his son one shall kill; if the slave of a free-man, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver, and he shall lose all that he gave whatever it be.

Let me work this statute with the proper names for description.

§ 116. If the distress(Seti II) has died in the house of his distrainer (in Gods possession), of blows or of want(God to Moses-if you see my face you will die), the owner of the distress(Abraham) shall put his merchant(God of Israel) to account, and if he be the son of a freeman (that has died)(Seti II), his(God) son(Jesus) one shall kill; if the slave of a free-man, he shall pay one-third of a mina of silver, and he shall lose all that he gave whatever it be.
Understand yet? When God and Abraham are making their covenant they are in Babylon. The lex locus contractus stipulates the terms and conditions of agreements. Before this agreement Abraham had allodium in his offspring (his nation). After the agreement with God
Abrahm had the legal title to the nation, God had the equitable title to the nation. The nation becomes chattels (slaves)(property) capable of having title transferred. Enter Moses. Pharaogh having been sitting on his throne became isolated from reality and began to become psychotic. This happens to people when they go into isolation. He theorises his enemies will come against him and the Israelites will join against him. So he orders the Israelite male babies killed. Israel is the debtor nation and Egypt is the creditor nation and this leads the property of Abraham into Egyptian slavery. (Theft of Abrahams property who holds legal title to Israel.) Abrahams merchant (God) has the legal duty to restore full value of the property (Israel) so he enters the House of Pharaogh to distrain the property of the debtor,(the first borns die). Pharaogh is the debtor to Abraham for taking the male babies which would have worked to pay off the debt due from Israel to Pharaogh. God, the merchant of Abraham building a mighty nation for Abraham now owes the debt of retribution due to Abraham under Hammurabi Code section 116. Some thousands of years later enter Gods payment to Abraham, Jesus the first born of God. Understand now? Jesus was killed by God, to fulfill sec 116. Someones hand had to do the acting to make the death (Judas goat). Rome and the Pharisees fulfill this part. So who killed Jesus? God, Rome and Pharisees.

Delightful model.

I think it probably fits reality of law much more closely than the counterpoint model where Jesus is a Sacrificial Lamb according to the Levites.



Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. I think Ned was quite passionate about this thread:

http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/user/J...ruary08(2).pdf

And disputing my point of view. However I do not think my point of view was different enough to beg much a dispute. I feel that Jesus plainly accused the temple priest of using other coinage from other realms for running the Temple, paying expenses when the priest pulled the Tiberias denarion from his purse. Jesus, like with the 501(c)(3) "church" today, was saying that the Temple obviously belonged to Caesar - not God. And I believe the Temple Tax was a contraction on the drachma, because on the paying tax part of everything, the priests were demanding the pilgrims have to buy drachmas at the moneychanger tables.

So in many ways Ned and I have agreed all along. When Jesus lost his temper, that is what I believe got him in serious trouble with the Herodians in their Roman Temple.

Also: http://www.jesus-on-taxes.com/user/NED'SBLOGARCHIVESFeb06.pdf