RE: lying for Jesus
March 30, 2014 at 4:17 pm
(This post was last modified: March 30, 2014 at 4:39 pm by rightcoaster.)
(March 29, 2014 at 3:42 pm)xpastor Wrote: ...
So, as I was saying, a sincere hillbilly preacher could be outraged at those moneychangers skimming 5% on each transaction or whatever they took.
"Hillbilly preacher" is fine, but Jesus was a 30-something adult when this happened. This would not have been his first trip to J'lem and the Temple. So, while we agree he "lost it", this Temple trip was almost certainly not a novel situation for him and it's unlikely the exchange rate on a half-shekel worth of whatever coin he had would have done it. Ehrman shows Jesus as being hot-tempered, any perceived insult could have set him off.
Since several scores of moneychangers would have been present to handle the crowds, his mini-riot was necessarily a highly local event -- indeed, it may have just been a gratuitous insult directed at him for being a hillbilly with a funny accent. Pictures of such moneychangers today, side-by-side, imply that there is competition that drives the rate down.
Even the most casual reader of the Mishnah (you do read it, don't you? A real page-turner throughout) knows that the half-shekel tax for Temple maintenance was collected annually from each Jewish male. The particular transaction involved here may not have been for that, but maybe for buying a bird for an offering.
Finally, "skimming 5%" and "anti-usury protest" continues the Jew-sliming, from which I thought you were liberated. If you are in the cambio business then or now you need to profit from the transaction. I hate to change money at the airport or wherever, except at a bank or to charge transactions and get the Visa exchange rate -- plus a 3% fee. I resent the charges, but not enough to start a riot. The very use of the word "usury" contaminates the discussion, and is either a deliberate mis-use of the word or ignorance of its definition. There is, by definition, no usury involved in a currency exchange, regardless of the exchange premium.
(March 30, 2014 at 4:01 pm)xpastor Wrote: ...
As I recall, your theory of the resurrection involved Jesus surviving the crucifixion—forgive me if I am wrong about that.
...
No, my explanation is that the dead Jew must not be allowed to remain on the "tree" overnight, otherwise those responsible would be cursed; that's from the Torah -- and the Sadducees were literalists. Thus Jesus' corpse was removed before sundown on Shabbat. As mentioned just before, this removal with the required Roman permission is the best argument against an execution for rebellion or sedition.
But because the crucifixion was on a day when no work was done no grave would have been dug, and it's reasonable that (since the crucifixion was not previously scheduled) there was no permanent place to bury him according to Jewish law. So an existing tomb could have been used as a temporary holding place overnight. The next day was Shabbat, obviously no graves could be dug then. But once the third star appeared in the sky Saturday the gravediggers could get back to work, by torchlight. By the time the followers or whomever showed up Sunday AM, the graveyard crew would have had plenty of time to inter the body properly. An anonymous burial for an executed criminal, and an empty tomb.
