Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

That coin.... which they passed to Jesus!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by eider View Post

    Hang about!
    Who were threse authors??? !!!!

    You've already pointed out to me that you can only ASSUME that Jesus even lived
    Please re-read what I wrote.

    Originally posted by eider View Post
    and now you want to tell me how CERTAIN you feel that the coin passed to Jesus was a denarius
    All three Synoptic accounts employ the Greek δηνάριον/denarion. In Latin that translates as denarius. So from where do you get your notion that those Synoptic accounts are referring to a shekel?

    Originally posted by eider View Post
    As you already have told, you are not sure of anything
    Please do not ascribe to me things I have not written.

    Originally posted by eider View Post
    , and I know that the Apostles were not disciples, with only one writer having been a partial witness imo. So the coin is in doubt before we start.
    And how do you "know" all this?

    Originally posted by eider View Post
    But the Tyrian shekel was an outrage, one which Jesus could really play with in that situation, and the INSCIPTION on it was Caesar's.
    This might be your opinion but it is not borne out by those Greek texts.

    Originally posted by eider View Post
    As I said, it is now believed that G-Mark and G-Matthew were probably/possible first written in Eastern Aramaic
    Who are these individuals who put forward this contention, and what evidence are they citing?

    Originally posted by eider View Post
    , if so the Greek word is an approximate
    It isn't an "approximate".

    Originally posted by eider View Post
    in the same way as my KJV bible uses the term 'penny' the gospels
    I would recommend you consult an interlinear Greek English New Testament and also use a more accurate English translation of the New Testament. I recommend the NRSV.
    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      Please re-read what I wrote.

      All three Synoptic accounts employ the Greek δηνάριον/denarion. In Latin that translates as denarius. So from where do you get your notion that those Synoptic accounts are referring to a shekel?

      Please do not ascribe to me things I have not written.
      I thought you wrote that 'we can assume that Jesus existed' or something close to that?
      Please don't send me to another thread to search, just tell me whether or not you feel sure that Jesus existed, or not. OK?

      And how do you "know" all this?

      This might be your opinion but it is not borne out by those Greek texts.

      Who are these individuals who put forward this contention, and what evidence are they citing?

      It isn't an "approximate".

      I would recommend you consult an interlinear Greek English New Testament and also use a more accurate English translation of the New Testament. I recommend the NRSV.
      OK. Let's clear this up if possible.

      It takes seconds to check whether humanity is certain about original gospel languages and all I typed in to google was Gospel Matthew original language and this popped up amongst other offerings:-

      The Gospel According to Matthew was composed in Greek, probably sometime after 70 ce, with evident dependence on the earlier Gospel According to Mark. There has, however, been extended discussion about the possibility of an earlier version in Aramaic.7 Dec 2018
      Gospel According to Matthew | Description, History, & Facts ...

      Look, let's leave language to one side, just for now, because we will probably never know what languages were originally used to record the different anecdotes, accounts and records that were collected and used to write the gospels in the first place. That and the fact that illiterate peasant populations pass most memories along by using oral tradition. Onwards......

      Do you feel certain or sure or presumption that Jesus was passed a denarius when he asked for a coin?
      Please don't just give the 'that's what was written' answer.

      I feel sure that it was a Shekel that was passed.

      The Tiberian Denarius was a silver 3.64 gram coin of 20mm diameter
      The Tiberian Shekel was a silver 6.2gram coin of 19.4 mm diameter

      From a few feet away these two coins looked similar if varying in thickness.
      Both coins were 'struck' under Roman supervision in silver.

      The shekel was a total insult to the Jews with a pagan face, a graven reverse and the Caesar's inscription.
      The Denarius just had Caesar's face with a reverse that looks suspiciously like our (UK) britannia. I don't know.

      The shekel is/was as dreadful for Judaism as any Christian coin might have been if it had (for instance) dogs mating on the face, a nice pic of satan on the reverse with name inscribed. It's a no brainer......

      Evidence? There you go.......

      QUESTION : Who witnessed and wrote down what that coin actually was. Any ideas?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by eider View Post

        I thought you wrote that 'we can assume that Jesus existed' or something close to that?
        Please don't send me to another thread to search, just tell me whether or not you feel sure that Jesus existed, or not. OK?
        As I originally wrote to you:

        "I think we can safely assume that a man called Jesus did exist. The question that remains however, is how far the characters [and there are more than one] with which we are presented in the four canonical gospels reflect or represent that man."

        Originally posted by eider View Post
        It takes seconds to check whether humanity is certain about original gospel languages and all I typed in to google was Gospel Matthew original language and this popped up amongst other offerings:-

        The Gospel According to Matthew was composed in Greek, probably sometime after 70 ce, with evident dependence on the earlier Gospel According to Mark. There has, however, been extended discussion about the possibility of an earlier version in Aramaic.7 Dec 2018
        Gospel According to Matthew | Description, History, & Facts ...
        In other words the possibility of another language remains speculative.

        Originally posted by eider View Post
        Look, let's leave language to one side, just for now, because we will probably never know what languages were originally used to record the different anecdotes, accounts and records that were collected and used to write the gospels in the first place.
        Well by that remark perhaps we should assume the original language was Mandarin, or Farsi.

        Originally posted by eider View Post
        That and the fact that illiterate peasant populations pass most memories along by using oral tradition. Onwards
        No one is disputing oral tradition and that a degree of oral tradition existed regarding these alleged anecdotes. However, we know that oral tradition is not always a reliable method. Stories become elaborated, distorted, embellished.

        Originally posted by eider View Post
        Do you feel certain or sure or presumption that Jesus was passed a denarius when he asked for a coin?
        That is what the Greek text in all three Synoptics, as they have come down to us, states.
        For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

        Now he may asked for a cent or a nickel but the texts as we have them do not reveal that!



        Originally posted by eider View Post
        I feel sure that it was a Shekel that was passed.
        You may "feel sure" that it was a euro or a pound coin but what you "feel sure" about is somewhat irrelevant given what the texts, as we have them, tell us.


        Originally posted by eider View Post

        The Tiberian Denarius was a silver 3.64 gram coin of 20mm diameter
        The Tiberian Shekel was a silver 6.2gram coin of 19.4 mm diameter

        Evidence? There you go
        That is evidence of coinage. Nothing else........

        Originally posted by eider;n1228243QUESTION
        Who witnessed and wrote down what that coin actually was. Any ideas?
        It is a story.

        However, if it is a genuine anecdote, it may have an altogether different interpretation.
        "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
          As I originally wrote to you:

          "I think we can safely assume that a man called Jesus did exist. The question that remains however, is how far the characters [and there are more than one] with which we are presented in the four canonical gospels reflect or represent that man."

          In other words the possibility of another language remains speculative.

          Well by that remark perhaps we should assume the original language was Mandarin, or Farsi.

          No one is disputing oral tradition and that a degree of oral tradition existed regarding these alleged anecdotes. However, we know that oral tradition is not always a reliable method. Stories become elaborated, distorted, embellished.

          That is what the Greek text in all three Synoptics, as they have come down to us, states.
          For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

          Now he may asked for a cent or a nickel but the texts as we have them do not reveal that!



          You may "feel sure" that it was a euro or a pound coin but what you "feel sure" about is somewhat irrelevant given what the texts, as we have them, tell us.


          That is evidence of coinage. Nothing else........

          It is a story.

          However, if it is a genuine anecdote, it may have an altogether different interpretation.
          so..... Do you safely assume that Jesus was passed a denarius?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by eider View Post

            so..... Do you safely assume that Jesus was passed a denarius?
            That is the coin that the Greek text in all three Synoptic gospels reference.
            "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              That is the coin that the Greek text in all three Synoptic gospels reference.
              Yes, but I question whether the one person who wrote about that incident actually 'got that coin right'.
              It was most probably a shekel in my opinion. You do accept that one person's account was copied by two others, do you not? So your big poitnt about three references is rather weak, I think?

              So you have one account in a deposition (imo) where the witness could have been wrong and probably was, because Jesus would have been after embarrassing the priesthood with a Shekel! Easy.

              Now, I think you are telling me that you don't actually have an opinion about whether this incident occurred or not. You are just hanging on to three gospels that you don't believe in to try and prove something that you don't really absolutely think happened. Am I right?

              That's a weak position for you. To insist on a report being correct that you don't believe in?


              Oh well......

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by eider View Post

                Yes, but I question whether the one person who wrote about that incident actually 'got that coin right'.
                It was most probably a shekel in my opinion. You do accept that one person's account was copied by two others, do you not?
                No it wasn't "copied". It is generally accepted that the authors of Matthew and Luke had access to a version of Mark and the two writers provided their own embellishments.

                Originally posted by eider View Post
                So your big poitnt about three references is rather weak, I think?
                All three synoptic writers use the same coin in their narratives and neither the writer of Matthew or Luke saw fit to change anything in that narrative

                Originally posted by eider View Post
                So you have one account in a deposition (imo) where the witness could have been wrong and probably was, because Jesus would have been after embarrassing the priesthood with a Shekel! Easy.
                Then you need to provide some evidence and not simply proffer unsubstantiated opinion.

                Originally posted by eider View Post
                Now, I think you are telling me that you don't actually have an opinion about whether this incident occurred or not.
                You are confusing two different things, the veracity of the incident and the textual content of these three gospels.

                Whether the incident took place or not is immaterial. However, these texts as they have come down to us are all we have pertaining to it, and all of those three accounts refer to a denarius.


                "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                  No it wasn't "copied". It is generally accepted that the authors of Matthew and Luke had access to a version of Mark and the two writers provided their own embellishments.

                  All three synoptic writers use the same coin in their narratives and neither the writer of Matthew or Luke saw fit to change anything in that narrative
                  Oh dear! I am so enjoying this!
                  That means that Luke and Matthew copied Mark's gospel! The fact that they then added bits can't help you!
                  You've got one account. Only one! Not three!

                  It does appear as if you will stretch your info as far as it can go to win some point or other. As if you have provided corroboration for it! You haven't got three accounts but one, the same one that I have.

                  Then you need to provide some evidence and not simply proffer unsubstantiated opinion.
                  That Mark's gospel is a deposition (a Statement) cannot be junked! That's exactly what it is! The fact that it got meddled with and has been translated 'who knows' how many times over two thousand years cannot destroy it all, because 'experts' have discovered many of the edits and additions.

                  Where I live a single deposition is ENOUGH! I can't help it if you want the Scottish requirement on corroboration, I live in England. Every deposition counts on its own.

                  You are confusing two different things, the veracity of the incident and the textual content of these three gospels.

                  Whether the incident took place or not is immaterial. However, these texts as they have come down to us are all we have pertaining to it, and all of those three accounts refer to a denarius.
                  I do love that!
                  I am confused, and you want to use accounts that you don't really believed happened to prove that something I believe in didn't happen. It's delightful!

                  They are one account, copied twice, thank you, and one witness could have easily been mistaken.
                  If we stood you fairly close to two persons to watch a coin handed over, could you discern a 19.5mm one from a 20mm one? Both silver?
                  I like Matthew's uncertainty about 'that coin' when he makes the point that Jesus asked for some 'Tribute money'. Very very interesting. Now why do you think that fiolks had to take their drachmas, denarii, so many currencies from all over the decapolis and Palestine to get changed in to shekels? Tribute.

                  The shekel was an outrageous insult to all Judaism and the Temple, and the Priesthood did not give a hoot, which shows where it placed its values. A nice fat careless living, and the pootr laws could go hang. Jesus wanted all the laws re-instated.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by eider View Post

                    Oh dear! I am so enjoying this!
                    That means that Luke and Matthew copied Mark's gospel! The fact that they then added bits can't help you!
                    It is generally accepted that the authors of Luke and Matthew relied on a version of Mark. That does not automatically imply they were using an original.



                    Originally posted by eider View Post
                    It does appear as if you will stretch your info as far as it can go to win some point or other. As if you have provided corroboration for it! You haven't got three accounts but one, the same one that I have.
                    This is the textual evidence. That is all we have.


                    Originally posted by eider View Post
                    That Mark's gospel is a deposition (a Statement) cannot be junked! That's exactly what it is!
                    Utter nonsense.

                    Originally posted by eider View Post
                    The fact that it got meddled with and has been translated 'who knows' how many times over two thousand years cannot destroy it all, because 'experts' have discovered many of the edits and additions.
                    We have no original MS. We have variants of copies.

                    Originally posted by eider View Post
                    Where I live a single deposition is ENOUGH! I can't help it if you want the Scottish requirement on corroboration, I live in England. Every deposition counts on its own.
                    We are not dealing legal documents or affidavits in with a court of law.


                    Originally posted by eider View Post

                    I do love that!
                    I am confused, and you want to use accounts that you don't really believed happened to prove that something I believe in didn't happen. It's delightful!
                    I am simply pointing out the textual fact.

                    Originally posted by eider View Post
                    They are one account, copied twice, thank you, and one witness could have easily been mistaken.
                    On what evidence? All you have offered so far are opinion and conjecture.

                    Until you can provide some attested historical evidence which on every occasion you have singularly failed to do, I am not prepared to waste any more time pandering to your nonsensical theories.


                    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Attrib. Seneca 4 BCE - 65 CE

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      It is generally accepted that the authors of Luke and Matthew relied on a version of Mark. That does not automatically imply they were using an original.
                      I have been suggesting that the document in Greek swas possibly NOT the original.
                      I think that point is sorted now.

                      Matthew and Luke did not 'rely' on a version of Mark, they copied it so closely that in parts those gospels almost match word for word. The information which both copied aboput the Temple incident was 'copied' so that is nlot three separate documents corroborating each other, it is one statement repeated twice.

                      [QUOTE}This is the textual evidence. That is all we have.[/QUOTE]
                      Wrong! We have direct evidence in the form of exhibits from that time which show just how insulting the Temple shekel was, that is circumstancial evidence to support my proposal.
                      The treatment of the working classes then is also accepted as true.
                      There was no middle class, just about 5 levels of peasantry.

                      Utter nonsense.
                      Wrong.
                      They are all declarations, depositions or accounts.
                      Luke's is a declaration, similar to a deposition, Thus:
                      Luke{1:1} Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration..........

                      Mark's was/is a deposition, however interfered with.....
                      Just read them all.......

                      We have no original MS. We have variants of copies.
                      We are not dealing legal documents or affidavits in with a court of law.
                      You clearly don't get it.
                      Those authors were writing their truth, as they saw it.
                      They were making statements.
                      One minute you insist on corroboration, demanding more 'Evidence', the next you insist that the method is dissimilar to a legal one. It's similar methodology .

                      I am simply pointing out the textual fact.
                      Excuse me, you don't believe in the story, so you can't hide behind 'pointing at the textual fact'.
                      Writing has no value for an unbelieving reader, surely?
                      Historians are not actually sure what the exact original texts were.

                      On what evidence? All you have offered so far are opinion and conjecture.
                      Mirror! ou rushed to three 'sources' to support yourself when there is only actually one.
                      Mirror!

                      Until you can provide some attested historical evidence which on every occasion you have singularly failed to do, I am not prepared to waste any more time pandering to your nonsensical theories.
                      Please supply a list of your accepted Judges. That should be fun!

                      Historical evidence? Start with the Temple coin.
                      Please tell me three things about that coin which were an utter disgrace to Judaism. If you write it you might remember it. Please read what the Baptist thought about the Priesthood and decide why he was cleansing and redeeming in the river for nothing.

                      Start to wonder why these things were happening, why Jesus did what he did.

                      Start looking for your own evidence. History is all about getting up and making an effort, not sitting back and snorting at other people's endeavours.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by eider View Post

                        so..... Do you safely assume that Jesus was passed a denarius?
                        I keep misreading your name as "Elder" and think we got invaded by the Mormons!

                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                          I keep misreading your name as "Elder" and think we got invaded by the Mormons!

                          Have a little respect for your eiders!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                            I keep misreading your name as "Elder" and think we got invaded by the Mormons!

                            Ah! I'm very ancient but quite untitled, I'm afraid!
                            Mormons have Elders? I always think of JW Elders since one has visited me for nearly thirty years. Tea, biscuits and heated discussions, for thirty years.

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by Starlight, 02-26-2021, 05:38 PM
                            1 response
                            25 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Starlight  
                            Started by seer, 02-16-2021, 09:31 AM
                            209 responses
                            991 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Starlight  
                            Started by rstrats, 02-13-2021, 01:23 PM
                            27 responses
                            224 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post rstrats
                            by rstrats
                             
                            Started by seer, 02-11-2021, 12:34 PM
                            126 responses
                            874 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Stoic
                            by Stoic
                             
                            Started by Starlight, 02-08-2021, 03:38 AM
                            12 responses
                            116 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post siam
                            by siam
                             
                            Working...
                            X