• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Random Comments

MemeFan said:
Why tax supporters always miss this:

View attachment 6972
Click to expand...
It's an interesting passage that is hard to understand. Who is Jesus saying that Peter and himself are sons of?

The king does not collect taxes from his own sons, but from strangers. So the sons are exempt. Sons of whom? The king. That would seem to indicate that sons of the earthly king do not have to pay taxes to the earthly king, and sons of God do not have to pay taxes to God. Which is not what Jesus is saying. I struggle to follow the argument logically to the conclusion that Jesus reaches.
 
RE: Matthew 17
FollowingHim said:
It's an interesting passage that is hard to understand
Click to expand...
The key is in the word 'exempt' - and look at it from a 'legal' perspective. And it has to do with 'jurisdiction'.

The king has jurisdiction over his sons, and his subjects. He is able to "exempt" his sons, by his choice, from what he also chooses to subject others to.

But what if we serve "another master?" That king simply has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

And Yahushua did not pretend that such a king did. He made an offering, by His own free will, that didn't cost either He or His followers anything, nor did it subject them to that jurisdiction.
 
FollowingHim said:
It's an interesting passage that is hard to understand. Who is Jesus saying that Peter and himself are sons of?

The king does not collect taxes from his own sons, but from strangers. So the sons are exempt. Sons of whom? The king. That would seem to indicate that sons of the earthly king do not have to pay taxes to the earthly king, and sons of God do not have to pay taxes to God. Which is not what Jesus is saying. I struggle to follow the argument logically to the conclusion that Jesus reaches.
Click to expand...
I always understood that tax as being the temple tax, the king in the analogy is The Father, Jesus and the disciples are the sons of the king. The sons of the king of the temple are exempt from the tax, but so as not to offend others in the temple, they paid the tax. However, God himself covered the tax, so the sons were still actually exempt. It’s a foreshadowing of what was to come after His death and resurrection.
 
FollowingHim said:
It's an interesting passage that is hard to understand. Who is Jesus saying that Peter and himself are sons of?

The king does not collect taxes from his own sons, but from strangers. So the sons are exempt. Sons of whom? The king. That would seem to indicate that sons of the earthly king do not have to pay taxes to the earthly king, and sons of God do not have to pay taxes to God. Which is not what Jesus is saying. I struggle to follow the argument logically to the conclusion that Jesus reaches.
Click to expand...
As I recall hearing once... the coin itself indicated they were not citizens of Rome. It was a tribute paid to keep peace that did not exactly concede jurisdiction.
Then too, for believers to do as Yeshua did to pay that tax would be impossible.

The other aspect to consider is where He was tested by the Pharisees. Why would they TEMPT Him by asking if it was lawful (according to YHWH) to pay tribute to Ceasar? He asked to see the tribute money and asked who's inscription was on it. Then said to "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Cesar's and Render unto YHWH the things that are YHWH's"
The scriptures tell us that the earth and everything and every one are YHWH's. So what would be left for Ceasar? Even better...in sidestepping their trap....they knew that He knew that they knew better than to teach submission and loyalty to a heathen king. The whole duty of man is to FEAR YHWH and guard His commands.
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
I always understood that tax as being the temple tax, the king in the analogy is The Father, Jesus and the disciples are the sons of the king. The sons of the king of the temple are exempt from the tax, but so as not to offend others in the temple, they paid the tax. However, God himself covered the tax, so the sons were still actually exempt. It’s a foreshadowing of what was to come after His death and resurrection.
Click to expand...
I had previously understood it to be the temple tax and would have explained it as you have, but this happened in Capernaum, not in Jerusalem at the temple. The Greek appears to be talking about a tribute to the government. If so this explanation is invalid.

Thankyou @Mark C and @Joleneakamama, good ideas to ponder.
 

"We became lesbians after coming off the Pill! Meet the women who suddenly discovered they were gay after they stopped taking it... and discover how it could be affecting YOUR mind"​


www.dailymail.co.uk

We became lesbians after coming off the Pill!

Can the Pill - and the synthetic hormones it contains - really influence a woman's sexual preferences? There is little research in this area, but the internet is awash with anecdotal evidence.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

Research suggests that women who take the Pill have a continued preference for less masculine men — while women who don't take it experience a preference for more masculine men at the most fertile period of their natural cycle, and less masculine men during the second half of their cycle, when levels of the hormone progesterone are high.
 
FollowingHim said:
It's an interesting passage that is hard to understand. Who is Jesus saying that Peter and himself are sons of?

The king does not collect taxes from his own sons, but from strangers. So the sons are exempt. Sons of whom? The king. That would seem to indicate that sons of the earthly king do not have to pay taxes to the earthly king, and sons of God do not have to pay taxes to God. Which is not what Jesus is saying. I struggle to follow the argument logically to the conclusion that Jesus reaches.
Click to expand...

Mark C said:
RE: Matthew 17

The key is in the word 'exempt' - and look at it from a 'legal' perspective. And it has to do with 'jurisdiction'.

The king has jurisdiction over his sons, and his subjects. He is able to "exempt" his sons, by his choice, from what he also chooses to subject others to.

But what if we serve "another master?" That king simply has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

And Yahushua did not pretend that such a king did. He made an offering, by His own free will, that didn't cost either He or His followers anything, nor did it subject them to that jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

Asforme&myhouse said:
I always understood that tax as being the temple tax, the king in the analogy is The Father, Jesus and the disciples are the sons of the king. The sons of the king of the temple are exempt from the tax, but so as not to offend others in the temple, they paid the tax. However, God himself covered the tax, so the sons were still actually exempt. It’s a foreshadowing of what was to come after His death and resurrection.
Click to expand...
If sons are free, what is position of rest? Non-free, in other words slaves.

So being taxpayers equals being enslaved. It's interesting that nobody mentiones that being citizen today means also being subject. In another words, someone else is free to put burdens on us and we have no legal recourse.

So we are all living in open air tax farm. What has changed in comparison with ancient times? Well, we can even choose master.

And c'mon, what is reason for tax payment? Most stupid one in entire history of world. Notice that Jesus didn't mentioned duty, providing public service, being good citizen or Lord's command. None of these.

It's one: we don't want now more Pharisees mendling into our works or Pharisees bad mouthing us.

Passage can't be used for tax justification because paying bad people to go away shouldn't be regular action. That's rewarding them so them will again cause problem to get paid. I would recommend good beating to fix issue.
 
MemeFan said:
Passage can't be used for tax justification because paying bad people to go away shouldn't be regular action. That's rewarding them so them will again cause problem to get paid. I would recommend good beating to fix issue.
Click to expand...
Let us know how well that strategy works for you when the tax-man shows up. :)
 
FollowingHim said:
Let us know how well that strategy works for you when the tax-man shows up. :)
Click to expand...

Same strategy as when the very same kind of guy shows up to enforce the Mark, Samuel. For the same exact reasons.

PS> I know it's a 'joke'. But, you might as well recognize sooner rather than later, that it's still a choice of life or death. Big time. I often challenge people: If you can't say "NO!" now, when it's just your home, family, and paycheck, what makes you think you'll be able to when it's instant death?
 
Last edited:
MemeFan said:
So being taxpayers equals being enslaved. It's interesting that nobody mentiones that being citizen today means also being subject.
Click to expand...
True, and it's the related point to the issue I raised above in Matthew 17, but much more involved (because the Deception is a truly Legion!)

But it is ABSOLUTELY about "Who we serve," and what we must not.

There are at least 6 (six) 'legal definitions' of US citizen (with and without caps). Only one isn't a slave to the corporate ('federal') Almighty State, and what amounts to "private law" (as opposed to the "Law of the Land," based on Scripture.) The legal term, again, is "choice of law." His, or 'another master.'

If you don't know, and exercise, your 'God-given Rights' - you don't have any. And you can indeed 'volunteer' into slavery. (see the "5th Amendment" arguments about the IRS 1040 form and, "under penalty of perjury.")
 
FollowingHim said:
I had previously understood it to be the temple tax and would have explained it as you have, but this happened in Capernaum, not in Jerusalem at the temple. The Greek appears to be talking about a tribute to the government. If so this explanation is invalid.

Thankyou @Mark C and @Joleneakamama, good ideas to ponder.
Click to expand...
It seems that there isn’t much debate among translators that Matthew 17 is referencing the temple tax. What is it in the Greek that makes you think otherwise?
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
It seems that there isn’t much debate among translators that Matthew 17 is referencing the temple tax. What is it in the Greek that makes you think otherwise?
Click to expand...
On closer inspection, I was mistaken. The temple tax was paid in Tyrian shekels, which is why money was changed in the temple to this coin because it was not otherwise in common circulation. I was confused by the tax being referred to as a didrachmon, which is a coin that was not actually accepted by the temple in my understanding, which made it sound like a secular tax. However, the value of a didrachmon was equivalent to a half-shekel, which was the value of the temple tax, so it makes sense.
 
MemeFan said:
You know that people backed with armed men don't always do moral stuff.
Click to expand...
Ponder this: Various Three-Letter Agencies take oaths. (No comment. But their actions speak volumes.)

But - the BATF, and now E, whose very purpose is to infringe the Second Amendment, take oaths to support the 'Constitution' and draw a paycheck from those they deprive of that Right.
 
Mark C said:
Ponder this: Various Three-Letter Agencies take oaths. (No comment. But their actions speak volumes.)

But - the BATF, and now E, whose very purpose is to infringe the Second Amendment, take oaths to support the 'Constitution' and draw a paycheck from those they deprive of that Right.
Click to expand...
This is so telling and huge.....for anyone that can think critically and doesn't have blind illogical ( think religious dogma) support for the idol created by "we the people" (because those people that created are no longer the people living with the mess they made) that I want to put a love emoji....at the same time I hate the thing we are pondering here.

If we had a "truth" emoji. .....I'd use it for that post!
 
Mark C said:
Ponder this: Various Three-Letter Agencies take oaths. (No comment. But their actions speak volumes.)

But - the BATF, and now E, whose very purpose is to infringe the Second Amendment, take oaths to support the 'Constitution' and draw a paycheck from those they deprive of that Right.
Click to expand...
What is BATF?

Do you mean ATF of Waco fame?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top