The Christian Thread

Costco labels Bible as fiction.   http://business.time.com/2013/11/20/costco-apologizes-for-labeling-bibles-as-fiction/?hpt=hp_t3

Dean wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Dean wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Dean wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: A denarius bore a picture of Tiberius on the front with the inscription: "Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus".  This inscription indicated the divinity of Caesar - he was to be regarded as a god in the Roman culture of the empire cult.  Nope. The divinity applied the his dead (step) father Augustus and was honoured posthumously by the senate, Tiberius was never deified even after his death and was never regarded as a god. The Jews didn't have a problem with Augustus as he treated them rather favourably, Tiberius was tolerated. The Revolt and subsequent wars came much later with Caligula. Have you ever heard of the Imperial Cult, Dean?  I'm not just making stuff up.... Yes I've heard of the imperial cult -  Augustus created it and it does not make the living Caesar a deity. The deifying of Augustus was an honorific bestowed after his death, Tiberius was not deified at all. This was a new Roman idea at the time and not in the traditional pantheon of Roman gods - however the tradition of deifying the venerable dead first established by Tiberius on his step-father endures in Rome to this day with the attributing of "divinity" to mortals on a regular basis - the last being a priest from Malta called George Preca (who died in 1962) in 2007 though many have been beatified since then (half-way to divinity). The Latin Divi also translates as Saint You don't have to literally "make someone a living deity" in order to have idolatrous attitudes toward them.  And people of all faiths know this intuitively - we're always talking about our idols, those being the things we are so dependent on that we feel like we can't do without them.  And many of the practices that the Romans had insisted their conquered people do in order to show fealty would have been considered idolatrous by Jews.  I am arguing that simply carrying a coin with the Caesar's image and the words "son of the Divine Augustus" would have been considered by many Jews of the day to be breaking Torah.  We don't need to get into an argument about the difference between gods and demi-gods and the difference between Augustus and Tiberius for my argument to be a valid one. But you do because of the concessions Augustus made with Herod regarding Judea and judaism that were still in effect at that time. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01605.html). You also have to consider the pharisees, sadducees and other sects who also were permitted to function freely under Roman occupation. Remember also that the Render unto Caesar comment was directed to the pharisees and that Jesus was first tried by the Sanhedrin before being passed to Pilot, then to Herod, and then back to Pilot.

Ok, I think what you're doing is to equate one specific kind of Jew that was alive in Jesus' day with all Jews.  In other words, if I were to start acting like all Christians believed the same things Catholics believed, someone might have a problem with that.  Yes, the pharisees had arranged a relationship with the government of Rome and had relaxed many of the laws of Torah in order to do that, and they did all these things because they received power from this relationship.  That's one of the things Jesus was fighting against.

Dean wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Dean wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: A denarius bore a picture of Tiberius on the front with the inscription: "Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus".  This inscription indicated the divinity of Caesar - he was to be regarded as a god in the Roman culture of the empire cult.  Nope. The divinity applied the his dead (step) father Augustus and was honoured posthumously by the senate, Tiberius was never deified even after his death and was never regarded as a god. The Jews didn't have a problem with Augustus as he treated them rather favourably, Tiberius was tolerated. The Revolt and subsequent wars came much later with Caligula. Have you ever heard of the Imperial Cult, Dean?  I'm not just making stuff up.... Yes I've heard of the imperial cult -  Augustus created it and it does not make the living Caesar a deity. The deifying of Augustus was an honorific bestowed after his death, Tiberius was not deified at all. This was a new Roman idea at the time and not in the traditional pantheon of Roman gods - however the tradition of deifying the venerable dead first established by Tiberius on his step-father endures in Rome to this day with the attributing of "divinity" to mortals on a regular basis - the last being a priest from Malta called George Preca (who died in 1962) in 2007 though many have been beatified since then (half-way to divinity). The Latin Divi also translates as Saint

You don't have to literally "make someone a living deity" in order to have idolatrous attitudes toward them.  And people of all faiths know this intuitively - we're always talking about our idols, those being the things we are so dependent on that we feel like we can't do without them.  And many of the practices that the Romans had insisted their conquered people do in order to show fealty would have been considered idolatrous by Jews.  I am arguing that simply carrying a coin with the Caesar's image and the words "son of the Divine Augustus" would have been considered by many Jews of the day to be breaking Torah.  We don't need to get into an argument about the difference between gods and demi-gods and the difference between Augustus and Tiberius for my argument to be a valid one.

What is your point? Jews never worshipped Roman men

dtguitarfan wrote: A denarius bore a picture of Tiberius on the front with the inscription: "Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus".  This inscription indicated the divinity of Caesar - he was to be regarded as a god in the Roman culture of the empire cult.

Dean wrote: Taken out of context it can mean whatever you want it to mean, that's the point of it:   But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money." And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, "Whose is this image and superscription?" They say unto him, "Caesar's."  Then saith he unto them, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" It was a trick answer to a trick question.

I agree.

Actually, this conversation ended up inspiring part of a blog post I am working on, which I am calling "Five Misunderstood Non-Violent Resistance Teachings of Jesus" - I thought I'd share what I've got for "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s":
This statement is commonly used as a sort of proof that Jesus was for "separation of church and state" - or to put it in other words, a depoliticization of Jesus.  The message many would desire us to take from this teaching of Jesus was that we should not concern ourselves with political things, but concentrate on spiritual matters so we can "go to heaven" (which, by the way, is not a Biblical concept).

But there are a number of problems with this interpretation of the scenario in this passage.  The larger passage shows us that the officials of the religious authority complex were looking for a way to arrest Jesus, and were planning to catch Jesus in his own words.  What this indicates is that when they asked Jesus if it was right to pay the imperial tax, they expected Jesus to answer in a way that would implicate him in treason so that he could be arrested on the spot.  For Jesus to answer in the affirmative would have negated his teachings up to this point, but to answer in the negative would result in an end to his movement.  So Jesus had to come up with a clever answer to get out of this trap that they had set.

When you put Jesus statement above into the context, you find some interesting things - first of which is the fact that Jesus asks someone to bring him a denarius - the coin which would have been used for this particular tax.  What's interesting is that Jesus didn't have a denarius of his own.  Why wouldn't Jesus have one of his own sitting in his own pocket - why would he have to ask someone to bring him one?

A denarius bore a picture of Tiberius on the front with the inscription: "Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus".  This inscription indicated the divinity of Caesar - he was to be regarded as a god in the Roman culture of the empire cult.  This did not mesh well with Jewish beliefs, which included a little command that went "you shall have no other gods before me" and another command about not making graven images.  To even possess this coin could be seen as idolatry to a Jew.  So Jesus didn't even have one on him!

Additionally, the way Jesus words his statement in Mark 12:17 is very interesting.  He starts his statement with: "give back to Caesar what is Caesar's".  The question this statement raises is: what belongs to Caesar?  In other words - some things don't belong to him.  Also, how is it that you're giving back what already belonged to him?

The way Jesus' statement is worded indicates that if you have received benefits from Caesar, you should pay him back according to your debt.  In other words, if you want to protest the unjust taxes, you have no right to do so if you are living off of the benefits of the government.  If you want to protest the unjust system, you should remove yourself completely from the system first - which we see that Jesus has done, since he possesses no money at the time he is asked this question.

Mohandas K. Gandhi wrote about this passage:

Jesus evaded the direct question put to him because it was a trap. He was in no way bound to answer it. He therefore asked to see the coin for taxes. And then said with withering scorn, "How can you who traffic in Caesar's coins and thus receive what to you are benefits of Caesar's rule refuse to pay taxes?" Jesus' whole preaching and practice point unmistakably to noncooperation, which necessarily includes nonpayment of taxes.

The second half of the statement in Mark 12:17 is also very interesting - Jesus says to give to God what is God's.  This statement is a parallel statement - in the first half of the statement, Jesus says to give a coin which bears the image of Caesar back to Caesar.  In the second half of the statement, he makes a parallel statement - the Jewish belief is that all people were made in the image of God.  As the coin bears the image of Caesar, so all people bear the image of God.  So what Jesus is saying in this statement is that we should give the whole of our being over to God!  This was a radical message of resistance, because Jesus was saying that Caesar's authority was limited, and God's authority was unlimited!

Dale Glass-Hess wrote:

It is inconceivable to me that Jesus would teach that some spheres of human activity lie outside the authority of God. Are we to heed Caesar when he says to go to war or support war-making when Jesus says in other places that we shall not kill? No! My perception of this incident is that Jesus does not answer the question about the morality of paying taxes to Caesar, but that he throws it back on the people to decide.

Edited by dtguitarfan - October 24 2013 at 05:42

dr wu23 wrote: maani wrote: Jesus made exactly one "political" statement: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render to God the things that are God's." With that statement, he effectively REMOVED Himself from "politics," as that word is generally defined. That said, if one feels an absolute need to place His ministry within a quasi-"political" viewpoint, consider that the issue He spoke about most often was "the poor," and how they should be treated. If we look around us in the present day, particularly in the U.S., it is pretty clear which "side" is doing more for the poor. Peace. That's about how I see it. Still waiting for dguitarfan to tell us why we are wrong.

What's the use?  You're so convinced of your rightness that you won't listen to reason.

The statement you THINK proves that Jesus removed himself from politics?  It was actually a very political statement, because in the Roman empire, there was NOTHING that was not Caesar's.  Caesar was seen as a god, and had the right to demand as much as he wanted.  So to say that ANYTHING didn't belong to him?  That was very political.  Too many people like to focus on the "give to Caesar" portion of that statement, but what the audience at the time would have been shocked about was the second half.

Jesus made exactly one "political" statement: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render to God the things that are God's."

With that statement, he effectively REMOVED Himself from "politics," as that word is generally defined.

That said, if one feels an absolute need to place His ministry within a quasi-"political" viewpoint, consider that the issue He spoke about most often was "the poor," and how they should be treated. If we look around us in the present day, particularly in the U.S., it is pretty clear which "side" is doing more for the poor.

Peace.

dr wu23 wrote: A short primer on what politics actually is.....wiki of course is not the final word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics   ps: This is the Christian thread..whatever that means, but since politics regarding Jesus was brought up this is helpful in determining what we mean by the word.   I do not believe Jesus himself was attempting to be political by any definition we use today, but I do believe that those around him in the Roman govt and Jewish theocracy saw him as some kind of 'threat' to the politics of their day.

So...you're saying Jesus WASN'T trying to influence "other people on a civic or individual level"?  (That's the first line of your link.)  So when he gave a sermon on the mount or on a plain, he didn't really want anyone to listen or to think about changing the way they acted?  He just wanted them to ignore everything he said?