Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 10-16-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

24 But, when they came into Capernaum, those who took up the didrachma came toward Peter and said: Does your teacher not pay the didrachma tax? 25 He says: Yes. And, after he had come into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying: How does it seem to you, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take up custom-tax or poll-tax? From their sons or from strangers? 26 And when he said: From strangers, Jesus said to him: Then the sons are free. 27 But, so that we do not scandalize them, journey to the sea and cast a hook and catch the first fish that rises up, and when you have opened its mouth you will find a stater; take that and give it to them for you and me.

Is this a miracle story or just a saying? That is, does the writer expect the reader to assume that Simon did in fact go out and catch a fish with a coin in its mouth, or is the writer merely reporting a clever or sarcastic dominical comment?

If the former, why is the miracle itself not actually narrated (even if with something as simple as: And Simon did as Jesus said)? If the latter, what is Jesus (according to the author, anyway) trying to say?

Are there any other miracle stories, whether inside or outside the canonical gospels, in which the miracle is understood to have occurred without any actual narration of it?

Thanks in advance.

Ben.

It is an allegory Ben wherein Capernaum of Galilea is where[in] saved-sinners are like strangers in a foreign land still stuck to the old law and its obligation to obey that law. Jesus was not one of those because he had fulfilled the law and was set free from the law as son of God. But not to mislead the multitude he would voluntarily obey the law and pay his dues from the assurance that every line he throws will bring in a fish twice its worth, and he promised that in the comfort of that assurance.

To note here is that Peter is casting into the celestial sea where the 'fish' are big and easy to catch. In this way it becomes a self assuring parable that Jesus was the son of God with Peter (who represents his faith) throwing the line towards full awakening.

Chili · 10-16-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

[I find this an unusual part of the story as scholars have always said all the disciples were fully Jewish.

. . . except maybe Peter who's keen insight to recognize Jesus as the Christ was to be the Rock of the Church that Jesus had in mind.

Chili · 10-17-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

In OT, it was forbidden for Israelites to charge interest among themselves. It was a form of usury, enslavement. In Matthew, the character Matthew is called a sinner because he is a tax[interest] collector. Evidently the Jews were still aware that taxing their own was forbidden. Jesus also said, render to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods. So, if Jesus paid the tax[tribute] for Peter, did he separate to Caesar that which was Caesars in Peter as a proseltye[Gentile] and himself as a son of Jacob-Israel[son of God] and heir who paid no tax?

Interest is guilt in this context . . . which is why Joseph went to his place of birth to give an account of himself to start with. His account there was a confession, or rather, it was his grand confession given as if he was pregnant with dispair and it was on the darkest night in his life that Christ was born unto him.

This same imagery is used here to identify strangers in a foreign land who were not freeborn and therefore have a tax to pay (. . . until they die nonetheless).

That Jews could not tax each other only means that they are all sinners and have no right to call each other upon them Billy Graham style, not even in Galilea where saved-sinners congregate and even Jews were strangers except Jesus here who was saved but not a sinner and therefore had no tax to pay . . . of which the evidence was that he could catch fish from the other side of his mind where Peter was from (which, then, is why the Church adopted him as co-pope with Paul).

Chili · 10-17-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

. . . except maybe Peter who's keen insight to recognize Jesus as the Christ was to be the Rock of the Church that Jesus had in mind.

But, was the Rock speaking of Peter or the foundational doctrine of Christ that Peter recognized? Remember, after declaring salvation to the Gentiles, (something that Jesus did not preach), Peter went back to Jerusalem and the Jews (because he did not see it his place to wait on tables, meaning, being a servant. Peter seems to have desired to be a lord) and Paul took the gospel to the Gentiles.

It was to be the foundational doctrine of the new Church as an inspired religion that is infallible on account of that, and beyond recall as the living Church in Christendom.

Peter went back because he will be a stranger among the gentiles while he is food for thought in Jerusalem.

Chili · 10-17-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The unstated part continues: "... but of course you won't, so we will not be paying our tax after all!"

DCH

Every fish will have diddrachma because Jesus was not guilty as son of God. The tax to pay represents guilt and only foreigners will feel guilty because they do not catch those kind of fish.

Chili · 10-19-2008, 05:34 PM

. . . so instead of walking on water they will be walking on gold . . . to say that every step they take is inspired wherefore the sea is no longer in the New heaven and New earth = no more holy ground on earth but holy earth where every bush is a burning bush.

storytime · 10-19-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

In OT, it was forbidden for Israelites to charge interest among themselves. It was a form of usury, enslavement. In Matthew, the character Matthew is called a sinner because he is a tax[interest] collector. Evidently the Jews were still aware that taxing their own was forbidden. Jesus also said, render to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods. So, if Jesus paid the tax[tribute] for Peter, did he separate to Caesar that which was Caesars in Peter as a proseltye[Gentile] and himself as a son of Jacob-Israel[son of God] and heir who paid no tax?

Interest is guilt in this context . . . which is why Joseph went to his place of birth to give an account of himself to start with. His account there was a confession, or rather, it was his grand confession given as if he was pregnant with dispair and it was on the darkest night in his life that Christ was born unto him.

This same imagery is used here to identify strangers in a foreign land who were not freeborn and therefore have a tax to pay (. . . until they die nonetheless).

That Jews could not tax each other only means that they are all sinners and have no right to call each other upon them Billy Graham style, not even in Galilea where saved-sinners congregate and even Jews were strangers except Jesus here who was saved but not a sinner and therefore had no tax to pay . . . of which the evidence was that he could catch fish from the other side of his mind where Peter was from (which, then, is why the Church adopted him as co-pope with Paul).

I'm afraid your explanation makes no sense to me whatsoever, because, from my reading the OT, the God of Israel commanded Israelites not to bear interest[tax, usury] on one another. "catching fish from the other side of the mind" I'm not familiar with.

Jesus claimed himself as a son of God, as he spoke the words of God he became god in the flesh, therefore an heir to the promised inheritance.(But this speaks to the authority of the priesthood). Strangers were converting proseltyes from what I'm understanding so far, and these were not heirs nor even if fully converted to Judaism they could not become heirs, (see Pauls argument against circumcision) because the heirs had been predistined from the beginning. Nothing could change the predistined plan.

All the Jews were sinners? In the NT story Jesus said he came not to save the righteous, but bring sinners to repentence. "Those who are well need not a physician". So evidently there were Jews who were righteous and not sinners.

Chili · 10-19-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

[

I'm afraid your explanation makes no sense to me whatsoever, because, from my reading the OT, the God of Israel commanded Israelites not to bear interest[tax, usury] on one another. "catching fish from the other side of the mind" I'm not familiar with.

Lucky for them but interest is guilt from my point of view, and of course, "there is no guile in a true Israelite."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-19-2008, 05:34 PM	#6
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	. . . so instead of walking on water they will be walking on gold . . . to say that every step they take is inspired wherefore the sea is no longer in the New heaven and New earth = no more holy ground on earth but holy earth where every bush is a burning bush.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.