spamandham

I can do the same trick for Tom Sawyer. Is that just as amazing?

Chris Weimer

This is your interpretation of the passage, but I hardly doubt it fits with the rest of the Gospels. Taking in the messianic, apocalyptic messages and the clear anti-authoritarian stance (contra Pharisees, contra high priests, even contra temple) throughout the gospels, it seems more likely that Jesus is saying literally give the money, to Caesar, since Caesar owns the money, and coupled with his poverty message on occassion, give it all back to Caesar and dedicate your life to God.

Goathead

I would guess that it was in order to avoid a charge of explicitly decrying roman power.

Phrased like this it says "pay your taxes to rome, you need to do that.But afterwards you can give to God what is gods - which not only includes everything but everything non-material.

IOW i guess it meant hed be less likely to be executed on the spot.

OR perhaps by tying mention of God into an instruction based on somehting that ACTUALLY EXISTS it was meant to lend authenticity to the concept of God.I guess.

Or maybe he just wanted to fuck with you?

Clouseau

Of course you can. But why would you?

mountainman

This particular well-poished story is quite powerful. Between the
Caesar and his military power, and the common civilians of the
ancient world, just as is it is today, moves the taxation money.

How was the new christian religious order to be aligned to the
political activities of rendering taxation payments to Caesar?
We are informed in no uncertain terms what the arrangement
was to be.

Yes, it may quite be a subjective assessment, but I cannot
readily imagine a first century anti-Roman anti-authoritarian
Jewish leader missing the opportunity to place god ahead of
the Roman Caesar.

Of course, my own research leads me to postulate that the
very first publication of new testament christian writings was
under the regime of Constantine in the fourth century, and
that the phrase:

Render unto Constantine the things that are his,
and unto god the things that are his.

was in fact a WIN-WIN situation for the brigand and
military supremacist Constantine, who had just invented
the new and strange Roman christian religious order, and
had implemented it at Nicaea.

In 331 CE he was the very first person to publish a complete
bible, the Constantine Bible. Did Christianity exist before the
rise of Constantine? So far noone here or on any other forum
has provided evidence to lead me to think that it did.

Interesting times. Perhaps archeology, ancient history and
science may yet be able to distinguish between the mainstream
theory of ancient history (in which there existed "christians"
in the prenicene epoch) and this alternative.

spamandham

If this were a sub forum devoted to analyzing the works of Mark Twain, and I was participating, I imagine I would. This sub forum is devoted to BC&H. Everyone here obviously has an interest in the subject.

Clouseau

But it isn't.

Really? I don't.

Precisely.

spamandham

An amazing deduction Sherlock! Is there any point to it?

Merlin

Simple context:

Matthew 22:
17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?
19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius,
20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."


Jesus was asked about Caesar. He answered about Caesar

mountainman

Then he said to them,
"Give to god what is god's,
and to Caesar what is Caesar's."

It is an historical fact that first century Hebrew
zealots were unyielding in their priorities. The
entire import of this particular saying is of
extreme importance to the relationship between
three things:

1) the Roman Empire and its civilians
2) the new Roman religion and civilians
3) tax money and civilians.


As others have commented in this thread, it is
relatively easy to understand why Caesar should
get the first mention if these lines were authored in
the second, or the third, or - heaven forbid - even
the fourth century.

They do not appear to resonate harmoniously with
the political atmosphere of first century Judea: this
is the integrity issue being highlighted for discussion.