Clivedurdle

Does this comment, and equivalent ones by Paul about authorities being ordained by God, mean it was OK for xians to offer incense to the emperor, because this is a political act and it is treachery not to? Peter's vision, that it is OK to eat food sacrificed to rhe gods also seems to support pragmatism about these matters.

andrewcriddle

'Render to Caesar' primarily means paying your taxes see Romans 13:6.

Giving Caesar religious reverence is a different matter. It amounts to giving Caesar what rightly belongs to God.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

But isn't this a distinction from our perspective? If Peter said it is OK to eat meat sacrificed to idols, is there any difference to what the Romans saw as an oath of allegiance to the state - burning some incense to the emperor?

Paul was quite clear authorities are ordained by God and should be obeyed. Is this another example of an attempt to make martyrs when there wasn't a conflict? Was "Render unto Caesar" an attempt to ingratiate xians with Romans?

gee

Clivedurdle;

I see these as two different issues.

"meat sacrificed to idols" - It is what comes out of the body that makes one unclean not what goes into the body. (paraphrasing Jesus).

"render to Caesar" - this theme by Jesus and carried by Paul is important in my view. It gives Christians who believe in scripture the "command" to obey civil authorities and follow law.

gee

Julian

Wasn't forcing suspected christians to show worship of the Emperor one of the methods that Pliny used to expose them? My memory is a bit hazy here but it would seem to me that it is okay to obey the laws but not okay to worship the emperor in any way.

Julian

Dharma

Yes, it demonstrates the complete lack of understanding of most Christians.

So according to Christians it is okay to worship "Jesus", who is a man, as a "son of God", it is all right for the Israelites to call their king "ben elohim" son of God, but it is not right for Caesar who performed the miracle of conquering half the known world, to call himself God or Son of God.

What hypocrisy!

Nero's Boot

Not at all! See, the unverifiable Christian son of God is much less believeable than these other "sons of God," and so must be believed in thereby.

--"I believe because it is impossible." NB

Dharma

a few Christians might've gotten the joke, but MOST Christians still don't get it. :huh:

Vorkosigan

"Render unto Caesar" might have many meanings. One thing that should be pointed out is that the writer of Mark may be commenting on the passages in Romans 13. Consider the second half, which says that what is God's should be rendered unto Him. But doesn't everything on earth belong to him? Thus the second half would explain that the answer to What belongs to Caesar? which is the natural response to Jesus' remark, is Nothing!.

Vorkosigan

Dharma

That would make sense if we could figure out the definition of God according to Christianity vs. the definition of God according to Romans.

Is God the father, the son or Holy Ghost? Are we all sons of God as Jesus says and if so, then so is Caesar. So if Caesar is also a "son of God" then we must render onto Caesar what is his in Caesar's empire.

More Christian confusion as I see it.