Christianity rejects taxation.

[old man emu]

The reports in several of the Gospels of Christ saying, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's", have long been taken to mean that Christ endorsed official taxation, or at least was smart enough not to fall into a theological/political trap. For a long time, this meaning has been used as a theological reason for the separation of State and Church.

 

However, despite there being a strong anti-taxation feeling amongst Christ's contemporary Jews, it appears that Christ's response was more theological meaning, and the response shows Christ as an astute rabbinical scholar.

 

This article :

 

Render Unto Caesar: A Most Misunderstood New Testament Passage - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

 

provides the background to the incident, giving both the contemporary political meaning and the rabbinical meaning to Christ's response.

 

As this quote from the Gospel has entered secular language, it doesn't matter which side of the God/No God argument you support for you to gain a bit more knowledge.

 

OME

 

 

[facthunter]

Only another example of many out there of quoting stuff out of context to suit your particular view at the time. Is "selective perception" a satisfactory description? Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Seeing as the possible J was long dead when anything was written down, you are trying to interpret the intent of a proselytiser and not a prophet or divine being.

 

 

[old man emu]

"Possible J" ?

 

Nearly all modern scholars of antiquity, which is the majority viewpoint, agree that Jesus existed and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[53][55][56][nb 9][102] There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity.

 

Historian Michael Grant wrote that:

 

If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.

 

The consensus seems to be that during the reign of the Roman Emperor Tiberius, a religious agitator was crucified in Jerusalem possibly on a charge of treason against the Romans. It is up to the individual to come to terms with the man's philosophy.

 

OME

 

 

[Marty_d]

a religious agitator was crucified in Jerusalem possibly on a charge of treason against the Romans. It is up to the individual to come to terms with the man's philosophy.

OME

That his name was Jesus is doubtful, that he rose from the dead is fantasy, and that he was born to a virgin woman is biologically impossible.

 

The Romans crucified many hundreds of thousands of criminals or political dissidents. In fact Roman citizens had the right to crucify their own slaves for any infraction, real or imagined, without consequence.

 

What made this particular agitator any different is a mystery to me. Some of his philosophy is good, much of it is religious claptrap. That he "died for our sins" is patent rubbish, he died because he was (to the Roman's mind) formenting rebellion.

 

 

[facthunter]

Jesus is a relatively common name at the time I understand but I don't think it's of any great import in the scheme of things. It's NOT very long ago. The aborigines have been here for over 20 times longer and much longer than the 6300 years the universe has existed according to Christian fundamentalists and the "intelligent design" group. Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

OME, the test for historical existence is whether there are independent corroborating records. For example, a comment by a scribe from another tribe. King Herod, for example, passes this test as there was a scribe from another tribe who wrote about him.

 

My understanding is that the Jesus character fails this test.

 

Worse, the parables ascribed to Jesus were found in the dead sea scrolls, which pre-dated the Jesus story by 400 years.

 

Another bit of evidence was the Jerusalem diary-keeper who was active during the Jesus time, but who failed to mention anything.

 

 

[old man emu]

I'm just saying that secular historians seem to agree that there was some "sect" leader active in and around Jerusalem at the relevant time. The kernel of his philosophy is pretty good, it's just the nuts around it who have degraded the basic message, mostly for their own agenda. At least he didn't advocate putting anyone who did not accept his philosophy to the sword. That perversion came with later false prophets.

 

Every prophet, political leader or writer of stories in their many forms plagiarises the work of those from other times. Also, maybe this fellow, J , figured that the stories in the old works were familiar to his audience, and were worth repeating as the message in them had not changed. I agree that his message has been bastardised by those who came after him. After all, there was a big conference in about the fourth or fifth Century where the attendees thrashed out which were to be the approved texts from all the writings that existed up to that time.

 

OME

 

 

[Bruce]

Yep, OME, as a lecturer I was always using stuff from elsewhere, but at least I gave the students the reference.

 

There sure is some good things in the Jesus message though. Like "judge not lest ye be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

 

But Dawkins is right about the very message of the Jesus life... Imagine some bikies annoyed you and you wanted to forgive them but had to arrange the death of your own son first so that you could see your way clear to do the forgiving. Gosh that would be considered criminally insane.

 

 

[facthunter]

The progeny having to wear the sins of the father seems a bit unfair. It all goes back to the tribal dogma of the time. If you wanted your kids to learn how to be good you wouldn't reference a lot of parts of the old testament. It's very much of the period. Nev