Obey authorities, obey Rome

[Willum]

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Romans 13

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.� And they marveled at him.

Mark12:17

So Jesus implores both of these above.
However, Rome was a divine republic, the will of Jove was identified with the will of the state, and the Caesars semi-divine, if not actually divine.

Knowing Jesus attachment to Judaism, how is it possible for him to take these stances in the face of a jealous god?

Isn't there an actual commandment against it?

I am betting most of you didn't think I could quote the Bible without my fingers turning into flame, huh? Probably just this old Nick quoting scripture.

BTW, I am not accepting the position Rome was just a government. It was a divine government with Capitoline Jove as its head, AND theologically in charge of its revenue. "A loan to Jove is a loan to the state." R Graves.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 9 by catnip]

Interesting, so Jesus, by imploring the reverence of the false god Caesar, by imploring the tithing of a false god via taxation, by imploring the reverence of a false god by telling the people to obey a government sponsored by a false god Jove, Jesus was doing the right thing?

I am certainly no expert, but I am pretty sure that by supporting false gods, you are doing something hideous. You can't just whitewash it away by saying the "Romans just wanted..." Rome was a religious government that conquered the region. The Jews, in their beliefs, were perfectly correct in resisting the foreign gods represented therein (as that wass their belief).

Jesus, in endorsing the support of Caesars' tax, was endorsing a false godhead.

Jesus, in endorsing the sovereignty of Rome, was endorsing the divinity of the Roman government. Indeed, in Romans 13, above- Is he saying God put the Romans in power, and Zeus is their god?

This is one of those situations where I wish I had Joey Knothead's wit, because, there is a poignant and telling witticism in here somewhere.

So, I am very perplexed, you are saying that because a government sponsored by the false god Zeus, takes over, and the tax has the face of a false god on it, the Jews of the time should have not, plucked out their own eyes to keep from sinning?

I am afraid Jesus has been caught out. Matthew 5:29

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

He should have opposed this government as vehemently as the Jews of the time did.
Did and died.
Died until suppressed.
Suppressed until they revolted (twice).
Revolted until they were dispersed again.

Just to be clear, the law of Rome was the Law of Jove. A loan from the state was a loan from Jove (As preposterous as it sounds), and repayment of taxes were Romes/Jove's taxes. You wonder why the Jews of the time were so opposed? That is why.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 11 by Willum]

I think this is guilt-by-association concpiracy theory nonsense.

Are you suggesting that Jesus was advocating the worship of other gods, or are you saying that he was being naieve because he should have known that Jewish tax dollars were going to a Pagan theocratic state?

Even if the latter, what choice did he, they, have? They had to pay their taxes.

Are you really expecting us to believe Jesus was advocating pagan worship?

Remember, he was reserving worship for the God of Israel, when he said the "and give to God what belongs to God." He was talking about YHVH, not Jove, not Caesar, not the Greco-Roman pantehon as the One to worship.

And at that point, Caesar was ALLOWING the Jews to worship their own God, and have their own Temple.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

Everybody has to pay their tax. Everybody complains about it, even folks at the turn of the millena. Many folks were not paying their tax, that was part of the controversy.

That was part of the controversy, right?

Jesus had the choice many of the Jews of the time made. To rebel against the tax, claiming the money was unclean, which, since it was stamped with Caesar's godhead, it was. (The coins were stamped "Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus�" right on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribute_penny)

He had the choice to fight and die against Rome and its Pagan God and is God Emperors, like so many of the people there did.

Wasn't that worth dying for under Nero? Not bowing to Nero and worshiping him?

I think Caesar was replacing the Sadducee with the Pharisee, at the time. Perhaps he was allowing them their own religion, but he was choosing the one he wanted. The ones that supported his polices.

Not conspiracy, history.

[Elijah John]

Wasn't that worth dying for under Nero? Not bowing to Nero and worshiping him?.

There is no evidence that Jesus was bowing down to Nero, nor did he worship him. Nor did he advocate anyone worship him.

Again, the Romans allowed the Jews to worship YHVH.

And the fact that Jesus did not seem to advocate violent resistance to overthrow Rome, does not mean he was endorsing Rome, or it's Deities. There is such a thing as passive resistance. Jesus, Gandhi and Thoreau all practiced this.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 14 by Elijah John]

Jesus was pretty violent in the temple when unclean animals were being used.

You still do not seem to acknowledge what a grave sin paying tax honoring a semi-divine human would be, worthy of plucking an eye out, at least, or advocating a pagan government would be. It'd be just like tithing, or repaying a "god," for what he'd given you-roads, food and other "blessings," Caesar gave you your daily bread, literally.

To obey Rome is the same as saying obey Jove, and his vicar on Earth, the Caesars.

Just like obeying a feudal European king would have been obeying God under the "divine right of kings." Their is just no way around it.

That passive resistance you mention would have been endearing to the Roman Empire. And it was later Christians who did not bow to Nero, or give up Jesus that were "thrown to the lions," rather than give up Christianity, if you recall.

Their faith was greater than Jesus', oddly.

Again, the Romans instilled the version of the Jews to be a version of their religion the Romans chose, when the Romans led by the Pharisee squelched the Sadducee. The Pharisee were Messianic, resurrectionist, basically proto-Christians, the Sadducee were the ruling class, and now so extinct, we know little about them.

I call the Pharisee insurrection the greatest story NEVER told, as Jesus could never have been instilled without the Roman dominion of that Palestine.

[Elijah John]

That passive resistance you mention would have been endearing to the Roman Empire. And it was later Christians who did not bow to Nero, or give up Jesus that were "thrown to the lions," rather than give up Christianity, if you recall.

Their faith was greater than Jesus', oddly.

Being devoured by lions, crucifixion....both horrorendous.

You keep ignoring the "Render unto God" part of Jesus statement. Once again, the God Jesus mentions is YHVH, not Caesar, not anyone in the Roman pantheon.

And Jesus PREACHED YHVH, over and over again. The Romans allowed it. That is not why he was crucified.

The implications of what you are saying is that ALL Jews who paid their taxes were really worshiping Pagan gods. That is a ridiculous notion....and a stretch, to say the least.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 16 by Elijah John]

We seem to be talking past one another, I think I know how to ground us:

1. Imagine we are having this discussion 2000 years ago, in the Palestine territory, outside the shiny new temple dedicated to Jove, with the divinity of Augustus Caesar exemplified at its foyer. Greeks and Romans are coming and going, after paying their respect to their Gods.
Right down the road is the temple renovated by Herod 25 years ago, becoming more run down with each passing day.

Now, we overhear Jesus say, "Render to Caesar [let's have him gesticulate towards Caesar's temple] what is Caesar's, and render to Jehovah [gesticulating to the run down temple of Jehovah] what is Jehovah's."

The implications of what you are saying is that ALL Jews who paid their taxes were really worshiping Pagan gods. That is a ridiculous notion....and a stretch, to say the least.

EJ

No, do not put words in my mouth, I am saying that Jesus was stating that he desired Jews of the time to obey Rome, which was identically the god; Capitoline Jove, and render to Caesar his own worship, in kind. Jesus knew better than you or I, Rome's Laws were Jove's laws, and that Caesar was considered divine. Therefore, he should have "cut his tongue out" rather than promote their worship, empowerment or tithing.

Finally, given Romans 13, what exactly do you see being rendered to god, that which is not rendered to Caesar? Specifically. What exactly wouldn't make this blasphemy?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 17 by Willum]

What was Caesar's was tax money, and obedience to Roman rule.

What was YHVH God's was worship OF YHVH, Jesus devotion TO YHVH, from which he never strayed.

Simple. The Jews did what they had to do to survive, short of bowing down to Roman gods. And Rome was OK with that. Not complicated.

Just because Romans worshiped Caesar and the Greco-Roman pantheon does not mean Rome expected the Jews to do the same.

It was an uneasy truce. The first "separation of church and state".

Rome: "You Jews worship in your own way, your own God, but be odedient to Rome's civil rule.

Jesus and followers. "We will continue to worship YHVH, and not your gods, but we will abide by Roman civil law.

If Rome wanted to be a theocracy, they sure seem to have made an exception for the Jews, as least in Jesus lifetime.

So now are you accusing Jesus of blasphemy too? Along with the Temple priests, but for a different reason?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 17 by Willum]

What was Caesar's was tax money, and obedience to Roman rule.

You keep saying this, and avoiding the point: Caesar was a divine Godhead, to give that godhead money would be support a god that was not your YHVH. Obedience to Roman rule is obedience to Jove. I don't see how this would be forgivable.

What was YHVH God's was worship OF YHVH, Jesus devotion TO YHVH, from which he never strayed.

He strayed by advocating obeying the rule of Jove which was the rule of Rome. Wouldn't it have been better to die than to advocate obeying a false god?

Simple. The Jews did what they had to do to survive, short of bowing down to Roman gods. And Rome was OK with that. Not complicated.

By obeying Roman rule, they were obeying foreign gods. Many did survive, yes, but many died fighting, many fled, many simply died in Roman prisons and on the execution grounds for YHVH. How could Jesus advocate obeying, when he should have advocated anything but bowing to the foreign god Jove, by way of Jove's government, Rome.

Just because Romans worshiped Caesar and the Greco-Roman pantheon does not mean Rome expected the Jews to do the same.

No, they never did with any of their conquests. They did however, install their own Roman-friendly religions. In this case, the Roman supported destruction of the Sadducee. The instillation of the Pharisee. Do you think that the Pharisee didn't support the Jovian government? If they didn't, Rome wouldn't have put them in power.

It was an uneasy truce. The first "separation of church and state".

If you are going to make such a claim, you'll need a reference. Even so, non-sequitur, we're talking Jesus' support of the Roman Pagan State.

Rome: "You Jews worship in your own way, your own God, but be obedient to Rome's civil rule.

Again, non-sequitur, and false, one of Rome's tools for rule was disruption of religion.

Jesus and followers. "We will continue to worship YHVH, and not your gods, but we will abide by Roman civil law.

Roman civil law was ordained by Roman pagan Jove.

If Rome wanted to be a theocracy, they sure seem to have made an exception for the Jews, as least in Jesus lifetime.

References please. It sure looks to me like they did to the Jews what they did to every other country they conquered.

So now are you accusing Jesus of blasphemy too? Along with the Temple priests, but for a different reason?

I have no idea where you are getting the "temple priests," but I am very interested in your explanation of how support of divine Caesar, and obeying a Jovian government is not blasphemy.

Just to remind you, once again: In Palestine of Jesus' time, their were temples where the GOD Augustus was worshiped. Jesus would have seen these temples dedicated to worship these Caesars. I can not see an avenue where any respect for these God-Emperors would not be blasphemy.

Finally: You have not identified what was not given to Caesar that should be given to god: If Caesar was writing the rules, for example, and by negative inflection: Caesar wanted, and Jesus advocated giving the Jovian government: Taxes, obedience, honor, respect.

[2ndpillar]

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Romans 13

Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.� And they marveled at him.

Mark12:17

So Jesus implores both of these above.
However, Rome was a divine republic, the will of Jove was identified with the will of the state, and the Caesars semi-divine, if not actually divine.

Knowing Jesus attachment to Judaism, how is it possible for him to take these stances in the face of a jealous god?

Isn't there an actual commandment against it?

I am betting most of you didn't think I could quote the Bible without my fingers turning into flame, huh? Probably just this old Nick quoting scripture.

BTW, I am not accepting the position Rome was just a government. It was a divine government with Capitoline Jove as its head, AND theologically in charge of its revenue. "A loan to Jove is a loan to the state." R Graves.

Dear wil,
You made some false presumptions. The book of Romans was supposedly written by the false prophet Paul, and is not the "word" of God. Rome of the first century was ruled by the 6th head of the beast of Revelation 17:10, and whose authority came from the "dragon" (Rev 13:4).

The mother of harlots which sits on the beast, is the Roman church, which has designated Peter and Paul as their two horns like a lamb/leaders.