Christians, what would it take?

[Inigo Montoya]

What would have to happen for you Christians to abandon your beliefs in God, miracles, the accuracy of the Bible's stories, etc.?

We have a couple panentheists, at least one Muslim, and heaven knows what else frequenting this subforum; you folk feel free to chime in on your respective versions of "God/god" and apply the OP to it as you see fit.

On a personal note, I'm especially anxious to hear from Ted and FtK, Goose and BThread.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 70 by liamconnor]

"Jesus defied my beliefs..." Oh, that's a keeper.

Well, the point of the OP, is we can't hold our breath waiting for believers to give us consensus...
One point has been made, even though the Bible is used to demonstrate it own fallacy, it takes more than that, to get you all to renounce it.

I once quipped God would have to come down from Heaven and tell you he didn't exist for you (all) to believe it.

It seems that is about true.

So,

What would have to happen for you Christians to abandon your beliefs in God, miracles, the accuracy of the Bible's stories, etc.?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 61 by Willum]

LUKE 20:21-26 (NIV)
So the spies questioned him: “Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.2 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?�

On an occassion near the end of Jesus' life he was asked by his opponents if the Jews should pay taxes. This they thought would put Jesus in an impossible position, because whatever his response it would be dangerous for Jesus.

THE ROCK AND THE HARD PLACE

The Jewish leaders deliberately worded their question in a way that would force Jesus to say something that would displease someone. If he said "Yes, pay your taxes" the people would turn against him, for they hated being under Roman rule and were looking for a Messiah that would free them from it. To confirm that they should indeed pay their taxes would his enemies hoped, make him distasteful to the crowds, many of whom found his messaga agreeable and his actions welcomed.

If Jesus said "No, don't pay your taxes" he would find himself guilty of sedition and could be reported to the authorities. So Jesus answered the question without saying the words "Yes" OR "No". He used a visual aid to not only teach what the Jews should do regarding Roman taxes, but taught a principle that helps Christians make good decisions regarding politics and worship down to this day.

JESUS GIVES A MASTERFUL OBJECT LESSON

LUKE 20:21-26 (NIV)

He saw through their duplicity and said to them, “Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?�

“Caesar’s,� they replied.

He said to them, “Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.�

So Jesus didn't say the words "Yes" or "No" he demonstrated what they should do using a Roman coin. By refering to the coin (money) as "Caesar's [things]" he was pointing out that a believer should recognize superior authorites and submit to them; in short Jesus was basically saying yes, the Jews of his day should not rebell against the authorities and should pay taxes. By adding that that same individual must also give "God's things to God" Jesus was teaching that believers would have TWO obligations.


RELATIVE SUBMISSION

In order to honor both Caesar (representing secular authorities) and God, a believer would have to recognize that God is the highest authority so that if any secular authority (in this case the Romans) indeed if any human at all, demanded something that God prohibited (or demands they refrain from doing something God has epecifically commanded them to do) a person must honor "God as ruler rather than men" meaning disobey the authorities in favor of obeying God. Believer were therefore to obey authorities to the measure that it did not compromise their faith, their submission was to be relative.

LUKE 20:21-26 (NIV)
They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

With good reason then Jesus audience were impressed. He had successfully avoided incriminating himself, answered the question (in the affirmative) regarding the paying of taxes AND taught a greater bible principle to guide believers for centuries to com.

CONCLUSION: In indicating that the Jews should indeed pay their taxes without actually saying the words, Jesus avoided sparking a rebellion and confirmed that he was not there to lead a political movement to free Jews from Roman rule. He also managed to communicate that believers were not however to submit unconditionally to secular authorities and should do nothing that broke God's law or compromised their faith and devotion to the Creator

RELATED POSTS


Did the paying of Roman Taxes* violate the 1st Commandment?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 655#905655

Did paying of Roman taxes* violate the second of the Ten Commandments?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 657#905657

* with coins engraved with pagan dieties

FURTHER READING Should You Pay Your Taxes?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102003883

[Willum]

[Replying to post 72 by JehovahsWitness]

JW, as I have mentioned, Gentiles are really impressed by Jesus appeasing both the God Caesar and the God Yaheweh.

Just as you are. Thinking he cleverly out foxed 'em.

However, the Jews noted that he said the graven images of the gods Caersar an Pax were OK to revere by giving the divine monarchy of Rome, SUPPORTING the pagan monarchy of Rome, by tithing to it.

You see, for proclaiming such blasphemy, the Jews could only insist he be killed, or be cursed themselves.

And that is what happened.

You may ignore tithe and tax are the same word in Latin, you may try to tell the Jewish people of the 1st century that the coins weren't graven images, you may try to convince the entire world that Jesus said something that outfoxed spies, but in reality, got him executed.

But it is admirable you insist on making the issue about the tax, instead of violating commandments, how you will mis-direct and mis-construe for this story.

When will you realize, were it true, you wouldn't have to do it?

[JehovahsWitness]

you may try to convince the entire world that Jesus said something that outfoxed spies, but in reality, got him executed.

Jesus was unjustly executed on false charges. Nothing Jesus said could by any stretch of the imagination made him guilty of the charges laid against him. Indeed since the religious leaders could not actually get Jesus to make any statement that would support an accusation of sedition, they simply lied.

LUKE 23: 1, 2
Then the whole council rose and led Jesus away to Pilate. And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man subverting our nation, forbidding payment of taxes to Caesar

So yes, Jesus outwitted them but he made no attempt to "out-evil" them. Their "evil", lies and political pressure won out in the end and got an innocent man executed.


JW

[Willum]

[Replying to post 74 by JehovahsWitness]

J

esus was unjustly executed on false charges. Nothing Jesus said could by any stretch of the imagination made him guilty of the charges laid against him.

Wow, that's odd, because I would have convicted him, on very real religious charges. It ain't taxing my 'magination 't'all.
Like you, I do not care about the tax, I care about the coins having pagan gods on them, who desire worship through sacrifice.

As soon as he advocated the god Caesar over the god Yahweh, with his speech about graven images, the Palestinians had no choice.

But if he out-foxed them, why did they crucify him? Why didn't they pardon him? Because he violated the word of God, that's why, and the Jews, living with him as they did, didn't believe he was other than a man.

I know you object, but my version makes sense, yours needs miracles a hundred years or more after the fact...

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 1 by Inigo Montoya]

A natural explanation of the early Christian movement (tracing how we get from no Jesus to a Jesus as described in the N.T.) that satisfied basic historical criteria. It would have to be plausible on its own merits (i.e., the assertion of the agnostic that alien interference is "more" plausible than miraculous intervention is not adequate) and demonstrate knowledge of the cultural context; it would have to have explanatory power and scope; and, most especially, it would have to resort very, very infrequently to ad hoc assumptions (e.g. "The Centurion failed to puncture the vital organs of Jesus").

To clarify somewhat, then, you'd abandon your belief in God if such an explanation was presented to you that fit all of your above criteria, yes?

At the moment, since that hasn't happened, it's safe to assume the mechanism that made the resurrection possible was God? Or do you allow a resurrection can be demonstrated historically, somehow, that tells you nothing further about how it happened?

I'm trying to ascertain whether resurrected messiahs affirm the existence of gods, or whether the belief in gods make resurrections a trivially easy matter, and does the heavy lifting regarding historical inquiry into the matter.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 31 by Claire Evans]

Ah, again you gentiles defending the tax, and ignoring the religion. You, like the Greeks and Romans persuaded by that argument, no doubt see how clever Jesus was to say what he did: He basically said; respect both Gods. Now were you truly religious, you would see why the tax was a problem:

While it is lawful to pay taxes, it is not lawful to venerate foreign gods.
Caesar and Pax are graven images of foreign gods.
Foreign gods who are venerated by paying those coins.
The God Caesar, it says so, right on the coins, desired to be worshiped via sacrifice of that tax, or as it was called back then, a tithe. Is it lawful to tithe to Caesar and his authority Jove?


So, no, the tax is fine.
That paying it was made into a religious act by Caesar, and by proxy, Jove, is against the Commandments, makes Jesus' support of it an undeniable tell that he is a fraud.

Allow me to make obvious what Jesus said:
Give to the god Caesar the things that he desires, but don't fail to give to the god Theos the things that he desires.

To the Christian, the de facto authority of Caesar meant nothing when it came to the true spiritual freedom of the believers. Ssubmitting to authority when it interferes with the worshiping of Gods is a different matter.


"They say unto him, Caesar's,.... Either Augustus Caesar's; for there was a coin of that emperor's, as Dr. Hammond reports, from Occo, which had his image or picture on it, and in it these words written, Augustus Caesar, such a year, "after the taking of Judaea"; which if this was the coin, was a standing testimony of the subjection of the Jews to the Romans; and this being current with them, was an acknowledgment of it by them, and carried in it an argument of their obligation to pay tribute to them; or it might be Tiberius Caesar's, the then reigning emperor, in the nineteenth year of whose reign, Christ was crucified; and seeing he had reigned so long, it is reasonable to suppose, his money was very common, and most in use: we read in the Talmud (s), of , "a Caesarean penny", or "Caesar's penny", the same sort with this: now this penny having Caesar's image and inscription on it, our Lord tacitly suggests, that they ought to pay tribute to him; since his money was allowed of as current among them, which was in effect owning him to be their king; and which perfectly agrees with a rule of their own, which runs thus (t):
"A king whose "coin" is "current" in any country, the inhabitants of that country agree about him, and it is their joint opinion, "that he is their Lord, and they are his servants".

This being the case now with the Jews, Christ's advice is,

render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God, the things that are God's: give Caesar the tribute and custom, and fear, and honour, and obedience, which are due to him; which may be done without interfering with the honour of God, and prejudicing his interest and glory, when care is taken, that all the worship and obedience due to God are given to him: subjection to civil magistrates is not inconsistent with the reverence and fear of God; all are to have their dues rendered unto them, without entrenching upon one another. And the Jews themselves allow, that a king ought to have his dues, whether he be a king of Israel, or of the Gentiles:

"a publican, or tax gatherer, (they say (u),) that is appointed by the king, whether a king of Israel, or of the Gentiles, and takes what is fixed by the order of the government; it is forbidden to refuse payment of the tax to him, for , "the right of a king is right".''

Just and equitable, and he ought to have his right."

The coin of Caesar just bared the legitimacy of his rule and was entitled to those taxes. The duty of the Christian was not to rebel against existing rulers but to conjoin obedience to their authority with obedience to God.



"But such a severance of the two is not in accordance with the context; for the answer would in that case be an answer to an alternative question based on the general thought: is it lawful to be subject to Caesar, or to God only? Whereas the reply of Jesus is: you ought to do both things, you ought to be subject to God and to Caesar as well; the one duty is inseparable from the other! Thus our Lord rises above the alternative, which was based on theocratic notions of a one-sided and degenerate character, to the higher unity of the true theocracy, which demands no revolutions of any kind, and also looks upon the right moral conception of the existing civil rule as necessarily part and parcel of itself (John 19:11), and consequently a simple yes or no in reply to the question under consideration is quite impossible."

The Jews believed that one must pay tribute to either God or the existing ruler which is truly hypocritical of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/22-21.htm

[Willum]

[Replying to post 77 by Claire Evans]

Oh, Claire, Claire, Claire.
How many times must you be told there was not a single Christian in Jesus' audience, only Jews and pagans, and ithe scenario is not the same.

Now I would like you to imagine you are a jealous god.
Imagine there is the man pretending to be a god, Caesar. (Or is a god, who am I to judge?) He is worshiped and a god and is empowered by a pantheon of gods.

These gods and their representative, Caesar, desire to be worshiped with graven idols, images of their own likeness, demonstrating their divinity.

Then there is someone claiming to be your son saying doing this, venerating these other gods is OK.

If you were a jealous god, what would you think?
Again, remember there were no Christians with your biased opinion back then.

See? Were Jesus a real saviour, he wouldn't do that.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 78 by Willum]

....And all of this a fabrication of Rome....who managed to punish the Christians because.....BECAUSE...they bought into Rome's fabrication!


And then Rome even forgot they did this in the first place!!

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Inigo Montoya]

A natural explanation of the early Christian movement (tracing how we get from no Jesus to a Jesus as described in the N.T.) that satisfied basic historical criteria. It would have to be plausible on its own merits (i.e., the assertion of the agnostic that alien interference is "more" plausible than miraculous intervention is not adequate) and demonstrate knowledge of the cultural context; it would have to have explanatory power and scope; and, most especially, it would have to resort very, very infrequently to ad hoc assumptions (e.g. "The Centurion failed to puncture the vital organs of Jesus").

To clarify somewhat, then, you'd abandon your belief in God if such an explanation was presented to you that fit all of your above criteria, yes?

At the moment, since that hasn't happened, it's safe to assume the mechanism that made the resurrection possible was God? Or do you allow a resurrection can be demonstrated historically, somehow, that tells you nothing further about how it happened?

I'm trying to ascertain whether resurrected messiahs affirm the existence of gods, or whether the belief in gods make resurrections a trivially easy matter, and does the heavy lifting regarding historical inquiry into the matter.

The question is, how do we explain the origins of Christianity in a way that satisfies historical criteria. You can sit back and ascertain what you will; but the question is not really that difficult.