The Christian world has long acknowledged a division between the secular and the religious. Islam never has. This has hurt both scientific and industrial progress, and the productive synergy between the two.
The Inquisition didn't have any problems with Galileo and his theories until he started insulting the pope in one of his books. Then the theories became a pretext to pressure him.
People call it a religion now ... because there isn't a state anymore (called a caliphate). Which illustrates yet again how central the state is to islam. All states, including the Taliban and the Mullahs of Iran, radically de-emphasize the fact that the islamic religion demands a global central totalitarian state, and emphasizes nationalism and, for example, the difference between Iranians and Pakistani. Every 6 year old Iranian knows how "their islam", first, centers around the Iranian state, and second how pakistani islam is totally wrong. Plus, of course, how trying to work out those differences, as the "one islam" ideal in the religion itself would seem to reward, is treason.
The point is that those items made in Caesar's image should be considered his property and reunited with him, whereas those items made in God's image (humanity) are God's property and should be reunited with Him.
That was a statement made when the Caesar was a nonbeliever, he ruled the world, and he could literally crucify you for believing the wrong stuff. It just means "Folks, let's not pick up an unnecessary fight against someone who can casually murder all of us."
Of course, later the Ceasars became Christian, and the line became a lot more blurry.
ALL religions _insist_ on a divide between secular and religious by definition.
I still consider myself a Christian but please do better than a quote from the big guy that related to taxation to somehow justify some sort of scientific related superiority over another Abrahamic religion.
I think you also managed to miss-quote the usual translation because I think it should be something like: "Render unto Caesar that which is due to Caesar and render unto God those things that are due to God". My Aramaic is a little rusty and I don't have access to the original docs so I might be wrong.
I think that the issue at the moment that JC was quoted talking about was regarding taxation and JC used that to make a rather neat earthly/heavenly analogy. Earthly taxation unto Caesar and Heavenly "taxation" unto God.
I think that twiddling an analogy about a situation that happened roughly 2000 years ago into another analogy, might be a step too far.
Not Aramaic, but Greek. Aramaic was the language spoken by the people in the Gospels, but the Gospels themselves were written in koine Greek, the English of the ancient world. The sentence says "Give to Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's" in my translation. From Matthew, 22:16-22.
Like you point out the context was taxation. Pay Cesar's taxes and give prayer to God, would be a more liberal translation.
Edit: full text of the relevant passage.
15 Τότε πορευθέντες οἱ Φαρισαῖοι συμβούλιον ἔλαβον ὅπως αὐτὸν παγιδεύσωσιν ἐν λόγῳ. 16 καὶ ἀποστέλλουσιν αὐτῷ τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτῶν μετὰ τῶν Ἡρῳδιανῶν λέγοντας Διδάσκαλε, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς εἶ καὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ διδάσκεις, καὶ οὐ μέλει σοι περὶ οὐδενός, οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων· 17 εἰπὸν οὖν ἡμῖν, τί σοι δοκεῖ; ἔξεστιν δοῦναι κῆνσον Καίσαρι ἢ οὔ; 18 γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τὴν πονηρίαν αὐτῶν εἶπεν Τί με πειράζετε, ὑποκριταί; 19 ἐπιδείξατέ μοι τὸ νόμισμα τοῦ κήνσου. οἱ δὲ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δηνάριον. 20 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Τίνος ἡ εἰκὼν αὕτη καὶ ἡ ἐπιγραφή; 21 λέγουσιν· Καίσαρος. τότε λέγει αὐτοῖς Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Θεῷ. 22 καὶ ἀκούσαντες ἐθαύμασαν, καὶ ἀφέντες αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθαν.
https://biblehub.com/nestle/matthew/22.htm
To summarise, the Pharisees wanted to trap jesus, by making him say something foolish. So they sent their students accompanied by Herod's followers (Ἡρῳδιανῶν) to, well, troll Jesus, first praising him for speaking the truth without fear, and then asking him if he was asking to be given Cesar's tribute (κῆνσον Καίσαρι). Jesus asked them to show him the coin of the tribute and when they showed him a dinar (δηνάριον) he asked them: "Whose is this image and legend?". They replied it was Cesar's. And Jesus said " Then give to Cesar what is Cesar's and to God what is God's". And thus doth he shutte them uppe for goode and there was much rejoicement. Liberal translation.
The previous passage (Matthew 22:1-14) is the parable of the wedding, where Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven with a human kingdom, whose king throws a wedding party for his son. This could be mistaken as Jesus claiming for himself an earthly kingdom, with him as king. This would have displeased Cesar.
So the Pharisees were trying to entrap Jesus and make him look like he wanted to rebel against Rome, why they took Herod's followers with them. But this backfired and they gave Jesus the chance to allay any suspicions that he was anything else but a religious leader, and to say that he was not a threat to Rome. He did that by invoking a powerful symbol of Cesar's power: his coin, with his face and name on it. Jesus was a smart guy!
Also: hey, I can still read that. Blimey! Been a while...
Good skills Sir! I can only hark back to Divinity O level studies at school. I never studied old Greek but I did Latin. Dad was stationed in Cyprus so I am vaguely familiar with the alphabet - enough to know a dinar is a "denarion".
Thanks for the interesting response. I doubt my original parent gives a toss though 8)
I think Occam's razor applies here. Stable, long-lasting governments and ample resources make a nice bed for technological and scientific output anywhere.
The article literally describes that fight in the backlash to Al-Mamum's oppressive secularism.
You are aware that Copernicus was a Catholic priest, right?
This item is Caesar's. It has his name on it, his face on it, he made it, it's his. You should return it to him.
You, on the other hand, are God's. You are made in His image, and you should return yourself to Him.
That's why I said "was interpreted by his audience". We know what he (allegedly) said and how his audience (allegedly) understood it. What (if anything) he was implying and whether the audience misunderstood him has been the subject of debate for pretty much the entire history of Christianity.
You can see in the passages directly surrounding what you quote how obvious the Bible makes it. Paraphrasing and injecting context that would have been obvious to the Jewish audiences:
Jews: Should we pay taxes?
Jesus: This item was made by Caesar in the image of Caesar, therefore it's safe to assume it's Caesars property and if he wants it back you should return it to him. But you on the other hand were made in the image of God, you are God's property and you should return to Him.
Jews: Are you the King of the Jews?
Jesus: That is what you have called me.
Jews: This guy says we shouldn't pay taxes and that he's the messiah! Kill him!
Judge: “You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him. I will therefore punish and release him.”
Jews: But we really really really really want you to kill him! And we'll probably have an uprising and cause a ton of trouble if you don't!
Judge: Screw it fine, I'll let this other murderer and insurrectionist we had previously held captive go free and crucify Jesus instead.
In the Gospels, only John names the crowd as "Judeans". Mark, Matthew and Luke call them "the crowd", "the mob", or "the people". The people, who were, of course, Judeans, but then remember that so was Jesus, and so where the evangelists, and the other followers of Jesus.
John 18:38 ->
Λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος “Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια;” Καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν πάλιν ἐξῆλθεν πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς “Ἐγὼ οὐδεμίαν εὑρίσκω ἐν αὐτῷ αἰτίαν.
[Pilate says to him "what is truth?". And having said that he came out again towards the Judeans and says to them "I find no cause in him" ("no cause" meaning: to punish him) .]
https://biblehub.com/texts/john/18-38.htm
Luke 23:18 ->
Ἀνέκραγον δὲ παμπληθεὶ* λέγοντες “Αἶρε τοῦτον, ἀπόλυσον δὲ ἡμῖν τὸν Βαραββᾶν·”
[And the crowd as one cried saying "Take him, and give us Barabbas".]
https://biblehub.com/texts/luke/23-18.htm
Mark 15:11 ->
Οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς ἀνέσεισαν τὸν ὄχλον ἵνα μᾶλλον τὸν Βαραββᾶν ἀπολύσῃ αὐτοῖς.
[As to the high priests they spurred the mob so that he would rather give back Barabbas to them.]
https://biblehub.com/texts/mark/15-11.htm
Matthew 27:25 ->
Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς πᾶς ὁ λαὸς εἶπεν “Τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν.”
[And in reply the whole people said "His blood on us and on our children".]
https://biblehub.com/texts/matthew/27-25.htm
All of which of course has been interpreted in Christian tradition as "the Jews crucified Christ", and most likely formed the basis for European anti-semitism; the original, and true, anti-semitism. And having read the Gospels it's clear what Jesus himself would have thought of such traditions; how royally pissed off he would have been knowing the hatred that was roused in his name.
The sources you think are helping your point are not, BTW. Which is as one would expect, given your point is basically: "This crowd of people referred to once as Jews, who lived where Jews lived and were interested in the teachings of a Jew who was at that point only talking to Jews and had strong objections to that Jew implying he might be their Jewish-prophesize messiah, those guys? Yeah, that crowd? There's no evidence they were Jews". It's on its face ridiculous, even more with the "evidence" you provide.
> he came out again towards the Judeans and says...
Yes, exactly.
> the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed
> the high priests they spurred the mob
Do you think the very small amount of non-Jewish Romans in the area would be interested in the spurring of the Jewish priests and elders?
There's nothing anti-semetic about understanding a historical event as it happened. Do you also think calling for ceasefire in Palestine is also anti-semetic?
I have no ill-will against Jews, I love them as I love all my neighbors. That means I'd stop and provide one food and lodging if I saw they were in need, but I'd share the gospel with them and ask them to repent and join the Kingdom while I was at it. Just as the Lord instructed.
You misunderstand. I didn't accuse you of antisemitism. The point is that neither the evangelists, nor certainly Christ, intended the Jews to be blamed for his crucifixion; οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν.
But, as we say in Greek, my maternal language, όποιος έχει τη μύγα, μυγιάζεται.
If you were to have asked me instead of asserted at me, I'd have said there is no human blame to be placed. The Word took on human form specifically to fulfill the role of the sinless martyr and win over satan, and so He did.
I've heard speculation of demons in the midst of the crowd responsible for guiding the mob, that seems plausible but I do not know of a strong scriptural argument in favor of it.
None of that is to say that it is in any way inaccurate to attribute the words of the Jews to the Jews. This idea that we need to reshape history at every turn in order to not be interpreted as "anti-semeitic" needs to perish.
Christianity was birthed with persecution by the Jews and Romans.
Christianity had its whack at that too in later centuries, but the original source materials are different in treatment of believer/unbeliever.
Buddhism is similar (persecution by Hindus).
I'd argue this affected cultural appetite for tolerance, expression, etc.
Those materials are pretty similar in this treatment between Judaism and Islam, religions which also were born with massive conquest. The difference between the two religions' national capabilities has little to do with this then, we can conclude.
But my point isn't whether a nation is stronger or weaker but rather the tolerance of the culture for ideas.
(But on that subject...Judiasm had millennia of subjugation and dispersion -- that left a mark.)
If so, the origins and original source material don't seem to affect that then since these have very similar origins and source material.
If they do have similar tolerance for ideas, then that must not have a lot to do with scientific output (the focus of the article)
As far as I understand, Judaism as a single organized religion (rather than a federation of ±12 tribes each with their own belief) became a thing as a consequence of the conquests of Alexander the Great, because the Hebrews needed a written code and history to demonstrate that they had a king (even if that king was immortal and invisible), otherwise they would have been treated as a subjugated barbarian tribe and lost the right to their own laws and customs.
So, I'm not sure that any conclusion can be drawn.
2. Constantine was centuries after the seminal events and sacred texts.
2. Absolutely, but until Constantine, Christianity was just one sect, competing with plenty of other sects.